(Image credit: Daniel Blackman)
The following is a statement from His Excellency Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana. It is reproduced here in its entirety:
“We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth” (2 Cor. 13: 8)
A Prophetic Voice of Four Cardinals of the Holy Roman Catholic Church
Out of “deep pastoral concern,” four Cardinals of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, His Eminence Joachim Meisner, Archbishop emeritus of Cologne (Germany), His Eminence Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop emeritus of Bologna (Italy), His Eminence Raymond Leo Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and His Eminence Walter Brandmüller, President emeritus of the Pontifical Commission of Historical Sciences, have published on November 14, 2016, the text of five questions, called dubia (Latin for “doubts”), which previously on September 19, 2016, they sent to the Holy Father and to Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, along with an accompanying letter. The Cardinals ask Pope Francis to clear up “grave disorientation and great confusion” concerning the interpretation and practical application, particularly of chapter VIII, of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia and its passages relating to admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments and the Church’s moral teaching.
In their statement entitled “Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia,” the Cardinals say that to “many — bishops, priests, faithful — these paragraphs allude to or even explicitly teach a change in the discipline of the Church with respect to the divorced who are living in a new union.” Speaking so, the Cardinals have merely stated real facts in the life of the Church. These facts are demonstrated by pastoral orientations on behalf of several dioceses and by public statements of some bishops and cardinals, who affirm that in some cases divorced and remarried Catholics can be admitted to Holy Communion even though they continue to use the rights reserved by Divine law to validly married spouses.
In publishing a plea for clarity in a matter that touches the truth and the sanctity simultaneously of the three sacraments of Marriage, Penance, and the Eucharist, the Four Cardinals only did their basic duty as bishops and cardinals, which consists in actively contributing so that the revelation transmitted through the Apostles might be guarded sacredly and might be faithfully interpreted. It was especially the Second Vatican Council that reminded all the members of the college of bishops as legitimate successors of the Apostles of their obligation, according to which “by Christ’s institution and command they have to be solicitous for the whole Church, and that this solicitude, though it is not exercised by an act of jurisdiction, contributes greatly to the advantage of the universal Church. For it is the duty of all bishops to promote and to safeguard the unity of faith and the discipline common to the whole Church” (Lumen gentium, 23; cf. also Christus Dominus, 5-6).
In making a public appeal to the Pope, bishops and cardinals should be moved by genuine collegial affection for the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ on earth, following the teaching of Vatican Council II (cf. Lumen gentium, 22);, in so doing they render “service to the primatial ministry” of the Pope (cf. Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, 13).
The entire Church in our days has to reflect upon the fact that the Holy Spirit has not in vain inspired Saint Paul to write in the Letter to the Galatians about the incident of his public correction of Peter. One has to trust that Pope Francis will accept this public appeal of the Four Cardinals in the spirit of the Apostle Peter, when St Paul offered him a fraternal correction for the good of the whole Church. May the words of that great Doctor of the Church, St Thomas Aquinas, illuminate and comfort us all: “When there is a danger for the faith, subjects are required to reprove their prelates, even publicly. Since Paul, who was subject to Peter, out of the danger of scandal, publicly reproved him. And Augustine comments: “Peter himself gave an example to superiors by not disdaining to be corrected by his subjects when it occurred to them that he had departed from the right path” (Summa theol., II-II, 33, 4c).
Pope Francis often calls for an outspoken and fearless dialogue between all members of the Church in matters concerning the spiritual good of souls. In the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, the Pope speaks of a need for “open discussion of a number of doctrinal, moral, spiritual, and pastoral questions. The thinking of pastors and theologians, if faithful to the Church, honest, realistic and creative, will help us to achieve greater clarity” (n. 2). Furthermore, relationships at all levels within the Church must be free from a climate of fear and intimidation, as Pope Francis has requested in his various pronouncements.
In light of these pronouncements of Pope Francis and the principle of dialogue and acceptance of legitimate plurality of opinions, which was fostered by the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the unusually violent and intolerant reactions on behalf of some bishops and cardinals against the calm and circumspect plea of the Four Cardinals cause great astonishment. Among such intolerant reactions one could read affirmations such as, for instance: the four Cardinals are witless, naive, schismatic, heretical, and even comparable to the Arian heretics.
Such apodictic merciless judgments reveal not only intolerance, refusal of dialogue, and irrational rage, but demonstrate also a surrender to the impossibility of speaking the truth, a surrender to relativism in doctrine and practice, in faith and life. The above-mentioned clerical reaction against the prophetic voice of the Four Cardinals parades ultimately powerlessness before the eyes of the truth. Such a violent reaction has only one aim: to silence the voice of the truth, which is disturbing and annoying the apparently peaceful nebulous ambiguity of these clerical critics.
The negative reactions to the public statement of the Four Cardinals resemble the general doctrinal confusion of the Arian crisis in the fourth century. It is helpful to all to quote in the situation of the doctrinal confusion in our days some affirmations of Saint Hilary of Poitiers, the “Athanasius of the West”.
“You [the bishops of Gaul] who still remain with me faithful in Christ did not give way when threatened with the onset of heresy, and now by meeting that onset you have broken all its violence. Yes, brethren, you have conquered, to the abundant joy of those who share your faith: and your unimpaired constancy gained the double glory of keeping a pure conscience and giving an authoritative example” (Hil. De Syn., 3).
“Your [the bishops of Gaul] invincible faith keeps the honourable distinction of conscious worth and, content with repudiating crafty, vague, or hesitating action, safely abides in Christ, preserving the profession of its liberty. For since we all suffered deep and grievous pain at the actions of the wicked against God, within our boundaries alone is communion in Christ to be found from the time that the Church began to be harried by disturbances such as the expatriation of bishops, the deposition of priests, the intimidation of the people, the threatening of the faith, and the determination of the meaning of Christ’s doctrine by human will and power. Your resolute faith does not pretend to be ignorant of these facts or profess that it can tolerate them, perceiving that by the act of hypocritical assent it would bring itself before the bar of conscience” (Hil. De Syn., 4).
“I have spoken what I myself believed, conscious that I owed it as my soldier’s service to the Church to send to you in accordance with the teaching of the Gospel by these letters the voice of the office which I hold in Christ. It is yours to discuss, to provide and to act, that the inviolable fidelity in which you stand you may still keep with conscientious hearts, and that you may continue to hold what you hold now” (Hil. De Syn., 92).
The following words of Saint Basil the Great, addressed to the Latin Bishops, can be in some aspects applied to the situation of those who in our days ask for doctrinal clarity, including our Four Cardinals: “The one charge which is now sure to secure severe punishment is the careful keeping of the traditions of the Fathers. We are not being attacked for the sake of riches, or glory, or any temporal advantages. We stand in the arena to fight for our common heritage, for the treasure of the sound faith, derived from our Fathers. Grieve with us, all you who love the brethren, at the shutting of the mouths of our men of true religion, and at the opening of the bold and blasphemous lips of all that utter unrighteousness against God. The pillars and foundation of the truth are scattered abroad. We, whose insignificance has allowed of our being overlooked, are deprived of our right of free speech” (Ep. 243, 2.4).
