New Stuff on SSPX or is this just old news?

The Archdiocese in Salzburg, Austria published a short announcement in their Gazette in May and just put out an English Translation of it…

Original Document in German:
MusicaSacra Translation:

Would this be new? I know its from May 2006, but is there anything new about the statements?

We should be working harder to be reunited with the SSPX.

That’s an odd way of putting it. I think it should be something to the effect of “We should be working harder to get SSPX to reunite with Rome.” :frowning:

The SSPX was driven away by what it percieved as modernism and relativism. Perhaps instead of looking elsewhere for the the root of the crisis, we should be turning inward.

I agree. Its SSPX who are schismatic and they are the ones who disobeyed the Pope. We will welcome them back with open arms when they admit their mistakes, repent, and submit to Rome.

We should be praying that these schismatics and, in some cases, heretics return to true Catholic tradition: obedience.

Not in the least bit true. They were about to be given precisely what they wanted by the old Holy Father, but the Archbishop reneged on the deal after he signed it. “Driven away” is simply a dramatic rhetorical flourish which has absolutely no relation to the truth of the matter. They walked away.

The root of that schismatic crisis was pride. Padre Pio and Monsignor Escriva weren’t driven away.

what does Saint Pio have to do with this topic? Nothing? :rolleyes:

Both St. Pio and St. Josemaria were allowed to continue celebrating the Tridentine Mass after the Novus Ordo was created.

Back to the original post actually, is this a new development?

a) we are dealing with Catholic faithful who – provided they have performed no explicit actions – in no way wish to leave the Roman Catholic Church;
b) attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX is not in itself a delict and does not bring about excommunication;
**c) only those of the faithful who see the SSPX as the only true church, and who make this visible externally, incur the penalty of excommunication; **
d) it is consequently not at all appropriate to regard as non-Catholic the children baptised in the chapels of the SSPX, and to treat their marriages to another Catholic as mixed marriages;
e) when baptism by a priest of the SSPX is attested in writing and the parents of the newly baptised do not see the SSPX as the only true church, then this attestation sufficews for registration of the baptism in the Liber Baptizatorum of the parish of baptism, under the running number 0. On the basis of this registration, a baptismal certificate can be issued.

No, its not a new development.

Ok…then tracing back…where is the original document?

Cardinal Hoyos also finds:

“We are not dealing with a case of heresy. One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism. There is in the act of ordaining Bishops without Papal approval a schismatic attitude. They are (The Society of St. Pius X) within the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a full, a more perfect – and as it was said during the meeting with Msgr. Fellay (with the Pope and Cardinal Hoyos on 29th August 2005)– a more full communion, because communion does exist.” - Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos on Canal 5 TV, November 13, 2005

[quote=Steve Green]Cardinal Hoyos also finds:

“We are not dealing with a case of heresy. One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism.

This is in direct conflict with Ecclesia Dei, and is simply one cardinal’s opinion, not the reflection of the Magisterium. It should not be accepted as being the truth.

Whose words should be considered the more correct and authoritative? Pope John Paul II or Cardinal Hoyos. The Pope’s of course!!

Funny, I don’t see the word heresy or heretical anywhere in Ecclesia Dei


I know this isn’t part of this thread, but what is a “primitive Catholic”? Just curious.
God Bless,

That’s true with regard to the word heresy, but I pulled Steve Green’s post where he misquoted the Cardinal, incorrectly using his own repeat of the Cardinal’s words. I’m familiar with the document that he used to quote Hoyos, and the word heresy is not used. The Cardinal made mention only that the group was not in formal schism, whereas the encyclical states otherwise.

Answered in Private Message to not hijack thread.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit