The interview of Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently published on the website Adelante la Fe (the Spanish language partner of Rorate Caeli) is quickly making its rounds in traditional (aka Catholic) circles, and for good reason.
In reviewing reactions, it occurs to me that we are very much a pendulum people; given to extremes and far too quick to grant hero status to better-than-average clerics at the drop of a biretta.
No doubt, Bishop Schneider offered some praiseworthy commentary in the interview, but a little perspective may be in order to prevent us from getting carried away.
Much of the attention (and praise) being given to His Excellency concerns his assessment of the Society of St. Pius X, a topic on which he is rather well qualified to speak after having recently visited two of the Society’s seminaries as an envoy of the Holy See.
Of the SSPX, Bishop Schneider said (among other things):
I am keeping a good impression of my visits. I could observe a sound theological, spiritual and human reality in the two Seminars … To my knowledge there are no weighty reasons in order to deny the clergy and faithful of the SSPX the official canonical recognition, meanwhile they should be accepted as they are …
Apparently, Bishop Schneider and I are in practical agreement, even though I am at liberty to say it more directly:
The withholding of formal canonical recognition of the SSPX, and likewise formal jurisdiction from their bishops and priests, is a grave injustice.
Bishop Schneider also seems to acknowledge that such recognition and jurisdiction is being withheld from the SSPX due to their unwillingness to endorse the Second Vatican Council as an “integral part of the Tradition of the Church.”
On this note, Bishop Schneider states:
I think the issue of Vatican II should not be taken as the “condicio sine qua non”, since it was an assembly with primarily pastoral aims and characteristics. A part of the conciliar statements reflects only its time and possesses a temporary value, as disciplinary and pastoral documents do.
So far so good.
When he gets down to articulating the reasons why lockstep acceptance of the Council (as an “integral part of Tradition”) should not be the necessary condition for the Society’s recognition, however, we find evidence that Bishop Schneider, for all of his laudable attributes, is himself infected with no small amount of the conciliar disease:
When we look in a two millennia old perspective of the Church, we can state, that there is on both sides (Holy See and the SSPX) an over-evaluation and over-estimation of a pastoral reality in the Church, which is Vatican II. A part of the conciliar statements reflects only its time and possesses a temporary value, as disciplinary and pastoral documents do.
While one can rightly say that Vatican II, according to every pope who has reigned during and since, formally enjoys no status beyond that of “a pastoral reality” (as Bishop Schneider puts it); the fact of the matter is, the conciliar texts are not the benign, blameless, time-bound decrees he paints them to be; rather, at the very least they contain grave invitations to doctrinal error (if not outright error in its own right).
Two brief examples concern the Council’s treatment of the Church’s relationship with the Jews, and its assessment of the heretical communities vis-à-vis salvation.
In other words, it simply is not reality to say that such “parts of the conciliar statements” possess “value,” temporary or otherwise.
Doctrinal ambiguities (much more doctrinal errors) serve no purpose other than to obscure the truth (read: Christ), ultimately leading souls astray.
As such, simply consigning the conciliar text to that which had value in a day-gone-by is not by any means a way forward; rather, the ambiguities and errors must be identified and condemned outright.
Furthermore, the Holy See, properly speaking, has not “over-estimated” the Council; rather, the post-conciliar popes (and those in positions of authority in the Church in union with them) have simply accepted the conciliar text for what it says and acted upon it.
In other words, it was in allowing the conciliar text to inform their words and deeds almost exclusively for nearly five decades that the popes gave rise to a new church that scarcely resembles the Holy Catholic Church, even as it operates under its name.
Likewise, it is untrue that the SSPX has in any way “over-evaluated” the Council’s importance. On the contrary; the damage that the Council has done is so immense as to be truly incalculable!
In short, denying, or at the very least downplaying, the central role of the Second Vatican Council in creating the current ecclesial crisis is a dead end that will only serve to perpetuate said crisis. This, unfortunately, is precisely the position Bishop Schneider appears determined to promote.
This much becomes clear when he says:
[The Society’s current condition] should suffice for a canonical recognition of the SSPX on behalf of the Holy See. Otherwise the often repeated pastoral and ecumenical openness in the Church of our days will manifestly loose its credibility and the history will one day reproach to the ecclesiastical authorities of our days that they have “laid on the brothers greater burden than required” (cf. Acts 15:28), which is contrary to the pastoral method of the Apostles.
While the overall sentiment is admirable, I beg to differ with the suggestion that “the often repeated pastoral and ecumenical openness in the Church of our days” has ever had, much less has, any authentic Catholic credibility to lose.
And let’s not beat around the bush: That “history” is going to reproach the Holy See for withholding recognition from the SSPX should be the least of anyone’s concern; the far more breathtaking reality is that Almighty God will one day demand recompense of the popes who so denied them.
Moving away from the SSPX to broader concerns, Bishop Schneider was asked to address what he had labeled:
The five wounds in Christ’s liturgical mystical body: the priest turned towards the congregation, Holy Communion taken in the hand, the new Offertory prayers, the disappearance of Latin in liturgical celebrations and the performing of some ministries, such as those of lector and acolyte, by women.
As for how these wounds have been produced, Bishop Schenider insisted:
None of these liturgical wounds can even remotely be supported by “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy of the II Vatican Council.
Once again, we see evidence of an untenable tendency to hold the Council practically harmless.
While it is true that Sacrosanctum Concilium does not directly call for any of the aforementioned five “wounds,” it did most certainly open the door for these unthinkable innovations (even if the majority of the Council Fathers could not foresee it) by virtue of the fact that the document is constructed upon the dangerous notion that the sacred liturgy is rightly considered a tool to be leveraged in the work of ecumenism.
This much is made clear in Art. 1 wherein the reason for “undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy” is stated thus:
This sacred Council desires … to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. (SC 1)
Each one of the five liturgical innovations cited by Bishop Schneider was motivated by a desire to make Holy Mass a more comfortable experience for Protestants, and the unsavory truth is that the Council endorsed that misguided desire as if it were inspired by the Holy Ghost.
As a remedy, Bishop Schneider suggests (among other things):
To ask the Holy See to issue a document, which will grant to the celebrant the freedom of choice between the modern and the traditional offertory prayers during the celebration of the Holy Mass in the ordinary form; the same document of the Holy See could encourage the celebration ad Dominum or ad orientem and dissuade and restrict the practice of Communion in hand … [And] to spread more the celebration of the liturgy in the ancient form
While the restoration of the traditional Offertory to the Novus Ordo and encouraging traditional liturgical practices may sound wonderful at first blush, these suggestions begin with a false and decidedly dangerous premise; namely, that this bastard rite is by absolute necessity here to stay.
That simply isn’t true.
In spite of Benedict the Abdicator’s creative verbal posturing, the Novus Ordo Missae is not simply one form of the ancient Roman Rite; it is a brand new rite that was created in the 1960’s by a select group of impious men that met around a conference table to haggle over its contents; even going so far as to pen “Eucharistic Prayers” to replace the Canon of the Roman Mass as it had existed almost completely unchanged for some 1,500 years.
The solution to this unprecedented encroachment on holy ground is not to appoint a different group of men to gather around yet another conference table to hash out a reform-of-the-reform (which promises to be an endless endeavor), but to return to the Mass of Ages that developed organically like a pearl of great price over the course of two millennia.