Today those bishops and cardinals, who ask for clarity and who try to fulfill their duty in guarding sacredly and faithfully interpreting the transmitted Divine Revelation concerning the Sacraments of Marriage and the Eucharist, are no longer exiled as it was with the Nicene bishops during the Arian crisis. Contrary to the time of the Arian crisis, today, as wrote Rudolf Graber, the bishop of Ratisbone, in 1973, exile of the bishops is replaced by hush-up strategies and by slander campaigns (cf. Athanasius und die Kirche unserer Zeit, Abensberg 1973, p. 23).
Another champion of the Catholic faith during the Arian crisis was Saint Gregory Nazianzen. He wrote the following striking characterization of the behavior of the majority of the shepherds of the Church in those times. This voice of the great Doctor of the Church should be a salutary warning for the bishops of all times: “Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for, excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel by the influences of the Spirit, all temporized, only differing from each other in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle, being overcome by fear, or by interest, or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance” (Orat. 21, 24).
When Pope Liberius in 357 signed one of the so called formulas of Sirmium, in which he deliberately discarded the dogmatically defined expression “homo-ousios” and excommunicated Saint Athanasius in order to have peace and harmony with the Arian and Semi-Arian bishops of the East, faithful Catholics and some few bishops, especially Saint Hilary of Poitiers, were deeply shocked. Saint Hilary transmitted the letter that Pope Liberius wrote to the Oriental bishops, announcing the acceptance of the formula of Sirmium and the excommunication of Saint Athanasius. In his deep pain and dismay, Saint Hilary added to the letter in a kind of desperation the phrase: “Anathema tibi a me dictum, praevaricator Liberi” (I say to you anathema, prevaricator Liberius), cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 141. Pope Liberius wanted to have peace and harmony at any price, even at the expense of the Divine truth. In his letter to the heterodox Latin bishops Ursace, Valence, and Germinius announcing to them the above-mentioned decisions, he wrote that he preferred peace and harmony to martyrdom (cf. cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 142).
In what a dramatic contrast stood the behavior of Pope Liberius to the following conviction of Saint Hilary of Poitiers: “We don’t make peace at the expense of the truth by making concessions in order to acquire the reputation of tolerance. We make peace by fighting legitimately according to the rules of the Holy Spirit. There is a danger to ally surreptitiously with unbelief under the beautiful name of peace.” (Hil. Ad Const., 2, 6, 2).
Blessed John Henry Newman commented on these unusual sad facts with the following wise and equilibrated affirmation: “While it is historically true, it is in no sense doctrinally false, that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more Bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century. Pope Liberius might sign a Eusebian formula at Sirmium, and the mass of Bishops at Ariminum or elsewhere, and yet they might, in spite of this error, be infallible in their ex cathedra decisions” (The Arians of the Fourth Century, London, 1876, p. 465).
The Four Cardinals with their prophetic voice demanding doctrinal and pastoral clarity have a great merit before their own conscience, before history, and before the innumerable simple faithful Catholics of our days, who are driven to the ecclesiastical periphery, because of their fidelity to Christ’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. But above all, the Four Cardinals have a great merit in the eyes of Christ. Because of their courageous voice, their names will shine brightly at the Last Judgment. For they obeyed the voice of their conscience remembering the words of Saint Paul: “We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth” (2 Cor 13: 8). Surely, at the Last Judgment the above-mentioned mostly clerical critics of the Four Cardinals will not have an easy answer for their violent attack on such a just, worthy, and meritorious act of these Four Members of the Sacred College of Cardinals.
The following words inspired by the Holy Spirit retain their prophetic value especially in view of the spreading doctrinal and practical confusion regarding the Sacrament of Marriage in our days: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Tim. 4: 3-5).
May all, who in our days still take seriously their baptismal vows and their priestly and episcopal promises, receive the strength and the grace of God so that they may reiterate together with Saint Hilary the words: “May I always be in exile, if only the truth begins to be preached again!” (De Syn., 78). This strength and grace we wish wholeheartedly to our Four Cardinals and as well as to those who criticize them.
November 23, 2016
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
Thank God for holy bishops who defend the Bride of Christ from the wolves.
God has Blessed His servant with deep faith and courage. Now we have 5 Strong Prelates, we need to see more come forward as would Christ!
Yes. I pray more come forward.
Don’t forget the Polish bishop.
Wow! Amen, and amen.
All I can say is that I am happy to associate myself totally and unequivocally with everything he says.
Excellent. Now we would like to hear from Bishops Gadecki, Lenga & Cards. Pell, Arinze, Sarah etc.etc.
We pray dear Lord!
And hopefully many more whose names we do not know.
I want to see Mueller listed. His position as prefect of the CDF will be noticed… even if he has been more or less neutered by the establishment, the position speaks loudly.
All I hear from him is the sound of crickets.
“Is the new Prefect of the CDF really not a man of secure doctrine? Wm. Oddie “catholicherald.co.uk. Many questions have been raised about his belief in the resurrection & virgin birth (as biblically portrayed) & therefore his adherence to the Creed which is fundamental to the Catholic faith.
Paul rebukes the Corinth Church by saying if Jesus did not resurrect after the crucifixion, then there is no point in the Christianity faith (1 Cor 15:12-19 ESV).
All Modernists doubt the resurrection & virgin birth which leads one to believe they don’t hold to the Catholic faith. The CC is full of them. It is the last resort of Satan to extinguish belief in God. They have already demolished other Christian organisations which were open to such annihilation by not affirming the Truth & now it is our turn. Soros & Satan have done extraordinarily well but not a match for Jesus Christ. The final act is being played out before our eyes. The Dubia will bring it to a head. All religious & lay believers will have to stand firm before PF & his supporters & call them out for their heresies – there is no other way but plain speaking to get the response we need. They are either going to have to withdraw & repent or be deposed & the sooner action is taken in this regard the better for the Catholic faith & mankind.
The schism accelerates
Dear EO, Sadly and possibly, but I hope that those in the positions of power revert back to the truth.
I pray for that as well.
Dear Eyes Opened, Schism?? Have you been reading this: http://www.thebookoftruthonline.blogspot.com
I agree with you on the unfolding schism.
This is an Apostolic throw down that will go down in history as one of the great defenses of the Catholic Faith against the Modernist Heretics of the 20th and early 21st Century. One day, God willing, it shall be St. Athanasius of Astana. Blessed be God forever: I Stand with Those Who Stand for Christ and the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith. And I stand opposed to all those who oppose Christ and the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
My Name is on all of the Appeals and Petitions and I am certain that the OARCPF has my name and number.
These quotes stood out:
“Such a violent reaction has only one aim: to silence the voice of the truth, which is disturbing and annoying the apparently peaceful nebulous ambiguity of these clerical critics.” To which I say: Priceless!
And the Finish:
“Surely, at the Last Judgment the above-mentioned mostly clerical critics of the Four Cardinals will not have an easy answer for their violent attack on such a just, worthy, and meritorious act of these Four Members of the Sacred College of Cardinals.” To which I say: AMEN!
Is it just me, or have others noticed that this whole issue of the dubia and its significance to all Catholics, is not making it into progressive Catholic journals and not being represented as a whole Church problem?
Its not just you. The MSCM (Main Stream Catholic Media) is still trying to sell the Narrative that PF is an excellent humble and holy, if a bit misunderstood, Pope. They believe every Pope for the past 100 yrs or more was awesome (within their generational memory) because for them to be a Pope means that you have to be Holy Spirit inspired awesome and cool and a rock star and just God’s perfect gift to the Church right when She needed it.
