You have a difficulty understanding distinctions. I qualified my statement with the phrase "IF they [excommunications] ever occurred." You need to read more carefully. I was clearly suggesting no excommunications--let alone schisms--ever occurred, not even if the Pope's all-too-fallible Ecclesia Dei letter says so.Are you OK? We have not been discussing excommunications or schism. I realize that it might be difficult to stay on topic, but goodness. I haven't brought up either excommunication or schism, just like I didn't prompt your quoting Mons. Perle. Talk about a lack of reading skills. I've stuck to the topic of whether it is acceptable for a Catholic to attend an SSPX mass. My desire in responding to your post was to expose the fallacy that Mons. Perle approves of SSPX mass attendance and the insincerity with which you cite his authority. I am satisfied that I have accomplished that on this thread.
Also, if you are going to accuse someone of not reading carefully, you should make a better effort at quoting him. "Living quality of tradition" should be "living character of tradition."
P.S. Were I to bring up schism I would utilize the euphemism you provided for us: "formality". As promised I am moving on. Good night.
What a fraud you are. There would be no issue of whether or not attending an SSPX Mass is "acceptible" were it not for the fact that some believe the Society to be in schism and excommunicated. The one implies the other.
I cited the Perle letter not to show that Rome approves of such attendance, but that it allows it--which not the same thing. Again, you fail to make distinctions. When has Rome ever approved of anything traditional, let alone attending an SSPX Mass? But it grudgingly allows it.
As for my mistaking your phrase--something you make a big deal of--there's not a dime's worth of difference between either phrase. The operative word was "living" as in "living tradition". It's the same old Vatican II Novus Ordo hooey no matter which phrase is used.