Look, I get it; neither Bishop Schneider nor any other cleric who wishes to retain his “full communion” status is going to issue a public call for the abrogation of the Novus Ordo.
I offer these observations just the same to lend a bit of perspective to this dreadful situation wherein, difficult as it is to admit, even the shining stars of modern day Rome, including Bishop Schneider (whose views on ecumenical dialogue and religious liberty are thoroughly conciliar), obviously haven’t escaped the diabolical disorientation of which Our Blessed Lady forewarned.
Louie,
I call bovine excrement on this marxist dialectic being set up by Bishop Morlino=bad cop Bishop Athanasius Schneider= good cop. The elephant in the room is the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction Rome needs to give up modernism and Vatican II. So both Bishop Morlino=bad cop Bishop Athanasius Schneider= good cop are wrong. The SSPX is right on doctrine what needs to be discussed is the doctrine and the doctrine alone.
Archbishop Lefebvre was is and will always be right about the Vatican II reforms and the new mass. Not because of Archbishop Lefebvre but because Archbishop Lefebvre had a Catholic mind about Vatican II,the new mass,the 83 code of canon law ect. This war in the Church is over doctrine. The SSPX has the doctrine right!
These past few days smell of the Hegelian dialectic (problem reaction solution) aka thesis antithesis synthesis. The bases of the attack of Bishop Morlino is false (the SSPX is in need of faculties from heretics). Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s praise of the SSPX is also wrong because the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction Rome needs to give up modernism and Vatican II.
What I see being set up here is this:
Problem (Bishop Morlino attacks the SSPX)
Reaction (Catholics go nuts on line due to the attack Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s praises SSPX)
Solution: A practical agreement between Rome and the SSPX without the doctrine being made clear and upheld.
This will not fly with Catholics who understand the doctrinal reasons for the Archbishop’s SSPX. A very good breakdown of the Bishop Morlino=bad cop Bishop Athanasius Schneider= good cop circus can be read here:
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/08/bishop-athanasius-schneider-no-weighty.html#more
I read Rorate’s report of the interview and my heart sank as I read the first of the passages you quote. I then moved here to see what your take would be since I wondered if I was overreacting. I scarcely believed I could have read it correctly since I have only been a Catholic for 5 years and I owe my formation really solely to the internet and prayer.
How sad that despite the many wonderful things he has said he should have been touched by the disorientation.
A summary of all the talks on the documents of vatican ii by Fr Gregory Hesse
http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/documents.htm
Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?
Matthew 13:27
Some highlights from the text “Auctorem Fidei” from Pope Pius VI (1794), written against the robber false synod of Pistoia, is a mighty strong argument against the thesis that Vatican II “can be interpreted in the light of tradition”:
–
“In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.”
This “cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.”
The heretic Nestorius “expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.”
“Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”
—————————
Pope Pius VI, BTW, was sacrilegiously captured, taken prisoner, and exiled to France by the Freemasonic revolutionary forces of France (led by Napoleon) during the wars of revolution post 1789 against the conservative monarchies of Europe, where he endured a martyrdom of sorts dying in Valence, France in 1799.
Is Pius VI a prototype of the “martyr pope” that will be exiled and suffer martyrdom by the forces of Anti-Christ?
–
Another interesting fact of the time – it was no less than Russian tsar Pavel/Paul I (brutally murdered a few years later) who offered the pope to rescue him from the forces of what he deemed to be the anti-Christ like Napoleon. Is Pavel I the prototype of the “Great Monarch” prophesied in some apparitions?
Hang on there brother/sister in the faith!
“But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.”
Matthew 24:13
You can’t have one foot in Tradition and one foot in the New Order. You’ll just spin in circles and go nowhere!
Yes, Bishop Schneider’s comments on VII sound very political, as if wanting to avoid dealing head on with the errors on the face of VII documents. He seems to be trying not to upset the Holy See by speaking as he normally does of a new Syllabus of Errors.
Lynda,
Bishop Schneider believes the Vatican II documents can be corrected by adding to them or building on them he says so here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8iBeaGeuxw This idea is more madness coming from churchmen. This idea would work if words had no meaning.
What the Bishop is suggesting is like what happened at the supreme court in America on “homosexual” marriage. Justice Antonin Scalia, said “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State”
modernism is not Catholicism. Vatican II must be rejected wholesale.
Dear Old Convert, I am 49 years old. A cradle Catholic and I feel as if I have only been a Catholic for 3 or 4 years and I owe my formation solely to the internet and prayer as well. Vatican 2 has to go in the trash. We need a Vatican III to set things straight.
my2cents,
Well said. Got that FSSP? Got that FSSP laymen? “You can’t have one foot in Tradition and one foot in the New Order. You’ll just spin in circles and go nowhere!” That is the quote of the day.
That is one of the best ways of putting it that I ever heard!
I read Tito Cassini’s book “Pope Paul’s Last Mass” a long time ago but if I remember correctly he quoted Cardinal Suenens. The Cardinal was daydreaming about what he call “The Final Encounter” and wondering if it would be a new Jerusalem or a Vatican Council III! So really if anyone wants to try to downplay Vatican II, hoping to convince souls to get over it, I’m guessing that strategy won’t work. They probably have The Final Encounter in the works so something wicked this way comes.
I see we’re all afire to junk Vatican II and everything and everyone who was formed by it – priests, bishops etc.
–
How realistic is this? What do we expect to happen? Would Bishop Schneider, with or without other faithful bishops, simply issue a statement to the effect that he repudiates the past 50 years?
–
Then what? Would Rome say “well, ok then, we give. You guys take over, we’ll all retire. Go ahead return to the Church as it was in 1948.”
–
As well, we might ask just who do we have in mind to lead this charge? Name me one cardinal or bishop who has any standing that was of any influence prior to Vatical II. They are ALL gone. What we have are faithful bishops and priests who are faithful in spite of the past 50 years. But all they know is this recent past.
–
Who we have are Schneider, Burke, and a few others. Why repudiate them because they are not perfect? I tell you we need them. We can follow the good they do, and understand they are not ready, or able to chuck the whole thing.
–
There is not going to be a return. There will be collapse, and a very slow, painful rebuilding. Calling for a complete repudiation will create chaos and schism. We must trust that God will allow the collapse, and give us the grace we need to build Him a beautiful Bride once again when the dust settles.
Barbara,
Chaos and schism are already here and have been since at least Vatican II it is now a series of schisms within the chaos and schism. Bishops Schneider, Burke,Morlino and the others are adhering to Vatican II and offer the new mass. They are part of the new religion. We can not follow them until they repent.
To your question how realistic is this? God calls the shots we need to keep the Faith stay in a state of Grace and not compromise with the revolution. We have to trust God. Bishops Schneider, Burke,Morlino and the others have a duty to defend & teach the Faith. They have chosen to have one foot in Tradition and one foot in the New Order. That is a dangerous game that can end both feet in hell.
Hunker down: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zkKgAwnv-riY.k8_Q4-BgGRL4&hl=en
Is there an English translation online anywhere besides NovusOrdowatch?
The Novus Ordo people I’m trying to reach won’t trust it on their site and it’s not in English on the Vatican website.
I’d print it out but they’ve got “NovusOrdoWatch” watermarked all over the pdf. Same deal. They won’t touch it with a ten foot pole since it’s coming from a sede site.