Their (almost all of them) Uber-Ultramontanes: therefore they have to keep taking the blue pill to maintain their belief system, which they think is Catholic and it’s not, it’s heretical.
One of our major newspapers here ran with the Dubia when it went public, saying :
“Two days ago, one of the four, US Cardinal Raymond Burke, 68, who was the Vatican’s top church lawyer until Francis sacked him two years ago, upped the ante. Like the other three cardinals, he has nothing to lose.In an interview, the quietly-spoken prelate said that unless Francis corrected his own document the cardinals would do it for him, by issuing “a formal act of correction of a serious error’’. There was, Burke said, a rare tradition in the Church, “the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff’’. Cardinals cannot depose a pope. But in formally notifying the entire Church that Francis’s teaching in AL was erroneous and that Catholics were obliged not to accept it, the cardinals would be declaring “game on’’. In political terms, Francis is facing an unprecedented wedge.”
So the above message is STRONG. But it struck me, Father that most Catholics will learn about the letter of correction when it comes, from mainstream press rather than Catholic Press. One thing Revolutionaries always do when they usurp power is seize the communications centre, and that has been done to Vatican communications. Many Catholics here, have no idea what’s going on. A major split could end up passing them by, whilst they rock up to Mass each weekend and if it is not
mentioned, they will be none the wiser, but they could start noticing that things are getting a lot more merciful than previously!
It’s not making it into the mainstream media either. Outside of TC blogs, the only place I’ve heard about it is EWTN.
MSM doesn’t get the Church so they don’t realize that they are way behind on what could turn out to be the biggest news story that they will cover in their lifetime.
Probably not now, but if more Bishops and Cardinals support these faithful prelates, then the MSM may start taking notice.
I’ve said before that the day PF stands up for the traditional teaching of the Church, the honeymoon will be over.
Yes, it will take several more for them to notice and then they will congratulate themselves for being so perceptive…and having such insight and journalistic integrity and courage.
Then the MSM will have a field day because they’re not really interested in the truth. The only thing they care about is ratings. When the story gets cold, then they’ll move on to the next crisis.
I have seen it in a few outlets, not the letter, just people reporting that the four cardinals involved are dissenters of the worst sort. Everybody in the MSM love to hate Cardinal Burke and that is pretty heartbreaking. The diocese I am in is without a bishop right now and I think I would cry for joy if we were delivered a bishop as intelligent, thoughtful and faithful as any of the four cardinals involved with this letter. My former archbishop is now the archbishop of New Jersey and recently made a cardinal. I will not miss him.
And I say: Hallelujah!
“Such apodictic merciless judgments reveal not only intolerance, refusal of dialogue, and irrational rage, but demonstrate also a surrender to the impossibility of speaking the truth, a surrender to relativism in doctrine and practice, in faith and life.”
Merciless? Of course.
The Year of Mercy is over by my decree.
Get with the joyful program already.
Don’t make me hit you with the humble stick. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8085f0092f783f311972f03ad82d9a297c5a377021662e418aef5e105597c4cd.jpg
Ouch! Papa Fidel. LOL
Dear Papa,
May I just say that camouflage green suits you much better than papal white…and that if the four cardinals persevere, you may be able to stop wearing the latter for good!
Oh, I see you mixed Fidel and Jorge face together. Is that right? Hahahahaha!
I’m grateful, to see another respected Cardinal making a valid point. Please could anyone here pray for our young Daughter (4.5 years old) as She isn’t very well, she has been vomiting. The Doctor is on his way to our house. Her name is Marianne. In Christ Christopher.
Dear Christopher,
Of course, I already prayed when I read this and will include her in my office this evening. Also, Bishop Schneider isn’t a Cardinal though he certainly should be.
He has more right to the title than the recent lot (save that of the Algerian? who was tortured). They show scant knowledge of what a Dubia is & why it had to be issued, so little fidelity to Christ only PF. Please God he will be elevated by our next pope.
Thank you to you Father RP and everyone else here. i will be praying for everyone.
Just prayed a Hail Mary:)
Awesome! God bless the Holy Four and Bishop Schneider– and all with the courage to join them!
Man! Bishop Schneider let them have it but good! May God bless him!
This Bishop is also persecuted. I was speaking with a sister(nun) from my home town who was visiting her family. Bishop Schneider spoke recently in her diocese and was to speak at the Cathedral but the bishop got cold feet because Bp.S is “too controversial”! Fortunately another venue was found. It reminded me of St. Louis de Montfort who was also unwelcomed in many places and sometimes forcibly removed! Cardinal Burke also gets disinvited, etc. too.
Good God, I never thought that I would see the day whereby the word controversial is used to describe someone that speaks truthfully.
Kazakhstan 1: Greece 0 (and that’s a generous 0)
I had to do this – it was too good to pass up:
https://youtu.be/EUTzrMZVAAw
Thank you Bp Schneider!
This whole thing has the fire of the devil in it. It’s too big. When I returned to the Church years ago, I had to decide on some things in my life and I turned to the Gospels to gain guidance. Being divorced, I did not need an army of thinkers to understand what Jesus wanted when he spoke of one marriage bond and second marriages as adultery. I’ve been divorced 20 years now and have never once had any doubt of my obedience to Jesus’ Way of Life in this matter. The Cardinals don’t need to be lauded as prophetic, heroic or made bigger than they are….very simply they must ask these questions and the pope must answer them. Anything else is from the evil one.
Bless you Patty for understanding what Our Lord teaches regarding marriage, and for living up to His expectations. You mention that you didn’t need an army of thinkers to understand what Jesus wanted of you. I agree that it really is not so difficult to understand what Our Lord taught regarding marriage, but it seems that Pope Francis and the other progressives have made it far more complicated than it needs to be. That might be why Bp. Schneider has written a rather lengthy support for the four cardinals.
Yes, Marsaili – what some call progress is not. These are four good Cardinals asking and Bishop Schneider defending wisely — they are following the Master closely. We’ll see what happens.
he won’t answer questions and the cardinals will only be persecuted whispers, see: http://www.thebookoftruthonline.blogspot.com
A Protestant I know thinks the same way as you and is in the same situation but doesn’t have the benefit of the Sacraments.
Compare the beautiful clarity of this letter based on a rock solid devotion to Church teaching with the emotional, frankly intemperate language of the Greek bishop’s letter which was based on a misguided and unquestioning support of the ‘teaching’ of Pope Francis with all its modernist misdirection. You could be forgiven for thinking they were written by members of two different churches.
That’s the thing that got me.
It is truly Apostolic. It is both doctrinal and pastoral. It is Scriptural and reads like the wise writings of the Fathers.
The Cupich/Greek Guy/Bergoglio shtick is the flat, lifeless, emotional whining of effeminates. It is embarrassing. It lacks manliness. It reeks of shame but is shameless. It has no recourse to the words of Jesus or the documents of the Church. Those “men” are just plain disgusting. As a convert, there are so often times I am absolutely embarrassed to be associated with the leadership of the Church who, as you say, so clearly act and speak as representatives of some religion other than the Catholic faith.
The dubia and the letter here offer great encouragement to those who seek the elevation of Jesus in the world.
