“As a matter of fact, I believe you, Kasper and Marx to all be schismatics; not essentially, but actually.”
See, then once again we see you making a mistake with Catholic doctrine. Someone who actually understood what schism is would not say that about me.
“There is no such thing as “essentially” schismatic. You make stuff up.”
Nope. I simply used a term that has been used before to relate the conclusions of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts when it relied on Fr. Gerald Murray’s thesis in regard to the SSPX. You, being the supposed great traditionalist you always claim to be, should know that. It’s no surprise then, if you don’t.
If you truly understood schism, you would have known of Cardinal Ratzinger’s ruling in the case of the Hawaii Six.
As I said before, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about:
Fr. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D.
Doctoral thesis
An excerpt from the doctoral thesis (Fr. Murray had his licentiate in Canon Law at this time) that was accepted and approved by the Pontifical Gregorian University, titled, “The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X: Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics?” which was subsequently printed in the Fall 1995 issue of The Latin Mass magazine:
They’re not excommunicated as schismatics, because the Vatican has never said they are.... You can ... show that Lefebvre himself was not excommunicated and therefore no one else was.... I come to the conclusion that, canonically speaking, he’s not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. In the case of the Society of Saint Pius X, the Vatican never declared any priest or lay person to have become a schismatic.