Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
You step way out of line and into calumny by accusing people of schism which Holy Mother the Church does not regard as such.
That you find this lot sympathetic does not at all make my statement "out of line", nor does it make it "calumny". That there has not been a formal declaration by the Vatican that the SSPX is schismatic does not mean that it isn't, in the same way that it doesn't take a declaration from the Vatican every Sunday to render the mass said at my local parish church licit and valid.
Rather than hurling calumnies against a group you obviously have no real life experience with, you could be helpful and provide a source either discrediting or explaining the story?
Rather than calumniating me by your rubbish talk of "hurling calumnies", I will give you a source that will explain to you precisely why I use the term "schismatic".
This is from Question 39 of Part 2 of the Second Part of the Summa Theologica
by St. Thomas Aquinas, of whom I will presume you have heard.
The Angelic Doctor wrote:
Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Colossians 2:18-19: "Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God." Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.
This understanding is reflected in the Code of Canon Law. Canon 751 reads:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
So tell me, then, precisely why do you want to pretend that the Society of St. Pius X submit to the Sovereign Pontiff?
I will also draw your attention to Ecclesia Dei,
the motu proprio of Pope John Paul II issued on 2 July 1988:
Pope John Paul II wrote:
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.
In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.
Do you think that Pope John Paul II was also "way out of line", and committing a "calumny", when he himself referred to this crew with the words "schism" and "schismatic"?
As I said before, I have always wondered what it feels like to be absolutely certain that one is more Catholic than the Pope...