Cardinal Schönborn: Vatican-SSPX Talks to Start 'In Next Few Days'
- Status
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Keep praying!
J
JReducation
Guest
**Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, one of the four readmitted, said the bishops had no intention of changing their views in these sessions.” No, absolutely not,” he said. “We do not change our positions, but we have the intention of converting Rome, that is, to lead Rome towards our positions.” **
This came from the above referenced article. If the bishop said this, he’s in for big trouble and a long fight. These are not the words of a man who is seeking reconciliation with his boss. It begs the question, “Who’s in charge of the Church the Holy See or the SSPX?”
That’s a dangerous way to begin a process of reconciliation. I hope he didn’t say this and that it’s taken out of context.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
This came from the above referenced article. If the bishop said this, he’s in for big trouble and a long fight. These are not the words of a man who is seeking reconciliation with his boss. It begs the question, “Who’s in charge of the Church the Holy See or the SSPX?”
That’s a dangerous way to begin a process of reconciliation. I hope he didn’t say this and that it’s taken out of context.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
diggerdomer
Guest
L
Layman
Guest
Reconciliation should not be sought at the expense of the truth. The simple truth will, hopefully, prevail in the end.
The Bishop, if he said that, is being open about his intentions. That’s very good.
The Bishop, if he said that, is being open about his intentions. That’s very good.
J
JReducation
Guest
The problem with that statement, if he really made it, is that it seems to call the Holy See to adapt the point of view of the SSPX. The Holy See has already said that this is not going to happen. They are willing to clarify the teachings of Vatican II for the SSPX. They are willing to clarify the teachings of the last five popes for the SSPX, but they are not willing to suspend any of the teachings of the Vatican II, especially those on ecumenism and religious freedom. To say that you want to bring Rome over to your position is to insinuate that you’re right and Rome is wrong. And Rome is very insistent that it is not wrong, maybe misunderstood, but not wrong.
When approaching the Lord Pope, said St. Francis, we must always approach him with the greatest humility and always willing to obey.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Well, lads, instead of getting too heated up about the tone of the Opening Salvos of the protagonists, let us consider the actual details … What exactly are these famous “teachings of Vatican II?” Many have asked this question before, and have never been given a simple answer. The reasons are obvious…
Many nowadays talk as if the Second Vatican Council were above all criticism, and the norm for everything in the Church. But the Pope said differently, although his words are now hardly ever heeded….
To give one example: Ecumenism.
This is what Pope Pius XI had to say about the Protestant ecumenical movement, which was very active in the early 20th century. Note the clear and concise manner in which he states what ecumenism for Catholics really means:–
Now the Holy Spirit has watched over this council by preventing it from pronouncing a direct heresy in the forthright way of the pre-Conciliar popes. Nonetheless the texts abound with insinuations and ***omissions ***that allow heresy to claim the support of the council. This is what Mgr Lefebvre & the SSPX have been despairingly trying to bring to the attention of the Church, not only from immediately after the council, but during the very sessions of the council themselves.
Many nowadays talk as if the Second Vatican Council were above all criticism, and the norm for everything in the Church. But the Pope said differently, although his words are now hardly ever heeded….
The Vatican II documents are very, very different in tone and content from the way the Church has always operated. A glance at the documents, which are all available now on the internet, makes this very clear. Notice how hardly any post-Vatican II document even mentions any pre-Vatican Ii document, whereas in all the centuries before, the relevant previous documents were always cited without exception right back to the New Testament. Why not do so now? It is because the pre-Vaticn II documents are so often in clear contradiction to the Post-Vatican II. Can this be right?
To give one example: Ecumenism.
This is what Pope Pius XI had to say about the Protestant ecumenical movement, which was very active in the early 20th century. Note the clear and concise manner in which he states what ecumenism for Catholics really means:–
Now let us hear the words of no less a personage than Cardinal Kaspar, head of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity – a John Paul II appointee:–
Cdl Kasper is, of all people, the head of a commission that should (according to orthodox interpretations) be seeking the return of Christians to the Catholic Church as converts. Yet he repudiates this doctrine and feels safe to invoke the Second Vatican council to support his statements.
Now the Holy Spirit has watched over this council by preventing it from pronouncing a direct heresy in the forthright way of the pre-Conciliar popes. Nonetheless the texts abound with insinuations and ***omissions ***that allow heresy to claim the support of the council. This is what Mgr Lefebvre & the SSPX have been despairingly trying to bring to the attention of the Church, not only from immediately after the council, but during the very sessions of the council themselves.
