Rorate Caeli

Cardinal Castrillón:
Relevant declarations to Corriere della Sera

Excerpts of an article published today in Italian national daily Corriere della Sera[PDF]:

"[Card. Castrillón:] When I delivered the signed decree to Bishop Fellay, we knew nothing of the interview, it had been a few days before."

And at that moment?
"[Card. Castrillón:] Evidently, at that moment [when the interview with Bishop Richard Williamson was known to Vatican authorities], the decree was already in the hands of the interested party. I would rather not enter into details, because they go beyond my competence."
...
"[Card. Castrillón:] Full communion will come. In our discussions, Bishop Fellay recognized the Second Vatican Council, he recognized it theologically. Only a few difficulties remain...[sic]"

Maybe on Nostra Aetate, the declaration which represented a turning point in the relationship with the Jews?
"[Card. Castrillón:] No, that is not a problem. It involves discussing aspects such as ecumenism, liberty of conscience...[sic]"
_________________________________
Source: News Monitoring service of the Italian Chamber of Deputies
Tip: Papa Ratzinger Blog

23 comments:

Nick said...

Who would have imagined that after the MP excitement died down we would be blessed with another round of blessings like this?

It's good will on both sides, both sides are talking and giving the benefit of the doubt, both sides realize this shouldn't be about rigid legalism. What more could we ask? There is going to be reconciliation any time now!

"[Card. Castrillón:] Full communion will come. In our discussions, Bishop Fellay recognized the Second Vatican Council, he recognized it theologically. Only a few difficulties remain...[sic]"

Anonymous said...

Wow! Glory to God. Let's keep those rosaries coming!

Anonymous said...

I hope that the SSPX is not forced to accept/acknowledge ALL of Vatican II. There are many parts, especially with regard to ecumenism, the Holy Mass and Catholic liturgy, religious life ,Orders,and seminarians which could be changed, reformed to reflect Catholic orthodoxy and tradition, or outright supressed.

martin said...

Anon,

There is'nt the slightest chance that the SSPX will be forced to accept ALL of vatican II. The institute of the Good Shepherd in France have a constuctive criticism of Vatican II. They recognise the council but are engaged in a constructive criticism of the difficult issues.

The days for accepting Vatican II as a superdogma is gone, and thank God for that.

Paul Haley said...

Look at the smiles on their faces in the picture. Doesn't that speak volumes? After years and years of separation, doesn't this look like a new dawn for the Church. God bless them all.

John L said...

There are of course multitudes of priests, bishops, religious and theologians who reject far more of the Council's teachings than the SSPX does - although the parts they reject are ones that the SSPX accepts. This is not however taken to be an obstacle to their good standing in the Church.

LeonG said...

"They recognise the council but are engaged in a constructive criticism of the difficult issues."

Recognising the Councils of the 1960s has never been the problem in most cases. The issues are the documents that are ambiguous and that have permitted flexible interpretations. Pope Benedict XVI has made references to deviations and so have SSPX among others. This is where the discussions can be most constructive. Anyone who truly loves The Church and has eyes can see that it has been deviated in many respects and at immense cost. Disunity, division & chronic disobedience to the magesterium at hierarchical and clerical levels are not signs of good health but, on the contrary, demonstrate a profound sickness.

The Book Burner said...

Makes you wonder why was there a problem in the first place.


“Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.”
(Nota Praevia of Lumen Gentium)

Anonymous said...

And it declared nothing new binding.

The greater point of mny concern is evidenced in the words of the Cardinal which manifest a grave error in the notion of the Church, when he says that "full communion" is something yet to be expected?

Look, no one is excommunicated!

If you are not excommunicated, you are officially in full communion!

What other criterion can you use?

There is none!

None in canon law!

And don't say being suspended a divinis makes you not in full communion with the Church, because that is a mere disciplinary measure.

The SSPX and bishops are also under no censures.

Ergo, they are in full communion.

It is rather the Cardinal and the president of the Italian Bishops' conference, who used the same phrase, who hold a suspect faith, since they are advancing a novelty of political correctness as the principle criterion of communion.

That is not Catholic.

Rev. Michael J. Houser said...

Anonymous,

No one is excommunicated, true. But does that make full communion automatically? I don't think so.