The Bishop Schneiders and Burkes and such like could take a huge step forward by simply granting normal jurisdiction to the sspx in their diocese (guess Cardinal Burke no longer has one, but you get my drift). No written agreement, just a phone call to Fellay and a press release.
That’ll start the ball rolling anyway.
CraigV,
Pope Pius VI condemns the New Mass in 1794:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmlvDNe3rA0
CraigV,
I think that is a great idea if they were to profess the true doctrine and condemn error clearly while granting normal jurisdiction. I think the reality is the so called “good Bishops” really are with Vatican II and it’s reforms. So the chance of this happening naturally speaking is very low but Grace can change hearts. The churchmen need to convert & repent.
There is no natural way out of this. We done crossed the Rubicon a long long time ago. I’m sure you agree.
It’s gonna come now to the full blown physical chastisement.
my2cents,
Absolutely!!! Amen!!! Halleluja!!!
Got that SSPX?
We are in the greatest crisis the Church has every seen. Nothing will be clear cut. It is war. Hot war. Ever hear of the fog of war? That is what you see. What is hopeful, even amazing, is that the Holy Ghost (in my view) is protecting the SSPX and tradition with the human instruments available. Seriously, if the enemy inside and outside the Church really were united, they could crush the SSPX and tradition in the wink of an eye. There are so many ways they could do it. But it doesn’t happen. Ponder that and give praise….
Dear Barbara,
All it would take is for Bergoglio, or a successor, to convert to the Catholic Faith, repudiate Vatican II and its reforms, and being already legally designated, automatically receive the jurisdiction to rule, and become the Pope.
If some cardinals (even one would be sufficient) were to convert, repudiate Vatican II, publicly declare the see vacant, and call for a new conclave, this
act would remove from Bergoglio the title of valid election. It is even probable that this would apply to Novus Ordo diocesan bishops, who would accede
to true jurisdiction if they repudiated Vatican II.
The priesthood and episcopacy in the Novus Ordo is probably invalid, but even lay people can be nominated to ecclesiastical positions of authority. St.
Ambrose was not only a layman, but was not even a Catholic, when he was selected to be the bishop of Milan. The key is that, in order to obtain the
jurisdiction, a Novus Ordo bishop or cardinal would have to consent to be validly consecrated. God, in His infinite Providence, has preserved true
valid orders during this crisis in the Church. http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf
See my comment at the end of the thread.
Attention Italian readers (Mundabor or “Catholic at Rome” reading this? 😉 ),
–
It has been brought to the attention in this forum whether the translation of the introduction to the bull “Auctorem Fidei” of 1794 provided by Novus Ordo Watch:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/piusvi-auctorem-fidei.pdf
Is a faithful translation of the original in Italian:
http://digilander.libero.it/magistero/p6auctor.htm
–
Personally, I see no reason why NOW would be so foolish in discrediting themselves with a misleading translation, but these things are always good checking anyhow.
PS CraigV,
–
Strangely enough, I didn’t find a translation in English of the introductory part of the bull (other than NOW), which if anything makes the bull that much more important of a document.
…I can see WWIII in the horizon, just like in the pre WWI days there was a general expectation of a wide terrible conflagration (widely documented historically).
That’s my take anyhow.
Out of the ashes of WWIII might very well arise the “savior” of sinful men (the Anti-Christ, who will be revered as the long awaited Messiah by the Jews) and the Church will be left to confront the Anti-Christ head on (led by “Peter the Roman”?), at the end of which the Anti-Christ will be defeated by Christ, ushering in the “1000” (symbolical number) years of Peace, the “Pax Mariana” prophesied at Fatima (Revelation 20:1-6)
Regarding the bull, “Auctorem Fidei”, for anyone interested, I found an edition online with the complete introductory text, with the original Latin and a Spanish translation side by side:
https://books.google.es/books?id=5wOjJINE5nAC&printsec=frontcover&hl=es&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
It gets to the point where a Bergoglio is less poisonous than a seeming traditionalist who is in communion with Bergoglio and his conciliar institution; Bergoglio – the obvious fruit of VII and the Novus Ordo, is a blatantly non-Catholic heretic. Yet what gives credence to any bad fruit of the poisonous VII/N.O. tree? The face of traditionalism that promotes his voice as that of a true shepherd. Without traditionalist fidelity no one would labour under the delusion that the conciliar institution is Catholic.
–
A brief overview of the contradictions between the Catholic Faith and the ‘magisterium’ signed off at VII: the Catholic Church teaches that baptized Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are not saved unless they convert. VII teaches that they are saved (and further that they unconverted, as BXVI liked to say, help to ‘essentialize’ the Church). The Catholic Church teaches that Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are outside the Church. VII teaches that they are part of the Mystical Body of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics cannot receive the Sacraments; VII teaches that they can. The Catholic Church teaches that she alone has the God-given RIGHT to promulgate religion; VII teaches that all non-Catholic religions have an equal right to preach and exist. The Catholic Church denounces false religions. VII lauds them as worthy of respect and even participating in salvation. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the centre; VII teaches that Man is the centre and applies a dignity to the human being even apart from baptism (that is to those still in the grip of original sin which removed human dignity). And what about the Rites? All seven were ‘renewed’. (BTW the Offertory ‘officially’ was transformed into the ‘preparation of the gifts’ and became a lay activity – part of the process of Protesantising the liturgy – the non-Catholic collaborators for the N.O. mass were pleased with the new service because it was deemed to be no longer a priestly propitiatory rite (that is to say it had become a non-Catholic rite).
–
That VII and the N.O. universally promulgate error is the sure sign that they are not Catholic.
–
Fr Perrone on the magisterium. “The Church when she discharges her function of teaching performs a three-fold office – the office of witness, of judge and of magistera/teacher. She performs the office of magistra…daily wherein by verbal and by practical inculcation – viva voce praxi – she instructs to the faithful all those things which conduce to their training in pure doctrine and morality and leads them, as it were, by the hand along the path of eternal salvation; and that Christ has endowed His Church with infallibility for the performance of these several offices is the truth which Catholics maintain and all non-Catholics deny…”
I trust their translation, I just can’t get Novus Ordites to read the thing on their website.
Probably just an excuse. I can’t get them to read Pascendi either. People don’t want to read, they have no hunger for the truth anymore.
Operation of error.
I’m sure I’m being a simpleton …but what the heck..I keep hoping that if the sin nod turns out to be the horror show I’m preparing myself for …the likes of Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schnieder will have no choice but to dislodge those fence pickets from their prehensile tails …and I’m praying that a plethora of others will join them.
Hello Louie,
With all due respect, I think your analysis is at risk for being uncharitable to Bishop Schneider. It imports meaning to offhand statements that…don’t have a strong warrant.
More specifically: “the conciliar texts are not the benign, blameless, time-bound decrees he paints them to be.” It’s not at all clear that Schneider is painting the Vatican II documents as benign and blameless, given that he doesn’t offer any other characterization of them – only that they’ve been permitted to exercise much (much) more authority and impact than they deserved, being only documents of “a temporary value.” In any event, from talks I have heard him give, at any rate, “benign” and “blameless” are not fair characterizations of his views of the Conciliar documents. Bishop Schneider has, in the past, insisted that conciliar documents contain passages that are”controversial or ambiguous” and suffer from a “lack of precision;” he has offered more pointed, even vigorous, criticism of specific passages in Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes, and Unitatis Redintegratio. If he’s guilty of anything here, it’s failure to issue full-throated denunciations of the Council as soon as the subject came up.