May this letter not be the last of its sort but only the beginning of many more to come.
“Greek guy.”
Too funny. They certainly have a penchant for huge, unpronounceable (to us) names, don’t they?
here’s why – http://www.thebookoftruthonline.blogspot.com
The Greek Bishop has evidently harbored a grudge against his bretheren that he chose to reveal to the world without answering any questions whatsover. A letter like that should have been written privately, if at all, and should not have been shared for all the Church to see as it displays an uncontrollable rage. Yet, because he chose to publically show it he exposed the great weakness regarding the side of the debate he represents. A lack of scriptural references, lack of quotes from various saints, lack of theological approach to the issues, lack of references to any other magesterial Church teaching. A lot of steam but no water. Bishop Athanasius’s letter felt like an early Church Father speaking to us. It felt like on of their sermons. May we continue to pray for the Church, and His grace for this fight is far from over. The public publication of the “Dubia” will be forever a historical moment in Church history and all the Church faithful needs to understand that all future generations of Christians will look back on this moment and say, “God truly kept servants in reserve for Himself when all seemed lost.” Happy Thanksgiving all!
God bless Bishop Schneider!
What a beautiful, eloquent, and profound defence of the true Faith by Bishop Athanasius Schneider! The battle is now right out in the open and it is no longer possible to hide one’s allegiance to one side or the other. This good Bishop, with great charity and clarity, is reminding everyone that, among other things, the Pope can err when not teaching formally, that he has a duty before Christ to defend the truth, that the advantages of betraying the truth are superficial and short-lived while our accountability before Christ will have eternal consequences, that the true faithful will support the four Cardinals in their reasonable request for clarity, and that Pope Francis owes it to our Lord Jesus, to himself, and to the whole Church to answer the Cardinals’ questions and defend the true Faith even in face of the greatest opposition.
By giving us an outline of the Arian crisis and its history, Bishop Schneider has given us a very CLEAR light in which we can assess our own situation, understand the “pros” and “cons” (the worldly advantages versus the spiritual disadvantages) of being unfaithful to Christ, avoid the errors and pitfalls of those who did not stand by Jesus Christ, and be encouraged to love and defend the true Faith, and the sanctity and integrity of the Sacraments of Marriage, Confession and Holy Communion. In this the good Bishop has also done the Church a great service!
he won’t answer the questions, see: http://www.thebookoftruthonline.blogspot.com
Excellent.
I am still waiting for more bishops and Cardinals to support The Brave Four other than the usual suspects.
But perhaps the sad reality in the Church now is that The Coward Many is what constitutes the heirarchy (I mean apart from The Heretical Some).
What an absolutely beautiful letter written with both sincerity and charity of heart.
Does anyone have contact information for these prelates?
They need to hear absolute encouragement from us… by the thousands.
Raymond Cardinal Burke via facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CardinalBurke/
*
1P5 for sure has Bp. Schneider’s (I also have wanted to contact him for a time now).
*
Carlo Cardinal Caffarra: perhaps through 1P5 and/or Dr. Maike Hickson?
Please see my post above. Thank you.
Thanks.
Thank you very much for this. God bless you and yours my sister, and his work at your hands. Remember when the Church is definitively liberated and exalted, there is a hug I am to receive from you.
This is all I have:
Cardinal’s and the Pope’s addresses:
His Holiness, Pope Francis
Apostolic Palace
00120 Vatican City
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: [email protected]
His Eminence Gerhard Cardinal Mueller
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Address: Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11, 00193 Roma, Italy
Phone: 06.69.88.33.57; 06.69.88.34.13
His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke,
Sovereign Military Order of Malta
Magistral Palace
Via Condotti, 68 – 00187 Rome –Italy
His Eminence Robert Cardinal Sarah,
Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Palazzo delle Congregazioni, 00193
Roma, Piazza Pio XII, 10 Italy
His Eminence George Cardinal Pell,
Prefect, Secretariat of the Economy
Palazzo Apostolico, 00120 Citta del Vaticano
His Eminence Wilfred Fox Cardinal Napier, O.F. M.
Archbishop of Durban, South Africa,
Street address:
154 Gordon Road, Morningside, Durban, South Africa
Postal address:
P O Box 47489,
Greyville, 4023 , Durban, South Africa
Sandro Magister (Italian journalist): [email protected]
Does anyone else feel that the attitudes of those who harshly rebuked these four Cardinals mimic the same dismissal narrative of the secular left we have seen all too clearly during the campaign up to and including today? What bothers me is that while people secular and vowed hold tight to their beliefs, they have the self-righteous attitude that they alone are the deposits of truth and rather than dialogue to understand have only belittled those who have challenged their interpretations.
I fully understand their desire for mercy, kindness, etc in order to be more pastoral and less black and white. However there is a disconnect here where there is an inability to recognize truths. Rather than hold to these truths and be pastoral, they take the easy path and change truths in order to be pastoral. I also feel that some believe they can change our faith because they believe they are right rather than be true followers where we as sinful human beings do not have the authority to do as such.
These Cardinals deserve a clear unambiguous response to their concerns with charity and kindness. They may be only four in number, but their questions are held by many, many faithful who would also like to know the nuances to their questions. Failure to do so, is ironically NOT pastoral which they claim is their motivation. Those who publicly chastised them need to find out where their aggression is coming from and do a hard discernment it weed out their short patience for asking questions. This is an instance in which wielding obedience like a sword is not Christian in my view.
balloon: Those prelates who are condemning the Big Four ARE the “secular left”.
While I argued the case against abortion, a friend of mine — a libertarian atheist — suddenly realized the root of the impasse between us: “You’re an absolutist!” Well, of course I am! My friend was truly shocked and appalled that someone whom he considered to be intelligent *and* educated could hold such a belief.
“Absolutists” believe that we can come to know Absolute Truth and distinguish it from intrinsic evil. It’s easier to be a relativist. Anything goes!
Someone isn’t getting a cameo on Francis’s Bravo show.
This letter is beautifully written. It cleverly uses the Pope’s own words calling for “open discussion.” It uses the Pope’s buzzwords of ‘mercy’ and ‘tolerance’ (“merciless judgments reveal not only intolerance”).
Yes, Bishop Schneider is a master of this.
His Excellency, Abp. Schneider, will be rejected, indirectly of course, just as the Four Cardinals are being rejected directly. Yet, what a voice! We need to pray, as His Excellency suggests, for the continued moral strength of the Four Cardinals, and that others come out of the woodwork to join them. The many, many feckless bishops and cardinals that prance around their wreckovated churches, spouting heresies, must be confronted.
Further, they must be rejected where they live. That is, stop giving them funds. These leeches love nothing more than attending their endless conferences, issuing incompetent opinions on the state of the economy, immigration, and the like. Instead, they should live humbly, asking God for mercy and strength in completing their tasks as True Shepherds of the Faith. Instead, we see Cardinal Chuckles-Bravo Dolan cavorting with pro-abortionists President Obama, and defeated candidates Hilary Clinton and Tim Kaine (who claims that he is an observant Catholic).
Pray, certainly, for Pope Francis. He is our Pope and is due proper respect and love. However, Francis is not due obedience to his whimsical “theology” which seeks to take wrong and make it right. What did the Bible say on this: “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.//Woe to you that are wise in your own eyes, and prudent in your own conceits.” Isaias 5:20-21.