Canon 205 says that "Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance."

The SSPX certainly has the profession of faith, and at least most of the sacraments. But as long as all of their clergy are suspended and are acting without proper ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as long as their bishops lack a canonical mission from the Holy See, it seems to me that the "ecclesiastical governance" aspect of full communion is lacking. I pray that this will quickly be remedied.

Anonymous said...

"Ex-communication" is "outside-communication" or "outside-communion" in Latin, isn't it Rev. Houser?

Now, "ex-communication" was removed which means that SSPX is removed from being outside communication i.e. outside communion.

So, now SSPX is in communication i.e. in communion with The Catholic Church.

Now, you might wanted to say to us that SSPX is in partial and not in full communion with The Catholic Church.

But it is impossible because partial communion (meaning that there is some part outside communion) is a huge lie: two don't have to part in all ESSENTIAL points.
As everybody knows, only one essential point of disagreement and the communion is gone (similarly as a chain connecting two things is gone if any piece of it is gone) so that one of the two is outside communion.

So, partial communion doesn't exist except in erring minds of deceived/deceiving men like those of Vatican II.

But as was shown above SSPX is in communion and is not outside of communion anymore.

So, Rev. Houser, SSPX is in (full - unnecessary word because there is no partial communion) communion with The Catholic Church while Orthodox and Protestants are outside communion with The Catholic Church, the one and only Church.

Rev. Houser, you are outside communion with the truth regarding SSPX.
Mend your ways because every truth is from The Truth, Jesus Christ, and every lie from the devil, the father of lies.

Roamin' Catholic said...

As an innocent bystander, I wish to say that this removal of the ban of excommunication is a surprise and a delight to me, as a Roman Catholic. When I returned to the Church in the 1980s, after 15 years lapse (and Protestantism), I was drawn back into the Church by an old Catholic prayer-book (Blessed Be God, ed. Fr. Callan, 1925), which had the Tridentine Mass. If I'd known there were SSPX churches with this Mass, I'd probably have sought them out. I'm glad to have made my (at times) difficult accomodation to the modern Church, but have been profoundly blessed by Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum.

My point: I not only pray for the full reconciliation of the SSPX, but that it may become a tool useful to the Holy Father in realizing his mission, of completing the implementation of Vatican II in a manner faithful to Sacred Tradition. I think there is some possible synergy here.

"Full communion" can mean many things. Not just the removal of impediments. What would you think of some influential assignments of SSPX bishops? Not all bishoprics are created equal. If the right accomodations are made, the Catholic Church (the big one) can be made to benefit immensely from the testimony of the faithful among the SSPX. Think of it as a force multiplier.

Anonymous said...

One can be in communion but as inactive.
And that situation is not a partial communion as was shown in the above comment.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

By your argument then I'm sure you recognize the Orthodox as being in full communion with the Catholic Church since their excommunication was lifted. Since I don't really think that you think this, it seems to me that you must reconsider your understanding of the lifting of excommunication.

In cordibus Iesu et Mariae.

K. Edwin

Anonymous said...

No, because they don't have Catholic faith while SSPX does have it.
So in case of Orthodox lifting of excommunication is of no avail to them: they are still outside The Catholic Church because they lack Catholic faith.

Orthodox don't have Catholic faith because they deny couple of Catholic dogmas and by doing that they deny Catholic faith.

As I wrote before, one essential disagreement and every communion is gone.
So is gone Orthodox communion with Catholic faith and consequently with The Catholic Church.

SSPX has never denied any Catholic dogma but has always believed in all of them.

When Orthodox were excommunicated in 1054 THEN they were in the same position as SSPX was at the time of their excommunication: Orthodox didn't deny any Catholic dogma THEN and so had Catholic faith while being separated from The Catholic Church THEN.

But in the meantime traditional Catholic beliefs which they denied became dogmas and by their continued denial they now denied Catholic dogmas.
Due to that Orthodox lost Catholic faith and became also heretics (since THEN they were only schismatics - as SSPX was).

So, while lifting of excommunication heals separation from The Church or schism it is of no avail in the case of heresy: lifting of excommunication doesn't produce Catholic faith.

