Rorate Caeli

Declaration

On June 15 and 16, a meeting was held in the Vatican between the Holy Father and heads of Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, and the following Austrian Bishops: Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, President of the Austrian Episcopal Conference; Archbishop Alois Kothgasser, Archbishop of Salzburg; Bishop Egon Kapellari, Bishop of Graz-Seckau, Vice-President of the Austrian Episcopal Conference; Bishop Ludwig Schwarz, Bishop of Linz. Also attending was: Archbishop Peter Stephan Zurbriggen, Apostolic Nuncio to Austria.

From the Roman Curia, the following were in attendance: Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops; Cardinal William Joseph Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Cardinal Claudio Hummes, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy; Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education; Cardinal Stanisław Ryłko, President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity.

At the meeting, genuine collegiality was acknowledged and, in fraternal dialogue and constructive spirit, some topics related to the situation of the Diocese of Linz and the Church in Austria were discussed, and solutions for current problems were addressed.

The Holy Father recalled the urgency of deepening the faith, of full fidelity to the Second Vatican Council and to the post-conciliar Magisterium of the Church [nachkonziliaren Lehramt der Kirche], and the renewal of catechesis in light of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, doctrinal and pastoral issues and issues pertaining to the situation of the clergy, the laity, the seminaries, and the theological schools in Linz and in other dioceses in Austria were discussed.

The Austrian Bishops thanked the Holy Father for his paternal care and for this meeting, as a sign of his solidarity with the Church in Austria, and expressed to him their full communion and loyalty. The Austrian Bishops also thanked the Roman Curia for the fruitful cooperation and for their readiness to assist in the matter.

[Source: Kath.net - Stephanscom]

34 comments:

  1. Thanks to Chris Gillibrand for his first translation, upon which the current one was based.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous6:56 PM

    What about fidelity to all the other councils of the Church and to the "pre-conciliar" Magisterium???

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peter6:56 PM

    Solidarity, postconciliar Magisterium, collegiality, fraternal dialogue... nooooooooooooooo!!!

    Does it mean that the bishops have reprimanded the Holy Father instead of the opposite?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Iakovos7:03 PM

    In other words, no significant news to be made public at this time. That's fine. Itching ears lead to loose lips that sink ships. But whoever wanted in another post to send Cardinal Schonborn packing as part of Vatican house cleaning, needs to have their head examined.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Business as usual...

    ReplyDelete
  6. As Pope Benedict has said before, it’s impossible to be fully faithful to the Second Vatican Council and to the post-conciliar Magisterium of the Church without being fully faithful to the preconciliar Magisterium of the Church.

    Does it mean that the bishops have reprimanded the Holy Father instead of the opposite? ***

    No, it means that the Austrian episcopate is in such sorry shape that the pope had to remind them of their obligation to be faithful to all that Vatican II and the post-conciliar Magisterium has taught. It must have really galled them to be told in so many words that they weren’t being faithful to Vatican II.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous7:18 PM

    Good grief! The curial officials who were present are the entire party of the Left in Rome. You could not find a concatenation of wild liberals worse than this. Even that damned liberation communist, Hummes, was there.

    Mark my words: this is part of the consolation package for the Left. There will be submission to the Austrian bishops in Austria, the departure of Ranjith, the departure of Castrillón Hoyos, and at least a request that faithful not attend Society Masses or receive Sacraments there once its faculties are recognised.

    Tit for tat, ladies and gents: the Pope is softening the blow to the Left which is acoming.

    Where was Cardinal Bertone at this meeting? I don't feel good about Re and Hummes there sans Bertone. Your Holiness: just dump Re. We don't want him. As for Hummes, I'd better not say what I am thinking. I'd have to repair to the penalty box for that.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous7:25 PM

    I agree with Iakovos about Schönborn. The Cardinal had to take the side of the Austrian liberals because he was facing a revolt. He managed to calm the waters and taht was his aim. He is not a wild liberal, as some of them are. He is the Pope's friend and former student. We need him in Vienna, regardless of how imperfect he may be.