The reality is that Bishop Schneider is – at least to my knowledge – the most tradition-minded bishop (at least that has left any public record of his views) in the Church that isn’t affiliated with the SSPX or one of the sedevacantist groups. I’m not sure that even Bishop Rifan is quite in his precincts. Is he ideal? No. But if we’re left to conclude that even Bishop Schneider is “infected with no small amount of the conciliar disease,” then I don’t see how we aren’t compelled to adopt sedevacantism. Because of Schneider is not salvageable, then no part of the visible Church has any hope left, not even Econe, and we might as well move into Fr. Cekada’s parish and accept the reality that the visible Church in America could fit into a Bed, Bath & Beyond.
Nether Schneider nor Burke is an ordinary at present – Cardinal Burke has not been one since he left St. Louis for the Apostolic Signatura in 2008, and Bishop Schneider is only an auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Maria Santissima in Astana, Kazakhstan. Schneider’s ordinary, Archbishop Peta, would have to make that call.
Richard M,
Your comment is a good snapshot into the problem. Objectively Bishop Schneider is in fact infected with the spiritual AIDS known as conciliarism. Bishop Schneider is still trying to save the council. Bishop Schneider’s view is that the Vatican II documents can be added to or updated and poof the problem is solved. Nonsense.
The problem is this you don’t see that Bishop Schneider is in fact infected with the spiritual AIDS known as conciliarism. The other problem is you think it is possibly uncharitable to point out that Bishop Schneider is a conciliarist. It also sounds like you are saying (well even if he is so what?).
I have to say also I hate the phrase “tradition-minded bishop” that is like saying “half pregnant” Either one is a Catholic or one is a conciliarist objectively before God that is what really matters. Either one is fully resisting the Vatican II reforms or he is not. Bishop Schneider is not fully resisting the Vatican II reforms.
Your comment “I don’t see how we aren’t compelled to adopt sedevacantism.” Shows clearly that you have not understood Archbishop Lefebvre. I would agree with you if we did not have Archbishop Lefebvre. Logically a man would have two choices 1) sedevacantism 2) modernism is Catholicism ( What Bishop Schneider, Voris and the FSSP do) Thanks be to God we have the writings and teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre. I suggest you read all his books if you have not read them. Here is Chapter one of Open Letter to Confused Catholics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_xMFYxiX2I
Almighty God is not asking us to choose between to false choices 1)modernism 2) sedevacantism
We must stay in the Church. We must stay Catholic. We must remain united to the Holy Father. We must also completely resist Vatican II,the new mass and all the errors.
Google: 1974 declaration archbishop lefebvre
Archbishop Lefebvre’s Open Letter was the very first thing I read following my Damascus moment in the NO church. It started me on my journey. I thought it very good.
Well, now they can read the latin original if they so wish, if they make the excuse that they don’t trust the translation… 😉
(it’s on the google books link above)
It’s grotesquely pathetic that novus ordites are so wimpish that they can’t stomach pascendi either…
Talk about lack of virility in the conciliar church…
It’s frustrating as hell. To question ANYTHING is to say Christ’s promise has been broken. That’s where they’re coming from.
They get spoon-fed ridiculous straw men answers on Catholic Answers and refuse to look further. As if Christ’s promise was to Karl Leating
Keating that is.
It’s called willful blindness – a common problem.
“The problem is this you don’t see that Bishop Schneider is in fact infected with the spiritual AIDS known as conciliarism.”
I think that, before drawing such a conclusion, we would have to define “conciliarism,” and then actually look at what Bp. Schneider has actually said here, or elsewhere, to see if that claim fairly characterizes those statements, and to what degree. It is not a light claim to make. In this interview, that really has not been done – and there really isn’t much to go on in this interview, really.
The position of the SSPX is worth clarifying. The 1974 declaration by Archbp. Lefebvre says, in key part: “…we refuse …to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.” This is something short of a categorical rejection of the Council per se. It rejects tendencies that became manifest during the Council’s proceedings, and the reforms that took place afterward; but it carefully avoids stating that the entire Council is being rejected (even if few doubt that the good archbishop and his confreres had little love for it). Which is just as well, since it would have created awkward questions for Archbishop Lefebvre, who after all (along with Bp. de Castro Mayer) did sign those documents, including even Dignitatis Humanae, the most problematic of the bunch.
Which may explain why Bishop Fellay recently affirmed that the Society accepted “95%” of Vatican II. So is Bishop Fellay “infected with the spiritual AIDS known as conciliarism?” I know folks in the Resistance make that claim; but it isn’t clear to me that Louie believes that, or for that matter, you.
On the other hand, it leaves unexplained which bishops are *not* infected with Conciliarism. If Schneider is off the reservation, I think we have to assume that ALL “regularized” 5,100 bishops of the Latin and Eastern Rite Church are, too, Bishop Rifan included. Who does that leave? The three SSPX bishops? The Resistance typically claims they are inflected, too. Which leaves us with Bishops Williamson and Faure, and a fistful or two of sedevancantist bishops, depending on whether one accepts Thuc-line succession, etc (in short, they might not be Conciliarist, but they might not be bishops, either). Of course, one might entertain the possibility that some of these, even if bishops, may have problems other than Conciliarism…
I’m not asking anyone to obfuscate or ignore things. My faith doesn’t rise or fall on the orthodoxy of Bishop of Schneider, or any other particular bishop. I’m only asking for a fair exercise of charity, and showing one’s homework.
A practical agreement (as in recognize the sspx without compromise and as they are) without a doctrinal agreement will not be the end of the fight but it would be a victorious battle. It would be just and no one could complain that the sspx is schismatic. There have always been bad popes. If you are under one in a canonical structure, then that is normal, just and does not mean you agree with the evil of the bad pope. St Thomas says that one must at least desire to have a proper canonical status. If not then he is in danger of schism. He also says that if it is not your fault that you don’t have proper canonical status then you are justified as LONG AS YOU STILL DISIRE TO HAVE A PROPER CANONICAL STATUS. Archbishop Lefebvre always wanted a proper canonical status but was always denied one because he would not compromise. The same is true of today’s sspx.
@piokolby just wait till October. That is when things will really start to get bad with schisms.
Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there?
Jeremiah 8:22
I disagree even if I was a sede. How can a non Catholic elect a a pope who is not Catholic who then designates Some non Catholics to be Cardinals…..so I’m and so on. The formal/material theory seems novel to me. Do you know of any theologians who believe this before vatican ii?
A Critical Thinker,
Much of what you say makes good Catholic sense. Clearly the SSPX Bishops & Priests want proper canonical status. Also the laymen I know want a proper canonical status but I personally know of no SSPX cleric or laymen who wants a proper canonical status by sacrificing the doctrine as the FSSP did.
I agree that if proper canonical status was given no one in the councilor church could argue that the SSPX is in schism but the real question is are those in the councilor church in schism now? They are the ones with new rites,a new mass and new theology. In other words what do some of them think the SSPX is in schism with today? Clearly the SSPX is Catholic and always has been on Dogma and doctrine.
This is why in my judgment this matter should stay 100% of the time on doctrine and doctrine alone. Lets get to the root of the matter. Vatican II is a new religion.