Thus, SSPX was in schism without heresy while Orthodox are in schism with heresies and the argument doesn't prove. Also, what I wrote about lifting of excommunication in general and in the case of SSPX stands firm.

Anonymous said...

Can you clarify for me please, Anonymous, just how the Orthodox are heterodox? Apart from not properly recognizing the authority of the pope, that is. (Cf. Matthew 21:28-30.)

Anonymous said...

"Apart from not properly recognizing the authority of the pope” is a matter of Catholic faith because supreme authority of the pope over The Church is a Catholic dogma.
Now, denial of the pope's supreme authority (“improper recognition of the authority of the pope”) is denial of the dogma.
It is so because dogma is not only to be believed (obeyed by one's mind) but is also to be acted upon (obeyed by one's will).
So only its denial suffices for heterodoxy (loss of Catholic faith) as was shown above.

There is also Orthodox denial of procession of The Holy Spirit from The Son also, another Catholic dogma.
Although it can be shown that Orthodox denial cannot stand, the authority of dogma, that is, of The Holy Spirit Himself, suffices.

So they call themselves Orthodox but are heterodox and thus, contrary to the popular belief, no Christians at all (Catholic faith and Christian faith is one and the same thing because faith is one as God is one). No Christian faith, no Christian.

Jordanes said...

The Church holds that those who are validly baptised are Christians, and the Church distinguishes between "Catholic" and "Christian." (As Pope Benedict XV quoted in his encyclical "Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum," "Christian is my name and Catholic is my surname.") The Orthodox are undoubtedly Christian, even though they are heterodox and not Catholic Christians. Holding to the Catholic faith imperfectly is not enough to make one a non-Christian.

Anonymous said...

No, a Hindu can be validly baptized and will not be a Christian although being validly baptized.
Christian is the one who follows Christ by believing Him and not the one who is baptized regardless of faith.
So, again, no Christian faith, no Christian.

Orthodox are ex-Christians as Protestants are ex-Christians. But ex-Christian is not a Christian.

You should read 1 John 2:18-19 and guess about whom also St. John was writing. And Galatians 1:8-9.

Anonymous said...

This is interesting also:
"Ask a man, 'Are you a Christian?' He answers, 'No', if he is a pagan or a Jew. But if he says 'Yes', ask him again, 'Are you a catechumen or one of the faithful?'" (St. Augustine, Tractate 44 on the Gospel of John, no. 2)." - from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03430b.htm.

From St. Augustine's words is clear that a Christian is even a catechumen, that is, the one who only has Christian (Catholic) faith but is not yet baptized.

Draw your conclusions.

Jordanes said...

No, a Hindu can be validly baptized and will not be a Christian although being validly baptized.

Wrong. It is impossible for a Hindu to be validly baptised and not become a Christian. The sacraments function ex opere operato. No adult pagan whose baptism is sacramentally valid and efficacious can remain a non-Christian.

Christian is the one who follows Christ by believing Him and not the one who is baptized regardless of faith.

Do you reject the baptism of infants, who cannot personally "own" the Christian faith that is given to them by baptism?

So, again, no Christian faith, no Christian.

You're welcome to your opinion. I'll stick to what the Church teaches in Lumen Gentium 15 and in Leo XIII's Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes: “Wrong. It is impossible for a Hindu to be validly baptised and not become a Christian. The sacraments function ex opere operato. No adult pagan whose baptism is sacramentally valid and efficacious can remain a non-Christian.”

Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas on http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article8: “The Church's intention in Baptizing men is that they may be cleansed from sin, according to Isaiah 27:9: "This is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away." And therefore, as far as she is concerned, she does not intend to give Baptism save to those who have right faith, without which there is no remission of sins. And for this reason she asks those who come to be baptized whether they believe. If, on the contrary, anyone, without right faith, receive Baptism outside the Church, he does not receive it unto salvation. Hence Augustine says (De Baptism. contr. Donat. iv): "From the Church being compared to Paradise we learn that men can receive her Baptism even outside her fold, but that elsewhere none can receive or keep the salvation of the blessed."”