    However, I would not intepret this as a papal dressing down of the Austrian bishops. Please see clearly, bloggers. Gerhard Wagner is not being restored; quite the contrary. The Pope is letting the liberals have a small victory in Austria in order to secure a greater victory with the S.S.P.X. It is part of his 'tit for tat' strategy to prevent rebellions from right and left alike. The Austrian bishops will be tamed over time. They and their wild falafel bread liturgies are hopelessly out of touch with reality. There is literally no future for their nonsense and the smarter among them damn well know it. They will slowly and gradually change their tunes and retire off to oblivion and to the nursing homes where they belong. The nursing homes of the future will have Beatles songs piped in over the speakers while drooling aged hippies tap their feet to them after they take their meds.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Iakovos:

    It was I who suggested that the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna ought to be sent packing, notably for the appalling devastation wrought under his oversight as the Metropolitan of the Diocese of Linz. How this equates to a need to have my head examined I cannot say, and you certainly do not bother to attempt to demonstrate.

    I think it will be enough to suggest that those who have allowed the situation in Linz to fester to this point ought to have their heads examined.

    That would, of course, include the Metropolitan of the Diocese in question.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous7:27 PM

    Peter:

    Neither party is reprimanding the other. The point of the dialougue is to diffuse all conflicts so that everyone can go back to sleep before being woken up to clean out their desks and pack their bags.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous7:41 PM

    " ..The Pope is letting the liberals have a small victory in Austria in order to secure a greater victory with the S.S.P.X."

    Mr Perkins:

    Hypothetically, which is all we have here, what if the Holy Father does nothing to change the status of the F.S.S.P.X.?
    Where does that leave this arse kissing Austrian Bishop meeting?

    If Father Wagner is not reinstated as Bishop Wagner of Linz and the Austrian bishops just continue in their liturgicatechetical autodestruction of Austria, without the tit-for tat of the granting of some standing to the Society, whats the use?

    Hey, I still have the great taching tool: "This is the Faith", by Canon Ripley, to instruct others in the Truth.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Most Excellent Sledgehammer7:51 PM

    Interesting that the prefect of the CDW was not present.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous7:53 PM

    Uh huh, and this means what????

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous7:53 PM

    There were an awful lot of big names at that meeting--the Cardinal President of all the biggest Congregations. If I were the Bishop of Linz, I'd be a little afraid...

    Mat.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous8:26 PM

    I think y'all missed the point. The statement was to somewhat mollify the Austrian bishops regarding the FSSPX. "Fidelity to the Second Vatican Council" and "the postconciliar Magisterium" are catch words directed toward the Society -- not the Austrian bishops. The Pope was saying to the Austrian bishops I expect from you what you say you expect from the FSSPX. So, a swipe at the Society is included as well.

    ReplyDelete
  16. All here miss the point if they fail to recognize that the fact that the meeting happened IS the statement. Period.

    The Austrian bishops have been called to Roma to meet with the Pope. That IS the point. The Pope does not do this in order to simply have a pleasant chat. Only an idiot would go through this exercise thinking otherwise.

    Use a diplomatic lense to interpret this sign of the times.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous9:20 PM

    They really are in de facto schism. I hope that Pope Benedict lives a very long time to replace as many of these bishops as possible beginning with the useless and compromising Cardinal in Vienna.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous10:03 PM

    Whoever said "Business as usuall" is right.

    Nothing will happen. Nothing positive will occur. The liberals will not be reprimanded.

    For all his faults in other things, in his early days as Pope, John Paul II would have raked this bunch of losers over the fire . He did it with the Jesuits, he did it with the Dutch bishops. He did it with liberation theology.
    Then around 1986 or so he got soft...and was so for the rest of his term....except here and there.

    That was a big mistake.

    Pope Benedict XVI in this kind of scenario has been weak from day One.
    He is like Paul VI....and that's not a compliment.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Maybe MCITL has a point. Diplomat-speak.

    "... topics related to the situation of the Diocese of Linz and the Church in Austria were discussed, and solutions for current problems were addressed."