I would say that all regularized bishops are infected even if some mean well. As time went on Lefebvre made it clear that he did reject Vatican ii because it did have errors. He signed the documents because of ignorance and because he thought the Pope knew what right and wrong. One interesting thing to point out about Bishop Williamson is that he said that you could go to the new Mass if you thought it did more good than harm on June 28 I believe. He made it seem like it was a personal choice and no one could be sure if that choice was right or wrong under certain circumstances.
I agree with what you accept maybe the last paragraph. We should also be cocerned with winning souls over.
” A man can know nothing about the judgments of God. He alone is the one who takes account of all and is able to judge the hearts of each one of us, as He alone is our Master. Truly it happens that a man may do a certain thing which seems to be wrong out of simplicity, and there may be something about it which makes more amends to God than your whole life; how are you going to sit in judgment and constrict your own soul? And should it happen that he has fallen away, how do you know how much and how well he fought; how much blood he sweated before he did it? Perhaps so little fault can be found in him that God can look on his action as if it were just, for God looks on his labor and all the struggle he had before he did it, and has pity on him. And do you know this, and what God has spared him for? Are you going to condemn him for this and ruin your own soul? And how do you know what tears he has shed about it before God? You may well know about the sin but do you not know about the repentance?”
— St. Dorotheos of Gaza, Discourses and Sayings
Richard,
I think that, before drawing such a conclusion, we would have to define “conciliarism”
False Catholics do not need to write a doctrinal declaration defining conciliarism. Catholics only need to follow the Popes of Tradition and the Dogmatic councils. The Popes before Vatican II condemned the errors in Vatican II. Read The Popes against Modern Error by Tan Books.
You have the whole thing flipped upside down it is not a question of what Bishop Schneider says it is what he does not say that is the problem. In his interview with Voris he comes up and makes clear the three major points of error in Vatican II. These errors are religious liberty, collegiality and ecumenism. He comes right up to the errors and fails to condemn the errors. Why? the collegiality of the council!
Bishop Schneider upholds the collegiality of Vatican II in his interview with Voris and fails to do his duty as a result. Bishop Schneider does not need permission from a mason in Rome to uphold the pre Vatican II magisterium. Bishop Schneider has a duty to resist Vatican II yet he says “let’s fix it”
The Church does not work this way. God does not work this way. You ask “so is Bishop Fellay infected with the spiritual AIDS known as conciliarism?”
I do not know. It is unclear. I hope not. I do not think so. I give him the benefit of the doubt.
“Bishop Fellay recently affirmed that the Society accepted “95%” of Vatican II.”
Yes sadly these confusing words came from the superior general of the SSPX. These words are tricky to say the least. Everyone who has studied the issue knows that much of Vatican II restates past defined de fide mixed in with error.
According to St. Thomas the whole thing goes into the trash as a result. That does not mean however that 100% of Vatican II is heresy. If what Bishop Fellay means to say is that only 5% of Vatican II is error I can understand that kind of language at the level of discussion with Rome not at the level of doctrinal declarations with Rome.
Doctrinal declarations need to be free of error. Despite what the Resistance says the 1974 declaration of the Archbishop still stands in the SSPX I was taught it from the pulpit this past week. I was on a SSPX retreat in July and I was taught it there as well. It should also be noted that Bishop Fellay Has Renounced April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration Text:
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/953ab2028f6e49e8149ffba1c7b51918-119.html
I met Bishop Williamson after he was kicked out of the SSPX. I respect him. I make no apologies for my fondness for him. I owe him a great deal intellectually. When I asked him about the matters surrounding Bishop Fellay it was clear to me this was more of a matter between them and less about doctrine. Not to say it had nothing to do with doctrine but this was a matter between the Bishops. This is how Father Gruner viewed the matter I think Father was wise in his approach.
I withhold judgement on the consecration of Bishop Faure.
“If Schneider is off the reservation, I think we have to assume that ALL “regularized” 5,100 bishops of the Latin and Eastern Rite Church are, too, Bishop Rifan included.”
I do not know Bishop Rifan or anything about him. Judging on actions yes I think it is reasonable to say a great many of the 5,100 bishops of the Latin and Eastern Rite Church are gone and no longer Catholic objectively. If that is not the case they are just cowards holding the true Faith but afraid to suffer for it. God knows I do not. Vatican II is a killer.
I view sedevancantism as another religion. I think it is a heresy that is not yet declared. I could be wrong. But it was born in America in the 70’s……….I mean come on……common sense. I would avoid the Thuc-line succession and sedevancantism for sure 100% of the time. At this point in my view the SSPX is a green light. The Resistance is a green light. Select Eastern rite liturgies are a green light.
As to your points about the 1974 declaration of the Archbishop. I have looked at the question of is Vatican II a council at all vs. Vatican II is just a pastoral council. I hear what Father Hesse is saying frankly I do not know the answer to this question. In a way it does not matter Vatican II is not binding and must be rejected wholesale following Catholic principles. What matters to us laymen is that Vatican II is not a Dogmatic council. A future Pope or council will need to deal with this mess we laymen can not. Ave Maria!
A Critical Thinker,
Bishop Williamson is wrong telling that woman that she can attend the new mass. Catholics should participate in the new mass:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiuXKo0CwoM
A Critical Thinker,
Should Catholics Attend the New Mass? – Part II of II – Episode 15 SSPX FAQ Videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hZrRGMs6CY
Quote of the day:
“Fruits of V2 ‘You don’t have to have a doctor’s degree in agriculture to know the difference between a good apple and a rotten apple.’ -Fr. Clarence Kelly”
From one of the comments in the Remnant’s latest article describing what is probably Francis’ “low-light” thus far for the year 2015.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/1919-less-than-amazing-grace-inside-the-vatican
Francis bowing down his head practically for the entire duration of the spectacle to a sentimental Proddie heretical song with bishops swingin’ along and with oh so emotional and warm and fuzzy feelings flowing among the clueless “catholic” charismatic crowd?
What a revolting charade.
No I don’t, for the simple reason that the current situation has never existed before. The question now arises for the first time. The Cassiciacum Thesis was developed by Bishop Guerard des Louriers, (the ghost writer of the Ottaviani Intervention), to cope with the current situation according to Catholic Tradition and Theology. Avery good exposition of it may be read here:
http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf
Remembering Fr Gruner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_VCEPmMuKo
The Catholicism of 1925 years is another religion to that of the NO and the neither fish, nor fowl SSPX position? Absolutely! That is so right! The sedevacantist religion is that Catholic religion from 33 to 1958 – pure, intact and undefiled.
“I view sedevancantism as another religion. I think it is a heresy that is not yet declared. I could be wrong. But it was born in America in the 70’s……….I mean come on……common sense. I would avoid the Thuc-line succession and sedevancantism for sure 100% of the time. At this point in my view the SSPX is a green light. The Resistance is a green light. Select Eastern rite liturgies are a green light. ”
Questions:
Wasn’t the SSPX born in the 1970s in Europe?
What is “the Resistance”?
“the resistance is a green light” ; “select Eastern liturgies are a green light” – on whose authority? Aren’t all the Eastern groups sede-vacantist (or do you believe that like the SSPX and ecumenical protestants, jews, muslims, budhists etc.) that they are “Catholic” because they acknowledge the pope as long he has no authority/they don’t have to obey?
