Rorate Caeli

Cardinal Schönborn: Out of the loop?

"Fundamentalists: No discussions with Rome before mid-October"
According to authorized sources both in Rome and Ecône (Switzerland) the discussions between Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X will begin "not before mid-October," rather than in "a few days" as Cardinal Christopher Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, suggested this past weekend.
The assembly of two delegations to the dialogue commission – called for by Benedict XVI to end the rupture caused by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 - has not yet been completed.
In any event, the theological discussions which relate to a fundamental disagreement concerning the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, will be held in a confidential setting.
They are a crucial step in the reconciliation sought by the Pope who, this past January, lifted the excommunications which affected the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, including Bishop Williamson who was marginalized by the Society of Saint Pius X after his revisionist statements.
Jean-Marie Guénois - Le Figaro

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Caused by whom?

Anonymous said...

I prefer ''Lefebvrists'' or ''Integrists'' to ''Fundamentalists'', because the latter refer to a group of Protestant radicals in the early 20th century and beyond.

Irenaeus of New York said...

I almost wish Cardinal Schönborn was made an observer of the dialogue. I am sure that when the discussion turns to abuses, pictures that include him will be presented. He might actually have been forced to hear how hollow and bereft of dignity his version of Catholicism is.

Just another mad Catholic said...

methinks that Cardinal Schoborn needs to get his act together and stop 'claiming' to speak for the Holy See, let the talks with the SSPX commence (now we now who'll be doing the writing) and shut up, BTW what are these supposed core values and relations with Jews the the Cardinal talks about? I thought the Holy Father made it quite clear on his trip to the Holy Land that only through Christ can anyone be saved. I smell a rat up the cardinals sleeve

Peter said...

Even if His Eminence is really out of the loop it doesn't mean that he's harmless.

I always wonder why the upcoming exchange of letters (and probably some meetings) between the SSPX and Roman authorities and theologians is called "discussions" or even "dialogue".

If one side (the SSPX) is asking questions and the other side (theologians appointed by the Holy Father) is answering it's not a "dialogue" nor "discussion".

Are the liberals afraid to say aloud "CLARIFICATION OF THE COUNCIL" ?

J Bogle said...

Interesting. Years ago people thought that the SSPX's stance was largely confined to the celebration of what was then known as the Tridentine Rite. A few commented that it went deeper than that and involved a repudiation of Vatican II. Most poo-poohed that opinion. Then Benedict XVI authorises the use of the 'Extraordinary Form' and it turns out that the SSPX does indeed repudiate Vatican II and it is the documents that are going to form the base of their discussion next month rather than the use of the Traditional Roman Mass. If they repudiate the Council on the basis of Bishop Williamson's 'poison cake' analogy there will be no chance whatever of their returning to full communion with the Church. It's interesting that the liberal commentators of the past have been proved right.

Anonymous said...

This man should be kept out of the loop!

Anonymous said...

Cardinal Schönborn = Fr. Thomas Rosica, President and CEO of Salt and Light Television`

They see the straw in the eyes of others but fail to see the beam in their own eyes...

People like these have destroyed the church by always invoking V2...

Una Voce said...

The Cardinal dosen't speak like an insider. Not in this matter. And let's face it: who on earth would entrust *him* such a task?

Jordanes said...

J Bogle said: Then Benedict XVI authorises the use of the 'Extraordinary Form' and it turns out that the SSPX does indeed repudiate Vatican II

That remains to be seen. Bishop Fellay hasn't said so.

and it is the documents that are going to form the base of their discussion next month rather than the use of the Traditional Roman Mass.

As the SSPX has been saying for years.

It's interesting that the liberal commentators of the past have been proved right.

It's hardly anything to crow about that the commentators you refer to happen to agree with the SSPX that the issues at stake run deeper than simply the traditional Mass. Anyone who thought differently hasn't been paying attention.

Anonymous said...

Let the Cardinal continue his misguided ways and just pray he does as little damage as possible along the way..Then he will never be considered a candidate for the Papacy...

Anonymous said...

The Cardinal is positioning himself to be the spokesman for the outraged bishops who will threaten to stomp into schism if the these talks succeed in the Canonical regularization of the Society of St. Pius X.

Anonymous said...

What has happened to this prince of the Church?

The great Archbishop Lefebvre said in his sermon in 1988 that he did not wish to hear from the sweet lips of Our Lord that he had contributed with all the rest in the destruction of the Church.

/George

Anonymous said...

I have a feeling discussions will start with the relevance of the nota previa to Lumen Gentium, which Paul VI had re-stated by the Secretary in 1966, to ensure all understood its implications.

It read, in part:

“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.”

If one accepts that the nota previa is binding, there will be fewer problems than expected during these discussions. H.E. Fellay, himself, recently stated that if the understanding of the Council is that in light of the nota previa, they would have very few problems.

The question is, will the CDF agree to discuss the nota previa first.

Anonymous said...

He used to be a close friend of Pope Benedict and has turned on him especially after the incident with the appointment of that orthodox auxilary bishop, who he helped resign, but Judas was a close friend of Jesus at one time.

Rick DeLano said...

Anonymous 15:03:

Bingo.

With the necessary predicates- i.e., the nota previa- in place, the *authentic* interpretation of the Council; that is, one in continuity with Tradition, can be examined.