    This could have been a fist fight. "Addressed" means neither side managed to throw the other out the window or it would have said "cordially agreed upon".

    "The Holy Father recalled the urgency of ... fidelity to the post-conciliar Magisterium of the Church, and the renewal of catechesis in light of the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

    Get with the Motu Proprio, jerks, and I'm tired of the complaints from the faithful that you're pushing your insane theology on them. Start teaching Catholicism, you Neanderthals.

    "Moreover, doctrinal and pastoral issues and issues pertaining to the situation of the clergy, the laity, the seminaries, and the theological schools in Linz and in other dioceses in Austria were discussed."

    And I can't stand homosexuals. End that orientation in your seminaries, you perverts, or I'll have a solution for what to do with Bishop Williamson - leading the Austrian Inquisition.

    I like it. Thanks, MCITL.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous10:48 PM

    Matt: big names? Yes, but they are ALL **liberal** big names! Re is our biggest problem in the curia; Levada, formerly of San Francisco, did nothing good there; Hummes, the liberation theologian communist kicked upstairs to get him out of Rio; Grocholewski, member of J.P. II's Polish mafia and drafter of the seminary document which lets in the sodomites to be priests. The conservative members of the curia were absent: Bertone, Canizares Llovera, Rode, Burke, &c.

    Good grief! Just add Kasper to those who did attend and the Austrian bishops would be looking at their mirror images! This can hardly be a dressing-down party.

    And I think that the reference to Vatican II and post-conciliar popes was not a dressing down but a reassurance that the Pope will not abandon the Left in his coming meetings with the S.S.P.X. After all, when was the last time we heard about the Magisterium of post-conciliar popes.

    This was not a dressing down meeting.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous10:49 PM

    Ok...over.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous10:55 PM

    Anon. wrote:

    "I think y'all [sic] missed the point. The statement was to somewhat mollify the Austrian bishops regarding the FSSPX."

    Well that's what I've been saying, so I am guessing that you are not referring to me here. I agree with you: he was trying to mollify them. This is all part of the Pope's tit for tat' strategy. Think of the liberal prelates as one big bawling brat. They are bawling because dad is giving a big gift to their hated brother, Brother S.S.P.X. So papa has to 'compensate' them and give them some consolation prizes to stop the tears. So he sends Ranjith to Colombo, Castrillón to retirement, and so forth. There will be more because papa is giving a lot to the S.S.P.X. No fair!

    Papa is trying to keep both boys from rebelling so that they will take turns mowing the lawn. The grass is getting long and the weeds are taking over. The lawn is now unsightly, just like a post-conciliar church designed by a Modernist architect: it's an eyesore.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous11:04 PM

    Joe B. interprets:

    "And I can't stand homosexuals. End that orientation in your seminaries, you perverts, or I'll have a solution for what to do with Bishop Williamson - leading the Austrian Inquisition."

    What? You think that that was the Pope's message and that one of those enlisted to deliver it was Grocholewski, the man who designed a seminary policy which ALLOWS sexual inverts and sodomites to take over the seminaries? That would be like hiring Mao Tse-tung to denounce communism.

    What the Pope should do is to kick Grocholewski upstairs to some powerless position, such as President of the Governorate of Vatican City State; and let us pray that he will retire Re, aged 75, as soon as he can; and he can retire Levada, who has proved to be ineffective and pusillanimous. As for Hummes, I'd better not say what I'd do to him. It's what I'd do to any liberation theology communist. It involves a trap door.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous11:13 PM

    I reiterate that I agree with Iakovos about Schönborn. He's not as bad as he's been made out to be. His rôle has been to prevent the Austrian bishops from revolting and he's done that very well. Don't read everything at face value. He has to play the rôle of a middleman.

    Schönborn, Levada and Cardinal Ouellet of Québec are old students of the Pope and his very close friends and collaborators. They are on his side, even if that is not always apparent. he can trust them, even if they might not always prove competent.

