Readers may have noticed the unfortunate fact that questions concerning the formal act of correction weren’t broached in the recent interview of Cardinal Raymond Burke (commented upon in yesterday’s post).
Was this merely an oversight on the part of the interviewer, or is it more likely the case that all concerned agree not to mention that particular elephant in the room beforehand?
Whatever the case may be, in a January 6th interview with Rorate Caeli, Bishop Athanasius Schneider was asked about it, and given the fact that he and Cardinal Burke are cut from the same cloth (conciliar, neo-conservative) his answer may very well provide insight into the reason why the formal act of correction has yet to be delivered.
In fact, based on his response, one may well believe that it will never come.
When asked what he considers to be the reason for the delay, His Excellency replied:
In the face of the current temporal and partial eclipse of the function of the Papal Magisterium concerning concretely the defense and practical enforcement of the indissolubility the marriage, the members of the episcopal and of the cardinalitial colleges have to assist the Pope in this Magisterial duty through public professions of the immutable truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium — that means what all the Popes and the entire episcopate during all times – have taught concerning the doctrine and the sacramental practice of the marriage.
In other words, if the pope is unwilling to defend, in practical terms, the indissolubility of marriage, as is his duty, then cardinals and bishops must “assist” him by making their own “public professions” of this self-same immutable truth.
To many readers this may appear rather unobjectionable, but in reality it is immensely weak and falls woefully short of the duty incumbent upon all Catholics, and much more, the Successors to the Apostles.
In truth, these men have a sacred duty, for the salvation of those souls entrusted to their care, to make “public professions” of – that is, to teach – the immutable truths clearly expressed in Catholic doctrine, both in season and out of season; i.e., whether the man who claims to be pope is willing to do so or not.
They also, however, have the duty and the authority to defend the truths of the faith when they are under attack; i.e., they are called to directly confront and to condemn both heresy and the purveyors of heresy, and this for the good of souls.
As the bitter experience of that last fifty-plus years most certainly attests, men-of-the-Council, who fancy themselves dispensers of the “medicine of mercy,” have not the Catholic cojones to do such a thing.
In the present situation, apparently they have come to believe that a “formal act of correction” is a little bit too much like an act of condemnation for their comfort.
When asked what will happen if “Francis continues to officially approve of bishops’ conferences giving Holy Communion to some divorced and remarried,” Bishop Schneider (while providing the requisite citation of the Almighty Council) made it rather clear that, at least insofar as he is concerned, formally correcting him isn’t an option.
There exists the following principle of the traditional Catholic doctrine since the first centuries: “Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur”, i.e., the first episcopal chair in the Church (the chair of the Pope) cannot be judged by anybody. When bishops remind the Pope respectfully of the immutable truth and discipline of the church, they don’t judge hereby the first chair of the Church, instead they behave themselves as colleagues and brothers of the Pope. The attitude of the bishops towards the Pope has to be collegial, fraternal, not servile and always supernaturally respectful, as it stressed the Second Vatican Council (especially in the documents Lumen gentium and Christus Dominus). One has to continue to profess the immutable faith and pray still more for the Pope and, then, only God can intervene and He will do this unquestionably.
OK, first let’s be very clear: The principle cited – Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur – means that no one has jurisdiction over the pope, and in that sense, the Chair of Peter cannot be judged by anybody.
It does not mean that the objective sense of his teachings are beyond judgment relative to immutable truth and, therefore, cannot be explicitly condemned when they are heretical.
In plain English, Bishop Schneider’s approach to Francis can be summed up as follows:
Cardinals and bishops need only publicly profess Catholic doctrine, remind Francis of the same (as if he simply forgot), and pray for him.
That’s it.
Beyond this, Francis is to be given free rein to spout blasphemies and heresies in whatever way he sees fit, even should he choose to promulgate them in official “papal” texts addressed to the Universal Church in the name of Peter, and even should he take steps to enshrine them and the so-called “pastoral practices” that spring from them in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
In other words, let Bergoglio continue leading souls to Hell, because, after all, “only God can intervene and He will do this unquestionably.”
Sorry, folks. This is nothing more than a monumental cop out.
Apparently Bishop Schneider and his confreres need a reminder of their own:
God did intervene in human history in the Person of Jesus Christ, who established a hierarchical Church endowed with Apostolic Succession, thereby providing bishops with the authority, and the duty, to condemn heresies and heretics in His name, no matter who they may be (even if an angel from Heaven) for the good of souls.
I do not doubt that Bishop Schneider means well, but I also have no doubt that he and many others in the episcopate will one day have to answer for their failure to uphold their sacred duties in the face of the Bergoglian assault.
This fits perfectly with the idea that we don’t tell non Catholics anymore that they should be Catholic. We should just be a good person and live our Faith, and hopefully it will rub off. You see, we don’t want to confront anyone because that would be, well, confrontational – and that wouldn’t be “nice”.