The Pope likely believes that he is showing mercy and doing God’s work. But, what all see — except the Germans and a growing American group of sycophants — is that Francis is attempting to redefine sin, to make the intolerable choices of Man somehow acceptable to the Church, and to God. What was it that German philosopher Robert Spaemann asked: “When it concerns sexual relationships which objectively contradict the Christian way of life, I would like to know from the Pope, after what time and under which circumstances is objectively sinful conduct changed into conduct pleasing to God.” (4/29/2016 interview with Anian Wimmer).
This is not difficult to understand. Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia raises direct issues of the type discussed by R. Spaemann. The Pope is causing major scandal in this way. Even so, it is unlikely that he will answer the dubia — the risk of embarrassment is too great. A revolution has surely happened in the Church and they have the guns. However, as St. Athanasius was rumored to have said, “They have the buildings, but we have the Faith.”
Good for him. God bless Bishop Schneider!
Please God, more cardinals and bishops will begin to do the same.
After reading the differences in tone between those who support AL as it now reads and those who question AL’s clarity, I have no doubts where the truth of the matter resides. Truthful words are beautiful they can never come across as anything but good. Lies and deceit, on the other hand, always show themselves as ugly because they are veiled in ambiguous speech.
This is a beautiful letter which is straight forward and hides nothing of its intent. I am elated that there exist such men of integrity within Holy Mother Church.
God Bless Bishop Athanasius and all those like him who stand up for what is right and just.
Yes, when addressing the Holy Father or any other successor of the Apostles (or anyone in true authority) the tone of the address often plays a large part in conveying the Truth of the address, not always, but often times it is the case.
It felt like it was St. Athanasius himself communicating to us….no disrespect to the Holy Father, but the letter of the 4 Cardinals, Archbishop Athanasius letter concerning them and the truth, the letter of the 45 theologians, Cardinal Sarah’s book “God or Nothing”, priests like Father Frank Pavone and Fr. Clovis Linus is modern proof God has not left us as orphans
Pray for him with fervor, he is the devil’s next target.
What depth from God’s good bishop! https://twitter.com/TheWarOurTime/status/801518470487642112
This was incredible.
In times of trouble, God raises up brave men and women who defend His Church. Archbishop Schneider is one of those men. The Roman Pontiff can have his underlings badmouth the four Cardinals, but Archbishop Schneider and the Polish bishops are backing up the Cardinals.
I’ve been praying everyday for these cardinals and for more prelates to join their voices. This is just the beginning. Pray for wisdom, courage, fortitude, and protection for these faithful men of God.
They are what we’ve been asking for since at least April, folks! Now it’s REALLY time to go to battle and pray! And if you happen to have any contact information for any of these men, let them know you’re standing with and praying for them.
Cardinal’s and the Pope’s addresses:
His Holiness, Pope Francis
Apostolic Palace
00120 Vatican City
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: [email protected]
His Eminence Gerhard Cardinal Mueller
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Address: Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11, 00193 Roma, Italy
Phone: 06.69.88.33.57; 06.69.88.34.13
His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke,
Sovereign Military Order of Malta
Magistral Palace
Via Condotti, 68 – 00187 Rome –Italy
His Eminence Robert Cardinal Sarah,
Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Palazzo delle Congregazioni, 00193
Roma, Piazza Pio XII, 10 Italy
His Eminence George Cardinal Pell,
Prefect, Secretariat of the Economy
Palazzo Apostolico, 00120 Citta del Vaticano
His Eminence Wilfred Fox Cardinal Napier, O.F. M.
Archbishop of Durban, South Africa,
Street address:
154 Gordon Road, Morningside, Durban, South Africa
Postal address:
P O Box 47489,
Greyville, 4023 , Durban, South Africa
Sandro Magister (Italian journalist): [email protected]
This is All I have for now.
Thank you very much! Letters will be on their way to these men!
You’re welcome. I posted it below too so they don’t have to scroll as much.
Does anyone know if it’s intrinsically evil for a priest to give Holy Communion to a person he knows is in a state of mortal sin? In other words, if it would be a mortal sin for the communicant to receive unworthily, then wouldn’t the priest also sin mortally by an act of formal cooperation?
The reason I ask is because I don’t understand St. Thomas’s rationale in his reply to objection 2 on this point (ST, III, 80, 6, ad 2). The objection basically considers a situation of an occult sinner and asks whether the priest should choose the lesser of two evils—either defame the sinner publicly (a mortal sin) by refusing communion, or allow the sinner to “sin mortally by receiving the body of Christ.”
To my utter shock, I find St. Thomas’s resolution to this objection unsatisfactory. He basically concludes that communion must be allowed, reasoning as follows: “it is worse to commit mortal sin by unjustly defaming the hidden sinner than that the sinner should sin mortally; because no one ought to commit mortal sin in order to keep another out of mortal sin.”
Does anyone else think this is a bit wonky? Isn’t this a situation involving an intrinsically evil act? It would be like giving a gun to a person who says he wants to shoot himself. If giving communion in this situation is intrinsically evil, then under no circumstances could the priest do so without mortally sinning himself. What am I missing?
Also, as I understand it, the canonical discipline currently in force does indeed permit the priest to refuse Holy Communion to occult sinners, if they ask secretly, but not if they ask publicly and the priest cannot deny them without causing scandal.
No it isn’t wonky. People have a right to their good name: refusing to give holy communion to an occult sinner (which means that the people do not know that that person is in a state of mortal sin) would be a case of public Detraction (the revealing of a negative truth about someone to others who have no right to the knowledge which subsequently injures the persons good name/character) and one of a serious nature for by refusing Holy Communion the priest would be revealing that Mortal Sin is involved.
Do you want everyone to know about the sins only you know about yourself?
People have a right to privacy, in the modern world we think we should be allowed to know everything about everyone simply because we want to know!
Furthermore, it is also possible that the occult sinner may have repented and been restored to grace through the Sacrament of Penance (without the priest being aware of that fact.)
On the other hand if it is a notorious public mortal sinner then the Priest is Obligated by Cannon Law (and by his conscience) to refuse Holy Communion to that person, otherwise He will sin gravely by causing Scandal in its truest sense: leading others to believe its ok to receive communion while in a state of mortal sin. Notorious public sinners are required to publicly renounce their sinfulness before they can receive Holy Communion publicly, otherwise the sin of Scandal still occurs.
Very nice explanation Fr. RP. It is always helpful to understand that Church teaching is always in tension. If it is not tight enough the structure falls if it is too tight the structure falls. It is not an easy task for those who hold the responsibility of keeping the deposit of the faith but that is their duty before God and the reason we should all pray for them and the difficult job with which they have been charged.
As I’ll keep saying especially this Thanksgiving…THANK GOD FOR POPE FRANCIS!
For his manifest errors and horrific lack of leadership have pointed many {those who have ears to hear and eyes to see} to the teaching of the Church. I myself have no idea where I’d be were it not for the shock of reading Francis and then the subsequent drive to find out what the TRUTH is.
At one point my copy of Denzinger seemed to have more bookmarkers in it than pages!!
Anyway…
Fr RP: is this statement wholly correct? “Furthermore, it is also possible that the ‘occult’ sinner may have repented and been restored to grace through the Sacrament of Penance”.