J
JReducation
Guest
In all this anticipation of what will happen and what will be discussed it is best if we, brothers and sisters, avoid speculation, avoid pointing fingers, avoid accusations and instead, we embrace contemplation, ascetecism, penance, the Eucharist, our Blessed Mother, charity toward the poor and the unborn and offer these gifts as a worthy sacrifice to God for the peaceful and permanent resolution to this problem.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Not sure what you’re implying, but regardless, Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council which is the highest teaching authority the Catholic Church has. So, Catholics are obligated to adhere to its teachings just as all other Ecumenical Councils. No Pope has said otherwise.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Let us consider one of the main bones of contention: the Vatican II Decree ***Unitatis Redintegratio. *** This document, like the other Vatican II documents, veers from one side to the other on basic issues, and hints at things without really nailing them down. Therefore partisans of both sides can cherry-pick the quotes that support their own view. Often, over the years, this has been done in all honesty – might I say naivete.
The full, authoritative text of Unitatis Redintegratio in English can be found on the Vatican Website:
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…gratio_en.html
A good critique of the text can be found on
“Ambiguity Series - Problems with Unitatis Redintegratio”
verbum1.blogspot.com/2009/03/…-unitatis.html
Here is just one example of the problems the SSPX have been asking the Vatican to adress; actually the text abounds with them.
***Unitatis Redintegratio Ch 3 *** reads:
And this is precisely what Cdl Kaspar does say.
The full, authoritative text of Unitatis Redintegratio in English can be found on the Vatican Website:
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…gratio_en.html
A good critique of the text can be found on
“Ambiguity Series - Problems with Unitatis Redintegratio”
verbum1.blogspot.com/2009/03/…-unitatis.html
Here is just one example of the problems the SSPX have been asking the Vatican to adress; actually the text abounds with them.
***Unitatis Redintegratio Ch 3 *** reads:
Calling people outside the Church “brothers” or “sisters” ***implies ***that they are a part of the “family” or rather the Body of Christ – which they are not. Now it is Catholic doctrine that if a Protestant sect performs a valid baptism on an infant then the infant is a member of the Catholic Church. There is but “one Faith, one Baptism” and One Church. This text, however, states that these people are at the same time “separated” and “brothers.” What sense does this make? As for the last part, while we would have some kind of “respect and affection” for non-Catholic denominations, by respecting the things that are really true, at the same time we would have to condemn and shun their errors as well. Neglecting to mention how the Catholic Church is also displeased with their errors leaves the doorway open for a liberal to say, “See, the Council says we have respect and affection for other Christians! We must stop trying to convert them!”
And this is precisely what Cdl Kaspar does say.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Excellent sentiments, JR, and I commend your recent pro-life initiative, though I didn’t manage to reply to your thread yet … but are you now saying you will drop out of this forum? We are surely allowed to debate the issues, otherwise what is the point of a discussion forum?In all this anticipation of what will happen and what will be discussed it is best if we, brothers and sisters, avoid speculation, avoid pointing fingers, avoid accusations and instead, we embrace contemplation, ascetecism, penance, the Eucharist, our Blessed Mother, charity toward the poor and the unborn and offer these gifts as a worthy sacrifice to God for the peaceful and permanent resolution to this problem.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Good point, in that there are MANY “problems” the SSPX has with authoritative Catholic teaching. Thanks be to God for the Popes who have continued to reach out to the SSPX and invited them back into full communion with the Catholic Church.
[/quote]
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, that is one of the demands that Pope Benedict is making. I believe that the men who have been chosen to represent the Holy See in this discussion are willing to answer questions and to clarify those decrees of the Council that the SSPX finds troublesome. But I do not believe that the Holy Father is willing to abrogate the Council’s teachings. At some point the SSPX is going to have to be satisfied with the clarifications that they receive in response to their concerns or their status in the Church will not change. That would be a very sorrowful event for everyone involved.
I do believe that the Holy Father has the best intentions in mind. The Congregation for the Faith has deliberatey chosen Thomists to engage in these proceedings. This is a good thing and a sign of good-will on the part of the Holy Father, as he himself is not a Thomist. His theological orientation is Franciscan and Augustinian. His doctorates were not in Thomistic theology, but Bonaventure and Augustine. By bringing theologians to the table who are from the same theological school as the SSPX, it facilitates the dialogue.