Let His Eminence Cardinal Schonborn cast about for a sympathetic ear in his "non negotiable" view of the Council.......perhaps he will find a strangely sympathetic one in His Excellency Bishop Williamson.

Perhaps they together can bemoan the decision of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to interpret the Council in light of Tradition, and the decision (please God!) of His Excellency Bishop Fellay to acknowledge that this can be done in Truth.

Anonymous said...

He's hardly out of the loop. May be the next Pope. He was simply using a few days as an expression.

Bryan said...

Archbishop Lefebrve was always open that his dispute was about more than the Tridentine Mass. See for example:

The Infiltration of Modernism in the Church (1982)
-the Archbishop's personal experience of the tragic corruption of modernism

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/The-Infiltration-of-Modernism-in-the-Church.htm

What Mr Bogle describes may have been the view of those who apologised for the SSPX but it was never the official SSPX line.

Paul Haley said...

It's time for the real theologians to step up to the plate, be they on the side of the SSPX or Rome. This is a tremendous opportunity to clarify doctrinal issues that should have been clarified years ago. Is an accommodation possible or is it (Vatican II) a poison cake? The Holy Spirit will decide...Cardinal Shoenborn not withstanding.

Anonymous said...

What needs to be clarified?

Read the Catechism. Read the Holy Father's declarations. Each Catholic is aware (or should be) of the Deposit of Faith.

1. The Catholic Church is the True Church.

2. Non-Catholics are called by God to enter into communion with the Pope (Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Ut Unum Sint).

3. Heaven, Hell and Purgatory exist.

4. The TLM may be offered by priests.

Read documents approved by the Holy Father. Read the Catechism.

What does the SSPX need from Rome?

Tim

Paul Haley said...

What needs to be clarified is whether the Catholic Church IS the true Church of Christ vs just subsisting in the Church, whether the Old Covenant with the Jews, in fact, been completed with the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, whether man has an innate right to join other religions, whether others can be saved without union with the Catholic Church, whether the Mass and the sacraments can be changed willy-nilly by whatever churchmen come down the pike, whether nations have an obligation to accept the Dominion of Christ as King, etc, etc.

Evidently, both the Holy Father and the SSPX believe these issues must be clarified, thus we have the doctrinal discussions. It would be foolhardy, it seems to me, to deny there is such a need.

Irenaeus of New York said...

Cardinal Schönborn forbids pro-life clergy from attending pro-life rally.


http://www.gloria.tv/?media=33117

Jordanes said...

What needs to be clarified is whether the Catholic Church IS the true Church of Christ vs just subsisting in the Church, whether the Old Covenant with the Jews, in fact, been completed with the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, whether man has an innate right to join other religions, whether others can be saved without union with the Catholic Church, whether the Mass and the sacraments can be changed willy-nilly by whatever churchmen come down the pike, whether nations have an obligation to accept the Dominion of Christ as King, etc, etc.

These things do need to be clarified -- not always because of what the Catholic Church declared at Vatican II, but also because of harmful things and doctrinal errors that have sprung up and spread at and after the council. A lot of pernicious things the council never said and never intended are being justified as if it were Vatican II that taught or introduced. Since interpretations of Vatican II's teachings that are incompatible with Catholic doctrine are being promoted by both the modernistic and traditionalist camps, there is a real need for the Church to clearly and forcefully teach what certain Vatican II documents (or passages of documents) mean and do not mean. The theological dialogue between the Church and the SSPX about to begin is the perfect opportunity for that needed clarification to be prepared. It's not just the SSPX that needs the clarification -- it's everyone in the Church.

BTW, Mr. Haley, to more accurately represent Vatican II's teaching on the Church, you should have written, "whether the Catholic Church IS the true Church of Christ vs the true Church of Christ just subsisting in the Catholic Church." (But even that isn't as accurate as it ought to be -- even better would be "whether it is just that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ vs the true Church of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church," since the latter proposition says much more than the former proposition.)

Paul Haley said...

Jordanes said:

BTW, Mr. Haley, to more accurately represent Vatican II's teaching on the Church, you should have written, "whether the Catholic Church IS the true Church of Christ vs the true Church of Christ just subsisting in the Catholic Church." (But even that isn't as accurate as it ought to be -- even better would be "whether it is just that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ vs the true Church of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church," since the latter proposition says much more than the former proposition.)

Agreed. The problem, I submit, is in using words like "subsist" which can mean different things to different people and whether these different meanings were intended by the drafters of the documents. I would think that the meaning must be identical to the verb "is" but, then why not use the word "is" without getting into what Mr. Clinton thought of that word? In any case as you say, clarification is needed and, hopefully, will be forthcoming.

Anonymous said...

Was told by Padre Pio to not separate from the church for Padre Pio had foreseen it.

Padre Pio also begs the Pope to let him continue to say Old Latin Mass and further commented to please end the council (Vatican 2) immediately.

Cardinal Schönborn, Is a modernist and half protestant in my book.

His arrogance in putting his opinion ahead of the Pope ,ahead of the "Dialogue" is in bad taste.
Unbecoming a humble servant of the
Cross. An embarrassment to Catholic Saints.
.

Anonymous said...

Anon 19 10:31 said, "Was told by Padre Pio to not separate from the church for Padre Pio had foreseen it.

Padre Pio also begs the Pope to let him continue to say Old Latin Mass and further commented to please end the council (Vatican 2) immediately."

Very interesting, Where do you get this information from? Please provide a link or reference your source. Thanks.