SSPV is a U.S. group that doesn’t support negotiating with and/or changing the practice of the faith in order to negotiate with a set of people you claim has lost the faith (i.e. use ’62 missal to further negotiations w/Rome; use priests (and bishops) ordained in new rite; say mass in churches and use hosts consecrated by NO priests) – line of succession is not Thuc. Also don’t agree w/SSPX granting annulments. You can research/contact them yourself if you are interested (I am no expert). Believe Sanborn/Dolan & Cekada broke w/them due to accepting consecrations by Thuc.
http://www.sspv.org/
Can see consecration info here – also listen to sermons.
http://www.wftsradio.com/
Best arguments against SSPX by Vatican Catholic.com “The Truth About The SSPX, The SSPX-MC, And Similar Groups” most persuasive against SSPX (points out +Lef has been dead for almost a quarter of a century now and who knows what he would say at this point). [believe this is a “feenyite” group – but good arguments.]
However, when so obvious that Rome has lost the faith (indeed so vicious that Pope has invited David Geffen a NOTORIOUS sodomite to improve the image of the church w/Oprah Winfrey and other Chicagoans. One can only imagine he wants his face on the cover of Rolling Stone to sell mass sodomy after the synod (as happened right after grammys had a mass gay wedding in 2014). And yet in 6/27/15 interview Fellay stated, “In my opinion, we are on the eve of important events that we cannot yet define very well. I would like to call for prayers and end with a gaze towards God.” We see Schneider, w/Remnant, CFN, Rorate, Ferrara (Fr. Gruner is buried by Fellay), this blog and even Mueller now all pushing the SSPX. I wouldn’t touch SSPX w/ten foot plague pole at this point lest I die like Reilly (USSR) — seems to me Rome is running it or at least infiltrated. Can’t see how someone can join forces with, be in communion with, or swear allegiance to those who don’t have the faith and who openly declare, teach and profess a different faith.
TWN,
Wasn’t the SSPX born in the 1970s in Europe?
Yes with full Church approval. The SSPX is a work of the Church.
What is “the Resistance”?
The Resistance is a group of Catholic Priests and a Bishop who were tossed out of the SSPX.
Aren’t all the Eastern groups sede-vacantist (or do you believe that like the SSPX and ecumenical protestants, jews, muslims, budhists etc.) that they are “Catholic” because they acknowledge the pope as long he has no authority/they don’t have to obey?
No not all Eastern rite Catholics are sedevacantists. Sedevacantists are not Catholic. The Catholic Church has 23 rites the Latin rite (Roman rite) being the largest but the Eastern rites number 22 each has it own Liturgy and traditions but are fully Catholic.
SSPV, the diamond brothers and sedevancantism as such are not Catholic and should be avoided as a matter of salvation. Sedevancantism is a false solution to a real problem. “Feenyite” groups are heretical.
Here is a breakdown of the false religion of Sedevancantism https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_jtouIg6ElbgquobR0QCzXa3pzlpw91r
I wouldn’t get to hung up on that 95% quote of Fellay. I think he means 5% is error that is directly contradictory with Tradition. Father Hesse made a similar statement but he said 90%
A Critical Thinker,
“I wouldn’t get to hung up on that 95% quote of Fellay. I think he means 5% is error that is directly contradictory with Tradition. Father Hesse made a similar statement but he said 90%”
The distinction that needs to be made is that Bishop Fellay is the superior general of the SSPX in talks with modernist Rome and Father Hesse was giving talks to laymen. I get what they mean when they toss numbers around like 90% or 95% in loose conversation.
At the level of a doctrinal preamble this is unacceptable. Catholics must maintain a wholesale rejection of Vatican II. Modernists can nor be given an inch. Not to mention to craft a doctrinal preamble in that way way would contradict St. Thomas. Bishop Fellay needs to stay strong and fight these devils.
Catholicism trumps modernism.
St John Crysostom: “God drowned the world, caused Sodom to be burned by fire, and the sea to swallow up the army of the Egyptians for it is He who has stricken the guilty with tall the blows which have fallen upon them, and will do still more. But, you say, God is merciful. Then are all these things merely words? Does the rich man who despised Lazarus receive no punishment? Are the foolish virgins in no way rejected by the Bridegroom? Will not he who was at the wedding feast with soiled garments in no wise perish, bound hand and foot? Will not he who exacted the last farthing from his companion be delivered to the tormentors? Do you think that God will confine Himself to threats? To me it seems easy to prove the contrary and we may judge beforehand what God will do in the future, from what He has said and done in the past. Let us then have constantly in mind the dread tribunal, chains fastened for all eternity, outer darkness, gnashing of teeth and the gnawing and poisonous worm.”
Richard wrote: The position of the SSPX is worth clarifying. The 1974 declaration by Archbp. Lefebvre says, in key part: “…we refuse …to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.”
–
The ‘logic’ of this position is that Eternal Rome must wait upon Modernist Rome to permit it ‘to teach, to rule, and to sanctify’, in Christ’s name. Meanwhile Modernist Rome refuses both the temporal power of Christ’s Catholic Church and the also publicly refuses to profess the Catholic faith, instead professing the elevation of error and the dismissal of Christ’s rule over the temporal (VII fact). This refusal is what the best Catholic minds saw as the ‘great apostasy’ of which St Paul spoke. So, Modernist Rome is a vehicle of the Great Apostasy; yet Eternal Rome must look to her for permission to exist..? Does heaven consult the devil an anything?
–
“…the SSPX has lived a life of an on-again, off-again romance with the Modernists in the Vatican.Nearly every year rumors swirl about some sort of negotiations with the Modernists, and of some imminent marriage to them. This most recent episode, however, has been by far the closest that the marriage has come, and events point to an eventual legalization of the SSPX by the Modernists. It is this idea of recognize and resist which principally distinguishes us from the Society of Saint Pius X. For this group, since its inception in 1970, has never answered the burning question: Is Vatican II Catholic? Is the religion which has emerged in our local parishes since Vatican II the Catholic religion, or is it a new religion? The answer to this question is critical; indeed, it involves heaven or hell for each of us. For if the Vatican II religion is indeed Catholicism, then it would be a mortal sin to resist it. If, on the other hand, it is a new religion, then it would be a mortal sin to recognize it, and to recognize the Novus Ordo hierarchy as having the power of Christ to teach, to rule, and to sanctify in His name. For if we recognize such a power in them, then we must necessarily say that it is Christ and His Holy Church which has handed us this defection from the Faith. But this is blasphemy…” http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/LogicalChickens2.pdf
Leo XIII XII: Satis Cognitum “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition.”
–
PS. Bp Williamson’s most unfortunate ‘teaching’ on religious worship as ‘personal choice’ is completely protestant and not at all Catholic: “On June 28th of this year, Bishop Williamson gave a conference to a gathering of people in Connecticut, followed by questions and answers. A woman asked him whether it was permissible to attend the New Mass. Bishop Williamson says that, under certain circumstances, it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass. Here I will analyze his answer. I must quote him heavily, since I do not want to misrepresent his position in any way by presenting merely a few selected comments…”
http://inveritateblog.com/2015/07/29/christ-or-belial/
CMTV has removed several of my comments recently. Facts relating to Pope Francis’s objectively heretical statements or appointments and promotions of heretics and anti-Catholic atheists, and persecution of Faithful bishops and priests, is not permitted. All reason seems to have been dispensed with there. The last comment removed was a reply by me to someone else, which said “Bishop Schneider has said the SSPX ought to be canonically recognised as they are.”