My prayer is that they will see this good faith on the part of the Holy See. A pope is not bound to Thomism, even though it has been the dominant school of theology in the Church for many centuries. I think this may be one reason why one of the bishops said that the Holy Father is very subjective. I believe that the bishop who made this statement does not clearly understand Franciscan and Augustinian approach to theology, which always begins from the heart and leads to reason. Whereas Aquinas begins with reason and moves to the heart. In that regard, to the person who is not well versed in Franciscan and Augustinian systematic theology, it can look subjective, because the two schools do begin with the person (heart) and then look to reason for expression.
I don’t expect the bishops to be trained in this manner. Most priests are not trained in this branch of theology. I know that my own bishop invited me to several meetings to explain Bonavneture to him. He did not study Bonaventure in the seminary, other than to read one or two of his works. He was having some difficult understanding some things that the Holy Father has written, particularly his book on Jesus of Nazareth, which is written with Bonaventure’s systems and not Aquinas’.
Both systems are good and both lead to the same place. They simply begin at a different point. I can understand the need for the SSPX to have someone there who can “translate” what the Holy Father says into language that they are familiar with, that they trust and that they understand. Hopefully, this will happen without much conflict or antagonism.
Like I said, let us embrace the practice of contemplation, Eucharistic adoration, Marian devotion, and charity to the poor and the unborn and offer these gifts for the smooth discussion betweent the SSPX and the Holy See.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I like your last question and I have often asked myself the same question. “What is the point of a discussion forum?” I often find that these forums are not so much about discussions where people pose and answer questions. More often than not, they are tribunals. People come with their minds made up to condemn or defend a point. They pose a question to get the dialogue going, but they do not want to hear the answers to their question. That is not a discussion, that is insitgation. I will not allow myself to be sucked into that kind of discussion.
We have to remember one thing on these threads. The purpose of Christians coming together is to learn how to love God and love man. It is not to pass judgment on others, to blame, to be condescending, to assume that we know things that we really don’t know about other posters. My experience on forums that discuss the SSPX is that they tend to deteriorate very quickly into a debate between the “I’m more orthodox than you.” and the other side “I’m more charitable than you.”
I will stay around as long as we are really speaking and learning from each other. The minute we slip into attack mode. I leave. I need my inner peace and my inner silence. I’m not a spiritually strong man. When the fighting begins, I don’t want to lose what takes so much discipline in my life to reach and maintain, silence and charity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Yes, JR, we would be poor Catholics if we did not put prayer and contemplation before action. We would also be ‘burying our talents in the ground’ if we refused to use the intellect that God gave us. Faith is above Reason, but it is not contrary to Reason. I hope, on this thread, that we will always be able to debate the real issues without making personal attacks of any kind.I like your last question and I have often asked myself the same question. “What is the point of a discussion forum?” I often find that these forums are not so much about discussions where people pose and answer questions. More often than not, they are tribunals. People come with their minds made up to condemn or defend a point. They pose a question to get the dialogue going, but they do not want to hear the answers to their question. That is not a discussion, that is insitgation. I will not allow myself to be sucked into that kind of discussion.
We have to remember one thing on these threads. The purpose of Christians coming together is to learn how to love God and love man. It is not to pass judgment on others, to blame, to be condescending, to assume that we know things that we really don’t know about other posters. My experience on forums that discuss the SSPX is that they tend to deteriorate very quickly into a debate between the “I’m more orthodox than you.” and the other side “I’m more charitable than you.”
I will stay around as long as we are really speaking and learning from each other. The minute we slip into attack mode. I leave. I need my inner peace and my inner silence. I’m not a spiritually strong man. When the fighting begins, I don’t want to lose what takes so much discipline in my life to reach and maintain, silence and charity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I too have been disappointed on CAF and other forums when I ask a simple and honest question and am met either with silence or a repetition of a previous point that has already been refuted - without addressing the refutation. It is notable that this has been the tactic of certain Vatican officials against the SSPX since the beginning. It is heartening that this is now being addressed.
To continue the consideration of the “teachings” (which are so often “equivocations”) of Vatican II…
Continuing the quote from Unitatis Redintegratio Ch.3:
This is one of the bigger UR oddities. It declares that people outside the Church, through a valid baptism, are in an “imperfect communion”. What is that supposed to mean? The document nowhere explains. As I have stated before, it fails to define its terms. Now Catholic teaching is that valid baptism puts a “character” – a permanent mark – on the soul. The baptism is always a Catholic Baptism, into the Catholic Church, whether this has been done by a Protestant or a Catholic. There is speculation over the point at which a Protestant who has received a valid baptism must be said to have left the Church. Obviously an infant up until somewhere beyond the age of reason is a member of the Church. However the adult Protestant who receives a valid baptism is another story. He could possibly be joined to the Church at that moment but a conscious denial of the Church just minutes later could kill that. The actual Character will remain on his soul, however, for all eternity. One must also consider the problems of ignorance, culpability, etc.