    The problem, I suppose, is that the Pope's friends, like the Pope himself, are intellectuals. Intellectuals do not always make for good administrators. I know someone who knew Levada very well when he was Abp. of Portland. I've been told that he's a very good man but pusillanimous: he couldn't stand up to the liberals among his priests and they pushed him around. But he definitely is someone whom the Pope trusts in terms of policy.

    Watch Cardinal Ouellet of Québec. I think that the Pope might elevate him into the curia, possibly to replace Levada, who is said to have been ill for some time.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous11:16 PM

    On Anon. who compares three popes:

    I agree that John Paul II was more capable of being tough with losers such as these useless Austrian bishops. I would not go as far, however, to say that Benedict XVI is as weak as the Hamlet Pope, Paul VI. But it is true that John Paul II could be sterner than the present Pontiff, and yet it all came out as pastoral and as motivated by love. John Paul II did indeed have some very positive attributes.

    As for Paul VI, he was the worst pope in history.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Don't be surprised, folks. Pope Benedict is dealing with the Austrian bishops in exactly the same spirit as he is dealing with the SSPX bishops. As much as some of us would like to see a massive wave of excommunications and harsh reprimands, this isn't what this Pope is about. He's concerned about preventing an outright schism here. And the way he's going to prevent that is through diplomacy, dialogue and avoidance of any outright or harsh reprimand.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous12:11 AM

    Roman the Scribe, whatever you do, don't use "Pope Benedict." It drives Mr. Perkins nutsy. Instead, you should write: His Holiness, or Benedict XVI, or Pope Benedict XVI. Mr. Perkins says there is no such person as "Pope Benedict."

    There, we got that out of the way!!

    And I agree that John Paul II started out tough - until he got shot. He was not the same after that. Except when it came to the SSPX. It often seems to me that there must be two sets of rule books in the Vatican - one for the SSPX and one for EVERYONE else.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Brian Bunel12:30 AM

    WATCH THIS from SSPX parishoner. I am a SSPX parishoner who lives in St. Marys Kansas, the largest parish of sspx, 3000 peoplehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FmRcRsPhE4

    ReplyDelete
  29. As for Paul VI, he was the worst pope in history. ***

    Nah, John XII and Benedict IX set the bar for "worst pope in history" so high that few if any will ever be likely to exceed them.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It is becoming increasingly clear, that Benedict XVI "hermeneutics of continuity" are merely a means to impose an artificial continuity, which he even admits does not admit in the sense of identicity (same-ness) of the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar magisterium of the Holy Roman Church. Is he part of the Holy Roman Church? Are these Austrian bishops part of the Holy Roman Church still?

    Fraternal dialogue in the face of outright blackmailing of the Vatican appointed bishop-elect Gerhard Maria Wagner, and neo-modernist heresies?

    I am beginning to think, that we are seeing more of the 1960s theologian Fr. Joseph Ratzinger than of Benedict XVI, who is alleged to be the "Restorer" (of which I have seen no proof other than some Bavarian esthetics and ornaments - but in the same Novus Ordo context, of the Novus Ordo faith of common declarations with Lutherans, of the Balamand Agreement - false ecumenism, of Assisi 1986 and 2002 praised in allocutions).

    So I am not fooled.

    We should be more critical ourselves, instead of cherishing too much idle hopes for a sudden Restoration from neo-modernist groups in the Vatican bureaucracies of this post-Vatican II era.

    The Roman Catholic Church is about orthodox Catholic doctrine, about the sanctification of souls. Not about religious liberty, "healthy laicism" (Benedict XVI in 2007), not about fraternal dialogue with anti-conservative rebels, not about administering Holy Communion on the tongue in a celebration where a few hundred meters away female Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist "assist" the pope by popping out the "holy bread" into the paws of the NOM faithful.

    Cardinal Christoph Count Schoenborn of Vienna, who allows a Stalinist and Sex artist Alfred Hrdlincka to desecrate the memory of Sr. Maria Restituta (Kafka) in the Vienna Cathedral of St. Stephen, and who "consecrates" invalid matter (Youth "Mass"), and whom I witnessed during more sacrileges in "Youth Masses" in my time in the Eternal City of Rome, is the favorite of Cardinal Ratzinger. Cardinal Schoenborn might succeed Benedict XVI, in the Ratzingerian view. Schoenborn also likes Roman chasubles and was once considered "conservative", but he is not. He is a double-speak moderate neo-modernist.

    Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jordanes,

    John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II are the worst pope of history. None of the popes you mentioned ever dared to touch upon the sacred liturgy, upon the sacred doctrine of the Church, let alone Catholic dogma in the way papae Roncalli, Montini and Wojtyla did.

    You are in plain denial about the current (Vatican II-induced) crisis if you dare point to some worldly, but orthodox popes of the past, who never tolerated any heresy.

    Power politics can be absolved and do not exclude from the communion of saints. Heresy and schism however do.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous7:35 AM

    "I agree with you: he was trying to mollify them." (P.K.T.P.)

    Simple question : who is "mollifying" ? "He" i.e. the pope or "them", the liberal party the Austrian bishops represent perfectly ?

    Reading this wordy but empty final statement where everybody can tell "I was right", I am left with the feeling the pope is not just mollifying but maybe melting down.
    Plus Ranjith ousted from the Curia and the remaining silence upon who is going to supervise the Motu proprio, the lack of any substantial liturgical reform, the effective tolerance of any possible theological nonsense by CDF, the "triumph" of arch-liberal Fr. Jenkins, the dangerous and sometimes lunatic statements by Jesuit Fr. Lombardi, the departure of Castrillon Hoyos, the weird intervention of Bp Fisichella etc.

    So what will come from this extraordinary meeting with the head-quarters of the Austrian Church (2 arch-liberals with an ex-neo-cons cardinal turned opportunist ready to say everything to be "savy" in Austrian media) ?

    In 1938, the then infamous cardinal of Vienna had to recant his foolish attitude and repent publicly.
    At first sight 2009 seems very different from 1938 and the liberal hierarchs can come back home like Mr. Chamberlain "peace with honor" like he said in 1938 too. We know what the Hon. Winston Churchill replied in the Commons : you will have war without honor in the end.
    I'm afraid of an Ecclesial Munich ...

    Mr Perkins is truly misguided if he thinks that feeding the Austrian liberal and neo-modernist Monster could help in any way a reconciliation with ... SSPX. Since when weakness with liberal Catholics has ever been a "bridge" for peace with trads ???
    A stronger Monster will roar with a LOUDER voice if any positive move is made toward the "integrists".
    An ecclesial Munich will lead to defeat like the real one in 1938 : "appeasers" in the end ALWAYS lose.

    If and only if we hear in the coming weeks/months of an appointment of Fr. Wagner in Austria or in Rome and if and only if the Austrian episcopal conference is revising its heretical proclamation regarding the appointment of bishops, then we'll see if it was an ecclesial Munich or if the Austrian rebels have really "mollified".
    Remember all : you have some Austrian-like bishops EVERYWHERE in the Church. If the Austrian gang wins, all their friends will ask -demand - the same ... and the papal authority will be a ... souvenir of the past.
    That is what is at stake : the destiny of SSPX in this major struggle is a mere anecdote, sorry to be blunt.

    Alsaticus

    ReplyDelete
  33. Stanislaw, I think it's you who are in denial if you are going to whitewash the hideous pontificates of John XII and Benedict IX are merely "some worldly, but orthodox popes of the past, who never tolerated any heresy." Also, "touch(ing) upon the sacred liturgy, upon the sacred doctrine of the Church" is not only permissible for a pope to do, but it's actually their proper charism and obligation -- modern popes may not have done that correctly, but John XII and Benedict IX were such failures as popes that they didn't even fulfill a layman's calling let alone a pope's calling. Labeling modern popes such as Paul VI "worst in history" is a case of not seeing the forest because one is focused on the bark of a single tree.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous5:16 PM

    No use trying to patch a leaky boat with rubber nails (Vatican II) and a rubber mallet (Post conciliar "magisterium").

    This is just another excuse to pass the buck...but the buck starts and stops at Rome.

    No more crocodile tears please!

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!