As I understand it, the issue St Thomas is addressing {as explained by Cdl Burke} is directed at those who have specifically NOT repented, where communion should be offered anyway for all the reasons you identified. The issue of repentance isn’t actually part of this scenario since if the person repented {and was absolved} there would be no obstacle whatsoever to reception at all, no potential for scandal. {And there is no absolution for private confessions to oneself notwithstanding what the Lutherans in High Office might desire or suggest…} Not a big point, but just a small one as your explanation otherwise fits directly in with the specific scenario.
In short, if the person repents and is absolved, communion is always available with no obstacle. If they HAVEN’T repented, condemnation may still be theirs for receiving unworthily but at least scandal is avoided by the priest in the giving.
And an anecdote from a Tanzanian priest who told us in parishes in his diocese, an usher stands among the faithful receiving, and in the event a known, obnoxious and notorious public sinner approaches the Body and Blood, will place his hand hovering over the parishioner’s head. The priests, seeing this, will skip that person, refusing communion. Whether this is allowable or prudent under canon law I do not know, but can we even imagine such a thing happening in the USA?
What I meant by that is that the occult sinner may have repented and been restored to grace via Penance without the priest being aware of it, so if he choose to refuse him Holy Communion the priest would further commit the sin of false judgement and the unjust denial of Holt Communion to someone who is abiding in Grace.
Just a further reflection adding to St. Thomas’ already good and right reasoning.
Oh, OK. As in having confessed to Priest B unbeknownst to Priest A who is administering the sacraments. Got it.
That actually brings up another scenario about which I just thought. This might be well-known in the Church among Catholics who are long-in-the-tooth so-to-speak, but for a relatively new convert to the faith, the idea just hit me. So bear with me please! I’m just thinking out loud here as a sort of mental exercise.
Let’s say Person A has been counseled by Priest A about a situation of sin in Person A’s life. Person A then goes to confession but is confessed by Priest B. I suppose it would be charitable {to prevent stress or scandal to Priest A} for Person A to contact Priest A before receiving communion from Priest A. I know this happens as a matter of course all the time and I imagine priests simply understand it, as is the case with our parish where we have 2 priests. I don’t tell one Father that I confessed if I didn’t confess before him.
But in a case of grave and mortal sin where great scandal could be caused, it seems the “mannerly” {technical dogmatic term LOL} thing would be to settle it with one’s counselor before receiving communion from him.
May the next Pope, God willing let it be a Pope faithful to the Tradition and Scripture. may the next Pope make Bishop Athanasius’s letter part of our magisterial teaching (although our faith already teaches what he has stated) and may the “Dubia” and the proper process of challenging the Holy Father be enshrined in Catholic History till the end of time.
Thank you, Father. I understand the issue about public detraction (although I’m not sure how it would be detraction strictly speaking, since I assume the priest would simply bar the person from communion, not reveal the particular sin). My question has more to do with giving Holy Communion to a person the priest knows with certainty to be in a state of mortal sin. St. Thomas’s analysis seems to assume that is the case. But if that is true, then, my question is, why isn’t it a mortal sin for the priest to give communion to that person? Wouldn’t it be like a person handing a loaded gun to another who said he wants to shoot himself? Is it because the priest can never know with certainty the state of a person’s soul?
Truth and Wisdom go hand in hand, they are Beauty! God and His Wisdom love all that is Good and True, thus, He created all things in Beauty! God is Beauty! What opposes Truth and Good is ugliness! What is ugly is the destruction of what is Good! God is Good and is Truth! Outside of Him, nothing is true nor good! He loved everything that He created He said: “It is good.” Good and Truth are the nature of God. What is untrue is anti God! What is Anti God is ugly! The souls that go against God are all ugly!
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but
having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit
their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth
and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure
suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Tim.
4: 3-5).”
Surely that time is now. We should expect a reaction from God. We hope for a reaction from God. Let us pray that it be soon.
We all know that when Francis speaks of “outspoken and fearless dialogue”, this is the post-Vatican II dog whistle. It is code for the ongoing questioning and undermining of Catholic tradition in the areas of liturgy, catechesis and morality. It means what it has meant for the past 50 years. What it does not mean is vigorous defense of Catholic teaching by the defenders of tradition. It’s meant to be a one-way street, you see. As we’ve seen over the past week or two, when there’s blow back against the modernists and insurrectionists, they scream blue-murder! There is no “outspoken and fearless dialogue” when traditionalists become vocal. Only accusations of schism and heresy.
So Tobin says “suck it up”, Cupich says ‘what doubts??” Francis clams up completely and refuses to answer questions. So much for “outspoken and fearless dialogue” and “making a mess”, huh?
We’re afflicted by faithless phonies and hypocrites. Francis is the embodiment and personification of all the post-Vatican II malarkey. It’s all come to its fulfillment in him. Now it’s the end game. It’s time for the final showdown between the modernists and the defenders of the Catholic faith.
Excellent summary.
It just occupied to me(connecting dots)that the Trad blogs and most comments that draw the line at calling Bergoglio the heretic or apostate that he obviously is. The connection is that they inevitably have unrealistic hopes that Jorge will flinch under the barrage of petitions, letters that challenge him. The most recent being the four cardinals and now this beautiful post from Archbishop Schneider. PF is always referred to as “Pope” Francis or worse “Your Holiness”. This in spite of the relentless barrage of offences against our Catholic faith. Why is that?? Because, at the very least, those bishops should be demanding to his face that his outrages are ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE. It would not even be necessary at that point to even be overly concerned whether he is a material heretic or worse. And most of the pushback has focused on AL, and communion for adulterers, as though, like Pope John XXll, Jorge’s pontificate were a single issue error. You know….he’s not a theologian, and is not expected to know all the answers. Fair enough. The scary truth is that he does not speak from theological ignorance. He intends to demolish the church’s Deposit of Faith. Period. There can be no doubt about that after almost four years of his betrayals.
This is, I believe, a refusal, denial, resistance, to facing that Bergoglio is absolutely committed to his infamy, and no half-assed request for “clarification” is going to sway this man from his demonic pursuit of a global church based on Marxism.
Only God knows how the church will get rid of this imposter. All I know is that blunt demands need to be made by a bishop or bishops that he recant or suffer eternal damnation. And that they never back down, because with a “Diabolical Narcissist” like Bergoglio, he will not go quietly. He has no self-doubts, a sure sign he has no biblical humility in his corrupt soul.
I have a lot of sympathy with what you are saying here, but I see it ever-so-slightly differently.
I see this whole situation as a process.
Nothing would {I believe righteously} anger me more, however, than for this to merely become a debate on one fuzzy line in AL and for the 4 Cardinals to accept a half-baked attempt at a “negotiated settlement” with Bergoglio to “in charity” save his face.
But Tom, I don’t think that is happening.
The dubia did NOT merely address the possibility of PF’s heresy on one point. The questions go beyond AL and address the possibility of PF’s apostasy.
As such, I believe the Cardinals will walk this thing through its paces slowly and carefully. Having been raised Methodist and come to the Church from Lutheranism, I am admittedly cynical in my attitudes toward “churchmen” but I think this time the Big Four mean it.