There are no clear answers to these questions, because so much depends on the secret motivations of the individual soul. But UR makes no attempt to differentiate between various Protestants and their beliefs. It rather invents the idea of "imperfect communion’ (without defining its boundaries) and applies it to ALL who believe in Christ and who have received a valid baptism. We know it’s not “all.” A Protestant who explicitly rejects the Church is not in any type of communion because he has voluntarily left the Body of Christ.
Simply having the mark of baptism does not mean that one is “in communion though imperfect.” If you are not in communion you are not in communion. “Imperfect communion” is another ambiguity that anyone can twist to mean whatever they want. If it actually means “not in communion” then why not say so? Why render it “imperfect communion” as if to indicate some kind of partial communion – as if to say that they are 50% joined to Christ?
Once again this part of UR is a joy to liberals because they can take it, based on the foundations of Lumen Gentium and the other many parts of UR and twist it to their liking.
UR3 continues…
So exactly what is the “ecumenical movement?” We must ask this because the Protestant version, which started long before Vatican II (and was anathematised by the pope – see posting above), certainly does not say "Hey, let’s all come together and return to the Catholic Church.” And can we imagine how a liberal is going to interpret “overcoming” the obstacles of doctrine, discipline and structure of the Church? Through constant dialogue until each side submits to the other to the point where certain articles of doctrine and discipline can be forgotten, or at least permanently ignored?
Again, this is what Cdl Kaspar says now explicitly (it would have been unsafe to say it on the Council floor) – and gets away with invoking Vatican II for support.
Just a coincidence? But such writers as Fr Schillabeckx wrote quite explicitly that this tactic was employed deliberately throughout the council. These are the famous** “Vatican II time-bombs”** which the SSPX – through the new talks – are now seeking to defuse.
L
Layman
Guest
I wonder could you ignore everything said at the Second Vatican Council and still be a good Catholic? You can certainly go to the TLM and avoid the Novus Ordo.
I’ve tried to discover its main theses and all that’s new or striking seems to be “its positions on Judaism, other non-Christian religions, other Christian churches and on religious freedom as a basic human right.”
Yet it seems to be treated like the tablets of Moses by some. If the texts are woolly then their meaning needs to be cleared up. What is the truth? Then we can return to the serious business of getting into Heaven.
I think it, and the Novus Ordo Mass, have been used as an excuse to experiment with our religion. I think 40 years is long enough for the fruits of this experiment to be known. I think they are bad. I am not looking forward to my local churches turning into ‘Lecture halls with Communion Services’ if it continues for another 40 years (worst case scenario). Or just getting run down, closed and merged in a quiet attrition.
These talks could be a breath of fresh air on a subject that, I gather, because of its wooliness, can be used by near-heretics to promote their agenda without serious censure.
So let the SSPX have it out with The Vatican ™.
I’ve tried to discover its main theses and all that’s new or striking seems to be “its positions on Judaism, other non-Christian religions, other Christian churches and on religious freedom as a basic human right.”
Yet it seems to be treated like the tablets of Moses by some. If the texts are woolly then their meaning needs to be cleared up. What is the truth? Then we can return to the serious business of getting into Heaven.
I think it, and the Novus Ordo Mass, have been used as an excuse to experiment with our religion. I think 40 years is long enough for the fruits of this experiment to be known. I think they are bad. I am not looking forward to my local churches turning into ‘Lecture halls with Communion Services’ if it continues for another 40 years (worst case scenario). Or just getting run down, closed and merged in a quiet attrition.
These talks could be a breath of fresh air on a subject that, I gather, because of its wooliness, can be used by near-heretics to promote their agenda without serious censure.
So let the SSPX have it out with The Vatican ™.
A
albertjazz
Guest
I wonder why my remarks to this thread are not allowed,and cannot be read
Please advise what Ive done wrong
Please advise what Ive done wrong
R
rossum
Guest
1 That post came through perfectly OK.
2 Were you using the “Preview Post” button or the “Submit Reply” button?
3 Was what you were posting particularly controversial?
rossum
- Status