Monday, April 3, 2017

Cardinal Hoyos: "The Society of St. Pius X Never Accomplished a Complete Schism"

(Rome) Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos stated in an interview with Rome Reports that the priestly Society of St. Pius X, "has never completed a complete schism".

The emeritus Curial Cardinal from Colombia, was chairman of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei from 2000-2009. Since 2012, this office has been subject to the Prefect of the Roman Congregation for the Congregation for the Faith, Gerhard Cardinal Müller.

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos repeated what he had said in earlier years, at a time when only a few said it, and many had held the opposite. There were times when "Lefebvrians" were fought as schismatics and sectarians. This has changed since Pope Benedict XVI. Fundamentally changed. The opening of official talks between the Holy See and the Society has led to a clear relaxation. The unconstrained dealings of Pope Francis with the Society has left the progressive part of the Church largely silent.

Rome Reports has published only a small part of a very extensive interview. It can therefore only be reported what has been made public. In this, the cardinal expresses himself as "satisfied" about the "possible solution to the conflict". The Holy See offered canonical recognition to the Society  as a personal prelature. Only Opus Dei has such a legal status.

Castrillon Hoyos has said of the Society, founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970:

"In one case, we have always agreed: they have never taken the path of heresy. They had moments of distance, but they never accomplished a complete schism."

The Cardinal stated that the Society "never created its own jurisdiction" because "to create a jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the Church, which means to separate itself."

The cardinal also refused to speak of "Lefebvrians", but the right name of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.

According to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, the "majority" of the Society and of the faithful  had "served in full unity with the Church". On statements of Council documents, which are controversial between the Holy See and the Society, the Cardinal said that these were, on the part of the Society, is in part a reaction "to a postconciliar abuse"

"There are points in which there is a lack of complete clarity [formulations suitable for different interpretations, note Rome Reports.] And on these points, many postconciliar actors have treated the subject in a way that is not the correct way of the Council.

There were interpretations that were "neither in the light of the Council nor the Magisterium.

https://youtu.be/Ry2J9oL1u60

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG

18 comments:

  1. What exactly is an incomplete schism? The same as Vatican II "partial communion" nonsense?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It means they weren't in schism at all. They never were. They remained exactly the same as Catholics had been for centuries and an injustice was done to them by removing their canonical recognition without due process and without an appeal process, both of which were guaranteed Abp. Lefebvre and denied him without explanation. The removal of recognition did not put them outside the Church. They have never been proven to be heretics either, otherwise that would have been made a big deal over.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. I don't know but Vat 2 says the "the muslims together with us worship one merciful God".
      LOL. The entire document invalidated itself on that one sentence and will be thrown in the trash by a future Holy Pontiff.

      Delete
  2. As Bill Clinton expounded, "it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". You cannot excommunicate a group which is practicing the same ritual that the Church used for over one thousand years. LeFevre just refused to change. Vatican II evolved. You cannot evolve and then state that the previous mode is now the matter of the devil. As Cardinal Sarah recently stated, this is a culture of the deepness of the individual versus a culture of shallow interaction between individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Consecrating bishop's without papal approval is a schismatic act.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Canon law supplies a provision for the Consecration of Bishops without the Popes approval in cases of necessity. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre signed an agreement with Rome. But the Modernists were interfering big time, holding the agreement back. Lefebvre saw that the agreement was not going through. St. John Paul ll was said to be frustrated with all the interference. If the Holy Father would have stopped the Modernist interference all may have gone well. But that could have gone in a bad direction considering the wickedness of the heretics. Archbishop Lefebvre knew he had little time left in this world. He cited the Canon Laws provision for cases of necessity. So out of love for Christ and His Church he went ahead and Consecrated the 4 Bishops in order to preserve the work of the Society for the good of Christ's Church. Pope Benedict XVl lifted the excommunications. Now as the Church looks back it seems Lefebvre is justified and did the right thing. That's why Cardinal Hoyos says the Society of St. Pius X "never accomplished a complete schism". If Bergoglio backs away from his offer of a Papal Prelature, then the Society can justifiably use the Canon laws case of necessity and Consecrate more Bishops. Any further excommunications would be null and void because of the provision of Canon Law. I find it awesome the way Divine Providence has guided this situation.

      Delete
    2. Truly, the "case of necessity" looks more obvious now than actually.
      Since Benedict lifted the excommunications, whether the reintegration happens or not, the SSPX is not and never was in schism.
      Better, the SSPX is a light of orthodoxy inside the Church.

      Delete
    3. Out of necessity (emergency) the Church provides the authority Tancred. And it certainly was an emergency.

      Delete
    4. yeah, right, Tancred....tell that to Saint Athanasius.

      Delete
    5. I do not for a moment believe Tancred was speaking against the SSPX. When he stated, "Consecrating Bishops without Papal approval is a schismatic act", that is the teaching of the Church. Lefebvre had the case of necessity required by Canon Law, so the Consecrations were both valid and licit. Tancred left this open for serious comments. Notice also that he says,"+Hoyos' comment seems pretty well-intended to me". He never disagreed with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. Many of us have come to believe that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did the right thing. Our only obstacle comes from the Modernist enemies of the Church. In the end Truth will prevail. It was only fair for Tancred to say "isn't an absolute yes or no thing", we are still sorting all of this out. Cardinal Hoyos said that the SSPX "never accomplished a complete schism". He could have simply said that the SSPX was never in schism. But one can only imagine the Anna's and Caiphas of the Church who would have rent their garments against the Truth as they have been doing to Christ for over 50 years. I repeat what Scripture says, "Despise not small beginnings". I am confident Hoyos words are only the official beginning of the justification of Lefebvre. Cardinal Hoyos only dropped the bomb, it will explode.

      Delete
  4. I understand all of that, but I'm trying to point out that the status of the SSPX isn't an absolute yes or no thing and that +Hoyos' comment seems pretty well-intended to me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Modernists excusing modernists by employing modernist speak.
    Partially pregnant types...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nononono, SSPX never in complete schism, of course not. The church of Vatican Two did much better. That's where the pro's were.

    ReplyDelete
  7. They never completed a partial schism either. Archbishop LeFevre set up the SSPX within the confines of the Church structure and was approved by Rome, case closed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Objectively speaking, and without a shadow of doubt, key portions of the text of Amoris Laetitia constitute blasphemy and heresy.
    Until such time as that changes and they are willing to plainly condemn Amoris Laetitia for what it truly is, neither one is going to offer any meaningful opposition to Francis and his unprecedented program of destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Say it ain't so!
    https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/04/05/report-charges-cover-traditionalist-society/

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...