I have said it often on these pages that modernists will not condemn fellow modernist for being a modernist. No correction can be given since none is needed. Once they accepted V2 and the NO, they were compromised with error. It doesnt matter if they are full blown Kasperites or neo-orthodox Latin Mass aficianados. They are compromised and therefore have no credibility to condemn anything except Tradition and authentic Catholicism. Stop getting your hopes up that Burke or some other conservative prelate is coming to the rescue. Not happening. Ever.
Correct, Tom. Only with a miraculous Divine Intervention.
It’s amazing that anyone continues to place any hope at all in such milquetoast CatholiCucks.
Thank you, Bishop Schneider, for ruining my lunch and making me want to barf. All things considered, I wish I knew why the SSPX wants to “normalize” relations with the Vatican.
Either Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Schneider have not been able to garner enough support or they have been terrorised into backing down. This mafia in the Vatican is too powerful to be reckoned with and Benedict, Burke, Schneider et al too weak to withstand them.
Correction: Bishop Schneider.
Satan must believe he had triumphed before he is crushed by Our Lady
How many Cardinals and Bishops does it take to change a light bulb?
He’s a quisling. This is why I’ve paid no attention to him. Church of England 2.0 here we are—a plurality of Catholicisms with a heretic at the helm calling the shots. ‘Choose your own adventure’ Catholic spirituality. If you think communion for the divorced is okay, well that’s your truth, if I don’t, well that’s my truth. We must all remain in communion with one another as one big happy family. He’s perfectly hunky dory with that end.
“Louis “In other words, if the pope is unwilling to defend, in practical terms, the indissolubly of marriage, as is his duty, then cardinals and bishops must “assist” him by making their own “public professions” of this self-same immutable truth.
“To many readers this may appear rather unobjectionable, but in reality it is immensely weak and falls woefully short of the duty incumbent upon all Catholics, and much more, the Successors to the Apostles.”
What IF: Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider and perhaps other prelates are beginning to understand that Bergoglio is really not Pope? That they believe either that Benedict is Pope or that the See is vacant? Then the duty of presenting the authentic teaching of Holy Mother Church truly falls to the Faithful Cardinals, Bishops and Priests. After all, Fra Cristoforo is very seriously talking about an upcoming “Oath of fidelity to the magisterium of Bergoglio” to be taken by all Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, which if such happens a real schism will take place: https://anonimidellacroceblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/08/spifferi-parte-lvii-il-pericolo-dello-scisma-di-fra-cristoforo/. Are Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider and others waiting for something?
Eventually others will see the light as well.
Bishop Schneider: “There exists the following principle of the traditional Catholic doctrine since the first centuries: “Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur”, i.e., the first episcopal chair in the Church (the chair of the Pope) cannot be judged by anybody. ”
Popes can not be judged. True.
But false popes can…..
The reason they are too weak to withstand them is because they will not speak Truth. They only speak in modernist ambiguities.
Read what “Bruno” of Trefontaine ,which is now called The Virgin of the Revelation wrote in his diary (in red). 1947 approved apparitions of Our Lady under that title.
http://www.jesusmariasite.org/global-earthquake-nuclear-war-apostasy-invasion-of-italy-destruction-in-vatican/
I think she mentions something too about getting rid of the filth and modernism that has infested the institutional Church .
If they’re waiting it’s for the next Conclave ://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/09/28/cardinal-parolin-calls-for-dialogue-after-filial-correction/
Tom A; this is a fight between the two extremes of Modernism, the neo-orthodox and the Kasperites. Francis completes his 5 year stint this year no doubt inflicting more damage with endorsing contraception and same-sex unions along the way. Who could be surprised if 91 year old Benedict passes peacefully reading his Imitation of Christ? And then a hybrid Pope healing the divisions between the two camps?
I do see some logic in the view that V11 was a Modernist coup most obviously with a man made liturgy. Also the new Rites of Sacraments which severely diluted their efficacy. The Seven Channels of Grace have been choked , the greatest tragedy and the reason why the Church is at deaths door. But we are now 60 years since the death of Pius XII (who played his part in the Liturgical Revolution) and there is nothing in Our Lady’s apparitions, as far as we know, to endorse sede vacant for such a lengthy period. The only certainties we have are Her Rosary and promised Triumph.
St B, I would think that Our Lady saying, “and Rome will lose the faith” fits in well with a sede vacante opinion.
Are you saying that a Pope, who in your opinion is a true Pope, cannot be corrected?
Good point. In any case, Rome is in Apostasy now.
The practical consequences of Rome in apostasy is that its every soul for themselves. There is no institution to cling to for guidance. Only Tradition.