TRUE, they could merely offer a correction about the topic touched on relevant to AL, but what about the remaining questions in the dubia that go deeper than ambiguity on remarriage of divorcees? Will they just leave them on the table and retire?
I don’t think so. I certainly hope not.
I see this as an unprecedented opportunity to address MANY problems that have arisen in the Church since V2. BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IN THE COURSE OF FIXING THESE PROBLEMS, OTHERS WILL REAR THEIR HEADS. This has the potential for a very big fight over many doctrines. It may indeed result in schism from the Church of the heretics. Yes, that could occur in several ways. They’ve already left the Church in teaching and doctrine. Geography is now the only thing at stake, so-to-speak.
So hold tight. Pray. Be skeptical for sure. Don’t just wish away the problems {I know you won’t} like many “conservatives” have for so long.
But now that the die is cast, give these men the time to mobilize their armies, define their strategy and refine their tactics.
May God give the field to the righteous victors.
Well, yes, I would have agreed with you before my “conversion” to the “one true faith”, meaning that I began to see how modernism seduced the church going back to before Vatll. And how my own attitudes and beliefs had been shaped by modernism, long before I heard about this heresy.
A point I have tried to clarify recently here at 1P5, is that the problem is not just getting rid of PF. It also about getting rid of Modernism in the souls of all bishops and cardinals.
I’m convinced the primary reason Francis has not been called out on his outrages, is that modernism has paralyzed the church. I don’t think there is another plausable explanation why his contempt for the church has not been confronted. Dialogue, walking with, getting to understand one another, finding commonalities, avoiding harsh condemnations. These are catch phrases that we swim in in socially.
It’s possible that the 4 Cardinals will force Bergoglio into a showdown, and he’ll get the hell out of “Dodge”. In spite of my objections, there is no way I can say it’s not possible. But you know Jorge has nothing but contempt for those 4 who themselves betray the seductive power of modernism in their own souls. One blatant example was Cdl Burke’s timid concern for the “year of mercy”. He made it clear he did not want to interfere in any way. But Jorge’s year of mercy is a blasphemy. So there’s the heresy of Modernism that Burke wants to protect. So what is the point of the letter the 4 sent to Francis?? It’s safe for the 4 to focus on the issue of communion for adulterers and the other 4 questions. That way they don’t open the can of worms, of their own betrayal of Christ. The curse of Modernism means different things to different bishops. For Francis it means open rebellion against Christ and His church. At the other end, it can mean a kind of paralysis that makes it impossible for a bishop to act decisively, so he ends up tippy toeing around the flood of heresies that Jorge is blatantly guilty of. Instead, ask for “clarification” re AL. Where their is no need for clarification. I can’t begin to count how many blogs, how many times further clarification has been asked for. But it serves the purpose of enabling bishops to avoid confronting Francis.
I really don’t have anything to disagree with in what you say. I have overall been wholly unimpressed with Burke not in his acumen but in his guts. Ditto for the prelates overall, with maybe one exception. Maybe. As I’ve said in colloquial terms before: We are led by faggots. And I don’t buy the notion that they represent the true way of Christ in dealing with the manifest heresies that are spread far and wide by prelates and have been for 50 or more years.
Why am I as a Catholic man expected {rightly} to stand up for Christ in the secular business world while these fairies rub each other’s…shoulders…and yammer on about “collegiality”?
OK, so let’s grant them the deferment to Pope Francis and his office. OK.
Well, what is stopping them now or for the last 50 years but cowardice from defending the faith sharply and constantly and righteously attacking the evil of heresy that is spewed incessantly by their colleagues in the prelature?
You are right. They lay back and “with collegiality” toward their fellow bishops and cardinals allow evil to fester and grow. Faggots.
What about loyalty to our Blessed Lord and His teaching?
So we are left without leadership.
Well maybe that is simply God’s way of reminding us that it isn’t Cardinal Burke or some other prelate who is going to save us on the Day of Judgement.
Jesus Christ is.
And we Catholics need to remember that.
So here we are with valid Sacraments, the Bible, the teachings of the Church and our homes and families. TRUTH. Truth that saves. WE must have that relationship with Jesus that flows out to others. We can’t count on the Cardinal Burkes or this ridiculous Pope to do it for us. We must pass on the truth of God’s love and judgment to our little ones and those around us. Naturally, in the course of our lives as we are told in the Scriptures:
“6 And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart:
7 And thou shalt tell them to thy children, and thou shalt meditate upon them sitting in thy house, and walking on thy journey, sleeping and rising.”
So many folks are right now stuck with some fruitcake priest’s rendition of the Novus Ordo Mass? Well folks, then go to Mass and then on the trip home or on the way to baseball practice or when you are butchering the deer or whatever else it is you do with your families TELL your kids of Jesus and His love for us and the judgment that awaits those who deny him.
Maybe, just maybe, God is handing us this great challenge to cause us to return to Him. To avoid relying on “cultural Catholicism” to “do that for us” or even to coach us along.
HE wants a relationship with US. He gave us His Son and continues to give us His Body and Blood. We can respond in faith in spite of the toxic foulness we see in the lives and teaching of our leaders or we can give up and quit and become Baptists.
Maybe that is what He was demanding from His people when he punished them with 40 years of the wilderness due to their cowardice. And maybe we are simply reflective of the same sort of weakness. Praise God He doesn’t give ALL of us what we deserve.
Now, that’s straight talk. That I can relate to. I remember our comments from a month ago, that we both shared similar sentiments, about the intolerable condition of the Vatll church.
You know… I understand human weakness from the inside out. I mean… who am I without Christ, His church and Sanctifying Grace? Nothing obviously! Because I would be embracing the greatest heresy, modernism, if not for the graces Christ has given me. To our natural minds, modernism is soooooo reasonable, that it would be irresistible. Except for “His Mercy” I’d be another Bergoglio or Burke.
However, the Holy Spirit is not calling me to pretend that it’s just Bergoglio who is a Judas priest. Most bishops have compromised their faith, the PEARL OF GREAT PRICE, in one way or another. Just not wholesale rejection like we see with PF. When I read Cdl. Burke’s timid comments where he reassured Catholics, that in addition to their 5 questions, he was not insensitive to progressives and the “year of mercy”, I felt contempt for the man’s awful spiritual blindness.
To add a point to what I tried to say in my other comments – That spiritual integrity is necessary to get rid of Francis, and I see very little in those 4 Cardinals, and I have to include Bishop Schneider as well. That integrity that a bishop or bishops have to embrace, means that he has -a prayer life that goes far beyond the ordinary, is committed to rooting out all vestiges of Modernism from his own life, receives Holy Communion frequently and Worthily, accepts his helplessness without Christ, prays for humility and courage, and distrusts his own opinions and natural inclinations(I’m sure there are others. This list is high on my own list for myself).
Since God is in charge, the possibility that Francis will have to go, based on opposition from other modernist bishops, cannot be discounted. However for my money, it’s going to take a bishop with unbreakable spiritual integrity. In any case, modernism will have to be rooted out of the other bishops as well.
All this talk about “Pope” Francis. And “his Holiness”. Yuck!! As though this were about minor corrections or a single issue heretical statement, That they want to bring to his attention so he has a chance to recant. It’s gone far beyond that – he wants to scuttle Peter’s Barque.
What you {and I and many others} seek is a warrior priest. Someone in the line of Phineas with true zeal for the Lord.
