Castrillon Hoyos died recently. May God have mercy on his soul!
Hoyos was a conciliar liberal who did much evil (objectively). Hoyos was a man of Vatican II who emphasized in his dealings with the SSPX and concerning the Traditional Mass that his work “is not a return to the past”.
Cardinal Hoyos was also part of the hierarchy’s cover-up of the pervasive clerical abuse of children in the (false) conciliar church. Hoyos gave international praise to a French conciliar “bishop” for protecting one of his conciliar “priests” whom the French police sought to arrest for criminal molesting and abusing children.
1. Hoyos’s Death reported in the N-SSPX’s “News from Tradition”
The N-SSPX wants its followers to believe that Hoyos has been part of Catholic Tradition. The N-SSPX reported Hoyos’s death in the Angelus Magazine
section called “News from Tradition”, indicating Hoyos was part of Tradition.
2. The N-SSPX contradicts Hoyos, who stated that he never used the Traditional Mass
The N-SSPX baldly claims that Hoyos “often celebrated the Traditional Mass
By contrast, Cardinal Hoyos himself declared: “I very much like the novus ordo, which I celebrate daily. I have never celebrated the Mass according to the 1962 Missal
after the liturgical reform [i.e.,
3. The N-SSPX also misleads its followers about Hoyos, who declared that SSPX Masses are illicit and should be avoided
In its recent Hoyos bio, the N-SSPX claims that “it was under his [Cardinal Hoyos’s Ecclesia Dei
] Presidency that Rome stated unequivocally that Catholics fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending Holy Mass at any SSPX parish.” This N-SSPX statement is misleading. Cardinal Hoyos stated that SSPX Masses are “undoubtedly valid, but not licit.
Therefore, attendance at these Masses is not advised,
unless there is no other possibility on Sundays”.
This quote contains a grammatical disagreement in number between “these” and “Mass”. The original, uncorrected phrase is “attendance at these Mass is not advised”. We corrected this typo. Whether the word “these” should be “this” or whether the word “Mass” should have been plural, in no way changes the substance of Hoyos’s statement.
4. The N-SSPX misleads its followers that the Traditional Mass was freed under Hoyos and (former) Pope Benedict XVI
In its recent Hoyos bio, the N-SSPX connects Hoyos to the 2007 Motu Proprio which (according to the N-SSPX) “gave every priest the right to celebrate the Traditional Mass without having to seek permission from his superiors.”
This is misleading. Hoyos made clear that the Motu Proprio
’s permission to use the 1962 missal was limited to “when the conditions specified in the Motu Proprio
5. In other ways also, Hoyos was anti-Traditional
The N-SSPX states that “in relations with the Society of Saint Pius X, Cardinal Castrillon was cordial and made it very clear that the SSPX was neither schismatic nor heretical.”
Here is an older analysis, from the now-compromising
publications, the Remnant
and Catholic Family News,
which more accurately characterizes Hoyos as:
not as a defender of traditional belief and practice among the clergy, but rather as an enforcer of what could rightly be called Post-Conciliar Correctness in the Church, or PCC, the ecclesiastical equivalent of Political Correctness, or PC, in the realm of secular politics. ... The abuses reveal a prelate who will not hesitate to use his power to crush any priest who too effectively opposes the reign of PCC. This is the man who now smiles at the Society of Saint Pius X, assuring them that they have nothing to fear in trusting present-day Rome.
This praise of Cardinal Hoyos continues the N-SSPX’s practice of treating most conciliar leaders favorably
The N-SSPX’s misrepresentation of Cardinal Hoyos continues its whitewash of most conciliar leaders. For example:
The leaders in the so-called “conservative” wing of the conciliar revolution are nonetheless revolutionaries. As the N-SSPX makes common cause with them, let us stay far away from the N-SSPX and its new “friends”!