Thank you, sweepoutthefilth, that inspired me to look more into Our Lady of the revelation. I found this excellent audio. Makes me wonder about a lot. Particularly the part towards the end when Our Lady has Bruno warn the pope, Pope JP2, about the attack upon his life. This inspired Pope JP2 to put an altar in front of the cave. Why would Our Lady tell Bruno to warn the Pope if he weren’t actually a Pope, as so many sedes say that he is not. I’m sure I will hear from them explaining it all away, for my benefit, of course.
https://youtu.be/o3aIedB9Owc
Oh, here’s the link.
What is this about an “apostolic visitor” to Kazakhstan?
Why do we need a Pope if we have to question what he teaches? One may always admonish anyone who sins since we are all sinners. I would assume one could “correct” a superior who misspeaks. But to question a magesterial pronouncement? Again, I ask, why do we need a Pope if we can disagree with his teachings.
https://garabandalnews.org/2016/08/15/garabandal-padre-pio-and-the-servant-of-god-2/
Luigina of Tre Fontane and Garabandal
Of course, there will have to be a Conclave only when Benedict dies. The issue of whether he is Pope or not has been so widely discussed, much of it behind closed doors, that the matter cannot but be looked into. The philosophical dictum cannot be disregarded. “Actio sequitur esse.” (Action follows being). The connection between the Benedict’s name (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVi), his residence (the Vatican), his attire (the white soutane), his secretary (the Prefect of the Pontifical Household) and his Official Latin Renunciation Announcement just cannot be denied by anyone who has the use of reason. The fact that no one wants to talk about is itself an indication that there really IS a connection, especially since no one had in any way called him “mad” “crazy” “senile” “having Alzheimer’s” or whatever–Action follows being!!!
Exactly. What is exactly meant by “correcting”? Church teaching is that the pope has no superior other than God Himself.
“I’m sure I will hear from them explaining it all away, for my benefit, of course.”
Actually, with that kind of attitude (ie. anti-sedevacantist attitude), I won’t bother.
Do they? Still? I certainly haven’t heard anything about that for months at least.
Tom A,
I used to get frustrated when you said this. You were 100% correct all along.
So sweepoutthefilth, was this private revelation approved by the Church? It sounds like, if it was, Pius XII only approved the revelations up to 1947.
Fr, discussed behind closed doors. You mean among the hierarchy, the clergy? Certainly it’s discussed among the laity. “Francis our Pope” is named in each Mass, ok it would be surprising if he wasn’t so named! But how many priests must be at least wondering if he is Pope? So much confusion all round.
It certainly was approved along with many cures and three or four more shrines to Our Lady under that title. 3000 watched the miracle of the sun there exactly as it did at Fatima. the messages were approved and a message was given to Pius the X11 which he kept secret BUT what is written in red in the link came from Bruno’s diary and apparently give a huge clue to what the Pope was given which still remains secret.
It sounds exactly like the times we are living in now,
Why do you argue here if the Chair of peter is vacant or not?
What does it matter to a Catholic who knows their Faith?
We have had antipopes and heretics before .So you do the best you can where you are planted . God knows your heart and He knows the situation and the confusion the prelates have caused.
Sinners still go to hell and the Faithful can and will still obtain salvation. We all work out our salvation in fear and trembling . You will not be judged on the failings and faults of the Shepherds but on your own sins.
Read about the history of the papacy.
https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Roman-Church/dp/0553229443
As I suspected, the initial 1947 apparition was approved, but subsequent claims were not:
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/index.html#trefontane
“Not fully approved because of Bruno’s character and subsequent 27 claims.”
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/trefontane/index.html
Not fully approved? From my reading I understand that Tre Fontane has a position similar to Knock where there was no Commission to investigate and therefore no approval or condemnation.
No idea what the reference to Bruno’s character or 27 subsequent claims might refer to. He claimed to have received in all 60 messages between 1947 and 2000, some as apparitions and some in dreams.
St Paul withstood Peter to the face (Galatians 2:11). Last time I checked Paul the Apostle was not God.
Yes, he did, but it was not in a matter of doctrine. As stated earlier, it depends what the ¨correction” is. Per Catholic Commentary Douay Rheims Bible:
¨The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was ONLY A CERTAIN IMPRUDENCE, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts: but this in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul’s reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for is such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior. (Challoner)
StB….take a look at the link in my previous post. There was some sort of approval as of 1947, but no approval for events after that time. Regardless, we should always keep in mind that this is private revelation. I think we oftentimes look to private revelation for answers rather than looking towards Catholic teaching.
Christ wondered outloud whether He would find Faith left on Earth when he returned, not whether He would find an institutional hierarchy.