But we have what we have.
But in the future, who knows.
Back in 1987 Trump was interviewed by Oprah and said “If things gets bad enough I’d think of running for President”.
I have a hunch there might be a priest or two or maybe even a bishop who is thinking things are getting bad enough to actually start acting like a men instead of 12 year old girls. To be frank, I know many Catholic men in the world who have had to take VERY hard and risky stands at risk of money and security of self and family. Costs have been paid for making those stands. Prices have been paid. Maybe you have. I know I have. And that wasn’t in the shedding of blood. But look at the priests and Catholics who have given their lives for Christ in the Middle East. Many. Many we will never know. Their sacrifices will be judgment some day against the fairies that have so weakly run the Church.
So yeah, I’m with you.
I think we have every right to expect Bishops of the Catholic Church to be eager to stand up for the Lord and not hide like a bunch of friggin rabbits at the first sound of a fight.
I am hoping that such men are hearing the call right now and getting ready to be seen and heard. The WORLD needs them.
What we can’t do is disparage the ones that try. As pathetic as it might look. I mean, let’s face it…they are out of practice…
A recent Pedro Regis (Brazil) said something similar about a warrior priest this week.
Interesting.
What is “Pedro Regis”?
A prophet from Brazil for some 20 years. Just search for his name. You will need google translate to read the most recent messages which come out weekly on average
Pope Paul VI said the smoke of Satan entered the Church in 1972. It’s a lot more obvious now.
You express yourself in such a thorough manner. It really helps me to articulate (at least in my mind) that which I believe.
There really are parallel churches right now. I believe that practically speaking, if you are faithful to the ‘new church,’ then you are a latent apostate at the very least, ordinary form notwithstanding. I believe that if Pope St. John Paul II is a saint, then he is a saint largely in spite of much that he actually did. I wonder if the four cardinals understand this reality. I know that speaking for myself, that I prefer sin to sanctity. I don’t like that this is the case, but I admit it. I wish to be holy, but I fall short.
Andrew, it appears our way of seeing the Vatll church is also on a “parallel” track.
I saw JPll and BXVl as intellectual and spiritual giants. Yet, as I delved deeper and deeper into Vatll and the heresy of Modernism, I slowly began to doubt their sanctity.
Is JPll a canonized saint? Only God knows. One thing I know is that I have no faith in Bergoglio’s “cananizations”.
As far as holiness is concerned, that’s the work of a lifetime, with many stumbling blocks along the way. So, yes, you “fall short”. Don’t give up.
Simply put, we draw that line because it is a terrible and impossible thing to place oneself in a position of judgment over a pope.
I believe he is at least a material heretic; there is a great deal of evidence that he may be a formal one. It is my hope and my prayer that the the confrontation will continue on the part of those — the apostolic successors — who have been charged with the duty of fraternal correction at the highest level (Gal 2:11).
We need to keep praying for the reform and restoration of the Church.
He certainly did his homework.
When one denies that God Is The Author of Love, of Life, and of Marriage by denying the Sanctity of the marital act, one denies The Divinity of The Most Holy And Undiivided Blessed Trinity, and thus one denies Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy.
“Page 117, of the pope’s book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex unions
“If there is a union of a PRIVATE NATURE, THERE IS NEITHER A THIRD PARTY NOR IS SOCIETY AFFECTED. Now, if this union is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and female mother that can help them shape their identity.” -Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Approval of same-sex sexual unions is approval of same-sex sexual acts.
It is clear he went off the right path awhile ago. What we see and witness now are the fruits of that departure.
Steve, why are you allowing theses sedevacanists to Rome on your site to cause confusion and consternation? I’m getting sick of it. God help us!
To read this is to be reminded that sometimes words are not just words: sometimes, words are the Word, living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating even to divide soul from spirit, joint from marrow (Heb 4:12). Sometimes, as you read something you know you are not hearing someones private thoughts, but having Reality placed in your ear.
We are witnessing, now, some of the most momentous things to happen in any age. This business currently unfolding, the exact outcome of which is not clear, is in truth no ‘smaller’ than the 4th century crisis or the 16th century crisis.
These men (the Four Cardinals, Schneider, Sarah, the two Polish bishops, Chaput, Arinze, etc.) are doing in our time what Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, etc. did in that time: i.e., reaching out and grabbing the Church just as the adversary pushed her over a precipice, pulling her back from the cliff. As laity, we must fight alongside these Apostles in any and every way we can.
This is a terrifying time to be raising children, but one has to admit that it is also a thrilling time, in a certain way. We suddenly find ourselves in an age of heroes, an age of valor. May we have the innards to rise to the occasion, and never say ‘Someone else will deal with it, surely; I will keep my head down and wait for the storm to pass…’
Amen, brother.
When ideologues are in charge they do not dialogue, they dictate.
My one problem with Bishop Schneider’s letter is his acceptance of the historical dubious letters supposedly confirming the fall of Pope Liberius. In my research, I’ve found that most historians consider those letters to be forgeries and that the story of Liberius signing the Sirmian Creed was a story circulated by the party of Constantius to discredit him.
He’s a patristics scholar and not a sedevacantist. I suspect both work in favor of his version of events here.
What does any of what Thomas McIntyre has to say about the Liberius issue have to do with sede vacantists? Prior to V2 the church never said Liberius was a heretic. Funny how that only came out after the heretical council. Also, I do believe Newman wrote that quote when he was still a protestant. The whole notion of Liberius being a heretic was first launched by the Arian emperor himself (thus all the forgeries). The rumor again rears its ugly head when critics of infaillibilty (like Newman) use the forgeries to justify a faillable pope. And lastly, the rumor resurfaces as a means of justifying resistance to a heretical pope. Resisters should not stoop to detraction to justify their actions.
http://novusordowatch.org/2016/11/response-schneider-pope-liberius/
Sedevacantists have been attacking Bishop Schneider’s response to the Dubia as historically unsound on the grounds that, as the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia argues, the letters proving Liberius signed the heretical creed were forgeries.
Sedevacantists (at least the ones on the Internet) can’t find a date to the dance. So they spend all their time prooftexting instead.
I doubt anyone knows with complete certainty what Liberius actually did. It was a very long time ago, and the argument is probably almost as old. Personally, I trust +Schneider’s scholarship over innernet trads.
Either way, friends don’t let friends read NovusOrdoWatch.
I don’t even know how or where I stumbled upon this particular gem. I read it because I found it interesting and it has been so far the only place I have found the arguments for and against the authenticity of the letters proving that Liberius signed the heretical creed to be dealt with in any detail. Obviously, I disagree with their conclusion. But it is interesting that in the same book in which he demolishes the sedevacantist argument, apologist Patrick Madrid also argues that Liberius did not sign the creed, as they do.
Ultramontanists gonna Ultramontanist
So is it the general acceptance of scholars that the letters were genuine and that the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia was in error? I am not asking in order to criticize Bishop Schneider’s position. I have a personal and academic interest in the controversy surrounding Pope Liberius and have done a bit of research on the issue. While most scholarship that I have seen unquestionably accepts that Liberius signed the heretical creed, I have yet to see anything that explains why the letters in question should be accepted as authentic and not forgeries. I would be very interested to know what Bishop Schneider’s sources were.