Thanks for keeping things pure, Louie and keeping the truth out in front of us. It’s imperative that we keep the goal of Traditionalism and not fall short when prelates within the Novus Ordo throw us a bone. God bless Bishop Schneider, he is taking the first steps to Tradition but has a few Conciliar robes to cast off:+)
I just loved the fact that +Schneider gave a pass to the SSPX right after CMTV posted that awful Bishop Morlino article about them. CMTV reported on this interview with +Schneider but totally skipped the SSPX part. When asked about it in the com box, CMTV delusionally said that what +Schneider said does not conflict with their viewpoint on the SSPX. How can they think straight with all the tap dancing they do?
God bless~
Lynda – bless, I know I’m in good company then, since I’ve had the same (‘bizarrely’ though my comments have come back to me with responses on my personal email – but not published by cmtv…I guess they wanna have the ‘last’ say.).
Generally speaking. The only ‘last say’ is that of God – and, no VII and your hindurabbiimamwhatever delusions…you do not know God because you refuse Him – Father, Son, Holy Ghost, One God, Undivided.
Great piece.
But God, apparently, has not demanded recompense from either St John 23, or St. JP 2.
The beatification of JP2 is troubling to me, as it seems to make the Holy Spirit a co-conspirator against the Church. JP2 was a big V2 booster, and his sanctity, now official, rubs off on the Council.
Bishop Morlino & Cardinal Mueller seem to agree on the SSPX, but how their words can be reconciled with the lifting of the “excomunications” I have no idea; & I have no idea how their words can be reconciled with the words of Abp. Schneider. All four cannot be correct. They do not agree. They contradict each other.
What is the “ordinary Catholic”, who is not a theologian, canonist, bishop, cardinal, or pope to make of all this ? As far as I’m concerned, the SSPX is Catholic – far more evidently so than certain clergy of episcopal rank in certain hierarchies.
The great evil of these canonical and theological perplexities, is that they affect the good of souls who are unequipped to resolve them. This is why it so great an evil that bishops and popes went about the “hermeneutic of continuity”, without once using their God-given authority to explain to the Faithful exactly what it meant. Benedict XVI was perfectly equipped to teach with full authority what the authentic doctrinal meaning of the phrase is – for no-one in the Church equals or exceeds the Pope in authority. But not a whisper. What is the good of a “Mother and Teacher” who refuses to teach, who refuses to resolve controversies, who abstains from bringing clarity where there is confusion ? Or does it not matter what the Church believes, or who is to be counted among her members ?
Dear Jimmy, You explain very well the agony and torture inflicted upon the Faithful by the apostates “running” the Church. Blessed Michael, the Arcgangel, defend us in battle . . .
Dear Salvemur, CMTV ought not be using your personal email.
Amen.
The Trembling Bride
The Pope has excommunicated himself from the Church for adultery? Spiritual adultery is the worst kind. By insisting that unrepentant adulterers be received into Christian fellowship within the Church, Pope Francis has become a partaker in another man’s sin. Pity. He is doing no favor to the adulterer by patting him on the back on his way to hell. This is not compassion. It’s a damnable lie. And every catholic knows it. The Pope is not a catholic. The Church has always taught what our Adorable Saviour taught, that divorce was an adulterous thing to do, and to marry another was a mortal crime that kills all sanctifying grace in the soul from Baptism – A catholic excommunicates himself from Christ when he marries outside the Church. This is the reality of the situation, I’m afraid: Mark 10:11 – Read it and weep.
Ladies and gentlemen, Holy Matrimony is a Sacrament of the Holy Roman Catholic Church as instituted by Christ Himself. The catholic cleric has no authority over this Mystery. He is merely a witness to what the two say there before him that day, and the witness there to behold it – The two become One-Flesh. The Marriage vow creates a bond that is closer than blood relations…
Saint Paul follows his Saviour’s example when he hearkens back to the Genesis account to describe the relationship between Christ and His Church; for, “this cause” he says. What cause? For the establishment of the Sacrament of holy marriage, for without it there is no Catholic Religion!
Genesis 3:15 is often referred to as, “THE PROTOEVANGELIUM OR FIRST GOSPEL.” I’m convinced that Genesis 2:24 is a foreshadowing of the marriage between Saint Mary and Her Joseph, just as sure as Genesis 3:15 is where we see Christ and His Mary.
From henceforth, Genesis 2:24 will be referred to as, “THE ‘PROTOMARITO’ OR ‘FIRST MARRIAGE.”
Hail! Full of Grace! Saint Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost to Conceive Her own Savoiur, only after She was given to Saint Joseph in marriage. Mary gave Her Immaculate Heart to Her Saviour, only after She had given it in marriage to Saint Joseph. Her first Love was and always will be Saint Joseph!
There is a dead corpse in the Church, and it stinketh; an adulterous body of death, seated right there before us. Beware. It’s got the Church by the neck, and seeks to suffocate Her to death. And how does the enemy plan to do this? By corrupting the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and causing the Church to eat damnation to Herself! The Church of God is under an attack the likes of which the world has never seen. Satan would seek to thrust a dagger forthright into the Heart of the Church, in the Sacrament of Her Matrimony, as the knight falls on his own sword. The Father has chosen to use the Bonds of Holy Matrimony as an analogy of His relationship with His Church, and right now, there are few things as important as protecting the integrity of this analogy. What we are seeing the Pope of Rome doing, on the other hand, is tearing asunder the Marriage between the Son of God and His bride. If successful, this would be a death blow to the Catholic Faith, for without Holy Matrimony, there is no Marriage Supper of the Lamb!
The Church, Pope Francis has been quoted as having said, looks upon those in such situations with a maternal heart and, “always looks for the good and the salvation of persons,” in reference to Catholics in adulterous marriages. Really? How can there be any good in an adulterous relationship? What virtue is there in having a commitment to doing something that is wrong even if you do it with another exclusively? Can it really be a good thing to do this forever, to pray while doing it and to do it publicly? What is it that we have here? A commitment to live in gross sin exclusively with another, to do it till death, and pray while doing it. But the Church’s maternal heart can be found in the loving embrace of the tender and desirable arms of the Mother of God – The Holy, Spotless and Lovely Mary. To attach the heart of our Mother to that of a whore-monger is an unspeakable outrage of skullduggery against Her Immaculate and Sacred Heart – It is a suicide mission. Mary, the most powerful of all of God’s creations! St. Anthony, the hammer of heretics, learned at Her feet. She must be so very beautiful! Oh, if we only knew the love that my Mary has for our fallen hearts, we could not contain it. True devotion to Mary can drive heresy out of the heart of the obstinate Professed Religious heretic, by a recognition of Her Majestic authority to reveal that the Catholic Church is the True Church, and the realization that without Mary the Gospels would have never been written.
But, I must forewarn you my ordained friend, you will be devastated. It is a great wonder to me how Christ can send His Mother to us with the way she is so mistreated. I couldn’t do it. I could not send my mother to do something for me knowing that she would be so hurt, so maligned and outraged by such barbaric and ungrateful men as Mary is! Knowing that She would be blasphemed by every false and abominable counterfeit misrepresentation of Her True presence by minions of the fallen angel who have been wholly given over to the rebellion of their own hearts; attributing to the Holy Mother of God the attributes and character of the despicable imagination of their own lusts. But He does! He does! Is it little wonder then, why He may be hesitant to allow His Mother to be exposed to such trauma? I don’t see how He can do it.