My comment: Indelible character imprinted on human soul by the sacrament of baptism doesn't take away human freedom to leave God.
So baptized Christian can abandon Catholic faith and become a non-Christian in spite of forever having the character received by baptism.
Your understanding is the opposite: once baptized, always a Christian.
But everyone knows that God doesn't enslave men to be Christians regardless of their will neither He takes their freedom away to leave Him when they are Christians.
Thus it is clear that you are gravely wrong: the truth is that the baptismal character doesn't make anyone without Catholic faith a Christian (as you gravely err).


Jordanes: “Do you reject the baptism of infants, who cannot personally "own" the Christian faith that is given to them by baptism?”

Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas on http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article9:
“As Augustine says, writing to Boniface (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i), "in the Church of our Saviour little children believe through others, just as they contracted from others those sins which are remitted in Baptism." Nor is it a hindrance to their salvation if their parents be unbelievers, because, as Augustine says, writing to the same Boniface (Ep. xcviii), "little children are offered that they may receive grace in their souls, not so much from the hands of those that carry them (yet from these too, if they be good and faithful) as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful. For they are rightly considered to be offered by those who are pleased at their being offered, and by whose charity they are united in communion with the Holy Ghost." And the unbelief of their own parents, even if after Baptism these strive to infect them with the worship of demons, hurts not the children. For as Augustine says (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i) "when once the child has been begotten by the will of others, he cannot subsequently be held by the bonds of another's sin so long as he consent not with his will, according to" Ezekiel 18:4: "'As the soul of the Father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.' Yet he contracted from Adam that which was loosed by the grace of this sacrament, because as yet he was not endowed with a separate existence." But the faith of one, indeed of the whole Church, profits the child through the operation of the Holy Ghost, Who unites the Church together, and communicates the goods of one member to another.

Just as a child, when he is being baptized, believes not by himself but by others, so is he examined not by himself but through others, and these in answer confess the Church's faith in the child's stead, who is aggregated to this faith by the sacrament of faith. And the child acquires a good conscience in himself, not indeed as to the act, but as to the habit, by sanctifying grace.”


Jordanes: “You're welcome to your opinion. I'll stick to what the Church teaches in Lumen Gentium 15 and in Leo XIII's Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae.”

My opinion? It comes out that you are at variance with the two greatest theologians of all time and that unfortunately you stick to wrong and dangerous opinions.

So, according to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, that is, according to The Church: no Christian faith, no Christian.

You should at all cost avoid Vatican II falsities and learn Catholic faith from Catholic dogmas and constant teachings of Catholic saints. Don't you see the fruits of Vatican II?

Jordanes said...

Someone said: Indelible character imprinted on human soul by the sacrament of baptism doesn't take away human freedom to leave God. So baptized Christian can abandon Catholic faith and become a non-Christian in spite of forever having the character received by baptism.

True, but that doesn't establish your personal belief, not shared by the Church, that Orthodox Christians are non-Christians.

Your understanding is the opposite: once baptized, always a Christian.

I have no such understanding. Go back and read what I wrote.

Thus it is clear that you are gravely wrong: the truth is that the baptismal character doesn't make anyone without Catholic faith a Christian (as you gravely err).

And so I ask again, do you reject the baptism of infants, who cannot personally "own" the Christian faith that is given to them by baptism? Because if your personal opinion is true that baptism doesn't make "anyone" without Catholic faith a Christian, one must wonder if baptised infants are Catholic or not. But since you acknowledge that infant baptism is efficacious even though infants can only believe through the imputation of faith rather than the possession of faith, it follows that baptism makes them Christians even though they do not personally have and own the Catholic faith.

My opinion? It comes out that you are at variance with the two greatest theologians of all time and that unfortunately you stick to wrong and dangerous opinions.

You quoted St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, but in those quotes there is nothing that establishes your personal opinion that anyone who is not a Catholic cannot be a Christian. Your opinion is in opposition to how the Church uses the word "Christian."

So, according to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, that is, according to The Church

Though they are the two greatest theologians and doctors of the Church, still the views of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are not simply equivalent to the teaching of the Church. A papal encyclical and a dogmatic constitution of a valid oecumenical council are of greater authority than the writings of saintly doctors. Not that the views of Augustine and Aquinas contradict what Leo XIII and the Council Fathers of Vatican II taught, that is.