Tom A–There are so many Catholic Faithful who feel abandoned, betrayed and literally have no place to go. I pray that Our Lord will be merciful to those who are struggling to survive this horrendous crisis while desperately clinging to the true teachings of the Church founded by Christ. I know you, and others commenting here, will agree that Our Heavenly Mother does not abandon Her children. I think Christ will find faith in individual souls who go to Mary begging for Her intercession and protection. I agree with you. I don’t think Our Lord will find faith in the institutional church which has been overtaken by Modernists and those who stubbornly adhere to this false church, even while pretending to fight the errors of Modernist Rome.
Cling to the Rosary and Tradition. We have no earthly shepherds at the moment. Some Japanese Catholics were able to preserve the faith for centuries without priests to instruct them. Let’s hope we do not have to wait so long.
Ok, this offers some clarity. In all there where 28 apparitions at Tre Fontane of which only the 1st received recognition from the Vicariate of Rome. The reference to Bruno’s character is that, like Melanie of La Salette he went on to embellish his accounts of apparitions.
There’s no way of knowing if this is objectively fair to Bruno or Melanie and was basically the argument which Cardinal Ratzinger used against Sr Lucia in 2000.
Of course there’s a need to tred carefully when it comes to reported apparitions, they are private revelation and while some such as Garabandal IMO deserve consideration others like Medjugorje are almost certainly not from God.
As signs of the times the appetite for messages from Heaven indicates how hungry Catholics are for Truth and how disoriented we are as where to truly find It. We instinctively turn to Our Mother when our teachers confuse and abuse us.
Have they even said anything recently regarding Amoris Latitia, the dubia, the so-called filial correction? Or have they been just as silent as the Novus Ordo clergy?
For “only a certain imprudence” there would be no point in confronting a superior and that in itself would be imprudent. No it must be a question of doctrine, at least peripherally, as was the case with St. Paul.
–
You may read St. Thomas on the matter when you have the time:
–
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/SSGalatians.htm#23
Nowhere does St Thomas even suggest that Peter taught false doctrine. At best, Peter sinned. In fact if you read the entire section of the Douay Rheims commentary you would see that worst case scenario is that Peter sinned venially.
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id194.html
R&R types must somehow convince themselves that Popes can teach heresy. Their whole position depends on this simple error that is easily refuted by actual magesterial papal documents too numerous to cite.
St. Thomas replies:
–
“The occasion of the rebuke was not slight, but just and useful, namely, the danger to the Gospel teaching. Hence he says: Thus was Peter reprehensible, but I alone, when I saw that they, who were doing these things, walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, because its truth was being undone,…”
–
The “truth of the gospel” is doctrine.
–
St. Thomas continues:
–
“Therefore from the foregoing we have an example: prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; subjects have an example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude. ”
–
What else could be a “danger to the multitude” except doctrine. Please note that causing scandal can have the effect of unraveling or denying doctrine, such as when John Paul II missed the koran.
–
Peter sinned but St. Paul did not, because, as St. Thomas explains, no scandal followed from his rebuke.
That should read “when John Paul II kissed the koran.”
The danger to the teaching of the Gospel was that Peter, the POPE, was publicly sinning by his scandalous actions. Peter did not teach a new doctrine to the universal church.
The difference between Peter and JPII is that JPII TAUGHT the false doctrine of Vatican II (aka ecumenism). His kissing of the Koran was not against Vatican II. He was following that religion. However, it was against the Catholic Faith however.
St. Peter himself had just proclaimed a new doctrine concerning the gentiles entering the universal Church (Acts 4:17) which he was now dissimulating against. This was the danger to the gospel.
–
Summary:
–
1. New doctrine declared by Pope St. Peter.
2. Peter publicly dissimulates against this new doctrine.
3. St Paul justly rebukes Peter for dissimulating against this new doctrine.
–
Therefore it is licit and just to publicly correct or rebuke the Pope, or any superior, in matters concerning doctrine.
He still did not TEACH a false doctrine to the Universal Church. His ACTIONS went against the doctrine. He sinned. How do you not see this distinction?
John314: Are you John Siscoe?
I mean Salza.
2 Vermont, since the prot heretical reformation, there has been a concerted effort by enemies of the Church to propogate the lie that the Spotless Bride of Christ has erred many times on matters of faith and doctrine. The goal has always been to convince timid souls on the certitude of the Catholic faith. Johnno and others, play right into the hands of our enemies by propogating these lies. Do not take my word for it, read pre V2 Church theologians on this subject of Darwin and Galileo. The Church never taught error on these matters.
Everyone should view the video (in French/subtitles) at Mundabor’s site. Excellent interview with this holy man. Very clear that he considers the heretics in the Church today (which would include anti-pope Bergoglio) already in schism. I have been saying for a couple years now that traditionalists ARE the church. All the heretics and apostates do is occupy traditionally Catholic real estate, which unfortunately helps legitimize them to the poorly catechized. The relevant part starts at 6:20.