A rescue attempt by the Mother of God can truly be a last ditch effort at converting the hardened and obstinate Professed Religious sinner. So, I must warn you. If Jesus Christ sends His Mother in an attempt to persuade the Professed Religious obstinate heretic to forsake his sin, and he rejects Her – he is doomed.
Speaking on behalf of the young children of these adulterous unions, Pope Francis insists that there is an, “urgency of developing in our community a real welcome toward the persons who are living in such situations.” Our, “language and attitudes,” must change with the times as well it seems, as Pope Francis struggles to reconcile the Church’s responsibility to influence parents to raise their children in the faith, while they continue to live in sin, with the clear teaching of the Church that what they are doing is morally repugnant. How can these people ever hope to raise any children in the Catholic Faith if they are committing adultery right in front of their faces every day?
Their children are illegitimate quite frankly, and he knows this right well. To, “hold them at a distance from the life of the community, as if they were excommunicated,” Pope Francis opines concerning the adulterous couple, will somehow prevent the Church from catechizing the next generation of children of these adulterous relationships which seem to be so prevalent in the Church today. This is a real dilemma for those in the Vatican who have created all these societal anomalies over the last fifty years with their Vatican 2ew theology for which they now pretend to offer remedy. I’m sorry. If the Romans do not offer up this compromise, their church will disintegrate.
Pope Francis refers to Pope John Paul II’s, Familiaris Consortio, and demands that we must distinguish between those who caused the breakup of the initial marriage and those who endured it. This sounds so very familiar to the protestant ideology of the “innocent spouse” in such situations. The Pope is here representing Christ as replacing death with divorce, in a roundabout way. But is this not who our Jesus died for? The guilty party? This is nonsense to say that there is an innocent spouse in a divorce who is somehow thereby justified in contracting a subsequent marriage while their true spouse is still alive.
This is not Catholicism. It is Calvinism, of the worst kind. We don’t execute the adulterer, no, we simply divorce the offending party and then go on to marry another, while the guilty spouse must eek out an existence, void of any hope as one who is “spiritually” dead. After all, we’re Catholics, and would never advocate that mortal sins in God’s Moral Government, should also be capital crimes in the civil law as well! Ladies and gentlemen, what the Pope is doing here is rotten at the foundation. It’s disgusting. No wonder he nearly got a standing ovation, “tell us what we want to hear! Or else!” the crown jeers…
RbM
This is the terrible and incontrovertible truth. Oh, to hear this preached aloud by a bishop! Or even, a priest. Thank you for speaking the truth.
You go from stating, “I view sedevancantism as another religion. I think it is a heresy that is not yet declared. I could be wrong (could you really?!). But it was born in America in the 70’s…” to declaring that “Sedevacantists are not Catholic.”[it’s odd how all who claim there is a pope, endlessly declare and pontificate]
You say SSPX is a work of the church, but BL died excommunicate and ordained both priests and bishops after being expressly forbidden to do so by the pope (he actually ordained Dolan, Sanborn, Cekada, Jennings & Kelly). Here’s a 1976 video of BL speaking on the pope – suggest you check out 3:50 -7:08– and remember BL has been dead 24 years—many things that we know now were unknown to him (h/t to the Dimonds).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzvNrX-FTyk
Imagine BL calling ‘Vicar of Christ on Earth’ the man attempting to usher sodomite ‘families’, adulterers and fornicators into heaven and the Wedding Supper of the Lamb because (wait for it) times have changed! You ‘resisters’ who won’t cash in your Diocesan Party membership and even while pressing the claim that the SSPX is Catholic (so you can get your blog donations and speaking engagements) continue to ‘worship’ at the diocesan ‘traditional Latin masses’ run by baby murderers, euthanasia and sodomite supporters (men you call ‘politicians’ instead of bishops (when they are really heinous criminals)), who drape the crucifix in the sodomite flag, worship mother earth, deny articles of the faith (such as heaven, hell, judgment and that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day and ascended into heaven) best start calling yourselves Scribes who aid the Fairysees – you hide the filthy, rotten truths like sodomite Geffen being invited by the ‘Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth’ to consult with him on improving the image of “the Church” [what blogs but the sedevacantist blogs cover the truths like these (point to one!). Is the Truth not Catholic?], while pompously (and most insincerely) declaring “We’ll be in Rome to cover (up and make palatable) the Synod (pure indefensible evil)”.
Sts. Peter, James and John continued to worship at the Jewish Temple after Jesus Christ’s resurrection, but like St. Paul (and John the Baptist and Jesus Christ) they were thrown out, beaten, denounced to the Romans and eventually executed at the behest of the corrupt men who’d taken control of God’s Temple. They would not be silent so that they could get more converts (imagine John the Baptist telling his followers, “Be silent about Herod’s marriage so we can preach repentance in the Temple and win more converts”). If SSPX were truly ‘resisting’ i.e. preaching the gospel, the same would happen to them. Jesus Christ himself said it would (and it happened to BL), but at this moment Rome is embracing SSPX, FSSP is totally under Rome’s control & never says anything (I guess a paper is occasionally published in some journal somewhere or on Rorate (exclusive!)) and the ‘resisters’ under Wmson are now declaring ‘the new mass’ a means of salvation if your conscience tends that way; the HVF, CFN, Vortex & Remnant resisters won’t even leave their diocesan ‘masses’ (how do you think everyone died in Sodom, in the flood and in Jerusalem?). Go take a look at the Temple mount at this moment and tell me if it doesn’t send a shiver down your spine that the man you claim to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth is worshiping “the same God” w/their descendants today?
You can claim you are “Catholic” and that SSPX is “Catholic” and the ‘resisters’ and the easterners (is divorce and remarriage “Catholic”?) are all “Catholic”, but your judge is Jesus Christ – hope your declarations convince Him.
Michael Voris found himself in a pickle after reading the good bishop’s words regarding SSPX and reached out to him for ‘clarification’. On the CM site, Friday, you find, ‘In exclusive communications with ChurchMilitant.com, His Excellency states:….’ and so begins the nine short clarifications with all the rest the usual trope you’ve come to expect from CM, ie, “schismatic group whose priests are suspended a divinis and exercise no legitimate ministry.” Bishop Athansius lists 9 points to ‘clarify’ for Michael Voris. Three of the nine points begin, ‘I have not said’ or ‘I never said’. Interestingly, it’s obvious Voris misled the bishop that readers were misconstruing his very well placed words and he replied to the bogus charge, ‘I have not said that there are no reasons which would hinder a canonical recognition of the SSPX.’ A search of the com box shows not one comment with that interpretation. So too, the second point, ‘I have not said that the current canonical situation of the SSPX is OK.’ No commenter suggested that. Another, ‘I never said that I support the positions of the SSPX about Vatican II.’ No commenter suggested that, either. Voris has to be devastated by this point, ‘I said that the SSPX should be received as they are, meanwhile.’ Hallelujah!
When I said in a comment under the original post on CMTV that Bishop Schneider had said that, CMTV removed my comment. It removes any comment not to their liking.