Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Bishop Schneider: “It is a Kind of Blasphemy” for Sinners to “Demand Access to Holy Communion”

In a new interview with Rorate Caeli, Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana, Kazakhstan, one of the signatories of a Dec 30 statement calling any sacramental discipline that allows Communion for the divorced and remarried “Alien to the entire tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith,” explains why he is one of the signatories of this latest broadside against the popular pastoral implementation of the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. His interview comes amidst rumors that Pope Francis is planning a campaign of “denigration” of the signatories through his various media surrogates in retaliation for their opposition — in a way similar to what was done against the dubia cardinals (see an incomplete set of examples here, here, here, here, here, and here) following the publication of their now-famous (and still unanswered) five questions.

Schneider says “in the face of the current temporal and partial eclipse of the function of the Papal Magisterium” there is an obligation for bishops and cardinals 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.”

Discussing the widespread “plague of divorce” in his own country — a consequence, he says, of “70 years of Communist materialism” — Bishop Schneider nevertheless says that the “divorced and remarried” in Kazakhstan “would not dare to ask to be admitted to Holy Communion, since the awareness and conscience of sin is, thanks be to God, very deep routed in the souls, and even in the civil society.”

“In our country ,” he continues, “people commit sin as elsewhere, but our people still acknowledge that sin is sin, and therefore for such sinners there is hope for conversion and Divine mercy. It would be for our people — and even for the so-called ‘divorced and remarried’ among them — a kind of blasphemy to demand access to Holy Communion while continuing to cohabitate with a person who is not their legitimate spouse.”

Citing the Second Vatican Council, Bishop Schneider also reminds the faithful that “the pope is not the creator of the truth, of the faith and of the sacramental discipline of the Church,” but rather its servant. Schneider also revisits the teaching on the papacy from the First Vatican Council in Pastor Aeternus, which says that the papal charism “does not mean that they [the popes] might make known some new doctrine, but that, by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles”.

The bishop is also critical of the “ultramontanism” that arose in the 19th and 20th centuries which has “reached its peak in our days and created an insane pope-centrism and popolatry.”

In seeking to explain the dark night that the Church is now enduring, His Excellency said that God has “permitted this current extraordinary doctrinal and moral confusion in the Church” so that when the crisis has abated “the truth will shine brighter and the Church will become more spiritually beautiful” — especially for married couples, families, and popes.

You can read the full text of Bishop Schneider’s remarks, courtesy of Rorate Caeli, below:

RORATE CAELI (RC): Your Excellency has personally been out in front in terms of restoration of the traditional liturgy for many years. Now Your Excellency, Archbishop Peta and Archbishop Lenga have come out publicly, and forcibly, in defense of marriage in the aftermath of Amoris Laetitia. Why did the three of you decide now was the time to respond?

BISHOP ATHANASIUS SCHNEIDER (BAS): After the publication of Amoris Laetitia, several bishops and Bishops’ Conferences started to issue “pastoral” norms regarding the so-called “divorced and remarried”. One has to say that, for a Catholic, there is no divorce because a valid sacramental bond of a ratified and consumed marriage is absolutely indissoluble and even the bond of a natural marriage is per se indissoluble as well. Furthermore, for a Catholic, there is only one valid marriage being his legitimate spouse still alive. Therefore, one cannot speak of a “re-marriage” in this case.

The expression “divorced and remarried” is consequently deceptive and misleading. Since this expression is commonly known, we use it only in quotation marks and with the previous remark “so-called”. The mentioned pastoral norms regarding the so- called “divorced and remarried” — norms masked with a rhetoric bordering on sophism — foresee ultimately the admittance of the “divorced and remarried” to Holy Communion without the requirement of the indispensable and Divinely established condition that they may not violate their sacred marriage bond through their habitual sexual relationship with a person who is not their legitimate spouse. A certain peak has reached in this process of implicit recognition of divorce in the life of the Church, when Pope Francis ordered to publish in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, his letter of approval of similar norms which issued the bishops of the Pastoral Region of Buenos Aires.

This act was followed by a declaration that this papal approval would belong to the authentic Magisterium of the Church. In view of such pastoral norms which contradict Divine Revelation with its absolute disapproval of divorce and contradict also the teaching and sacramental practice of the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church, we were forced by our conscience, as successors of the Apostles, to raise our voice and to reiterate the immutable doctrine and practice of the Church regarding the indissolubility of the sacramental marriage.

RC: Has the Kazakh conference officially released an interpretation of Amoris Laetitia? Do they plan to do so, or does this letter mean that the conference believes Amoris Laetitia cannot be understood in an orthodox way or is in any way compatible with the Catechism and with Scripture and Tradition?

BAS: The text of the “Profession of truths” is not a document of the Bishop’s Conference of Kazakhstan, but a document only of those bishops who signed it. Our Bishop’s Conference considered it not necessary to issue pastoral norms as an interpretation of AL. Even though in our society the plague of divorce is widespread, a consequence of 70 years of Communist materialism, and we have also in our parishes cases of so-called “divorced and remarried”, yet the same “divorced and remarried” would not dare to ask to be admitted to Holy Communion, since the awareness and conscience of sin is, thanks be to God, very deep routed in the souls, and even in the civil society.

In our country people commit sin as elsewhere, but our people still acknowledge that sin is sin, and therefore for such sinners there is hope for conversion and Divine mercy. It would be for our people — and even for the so-called “divorced and remarried” among them — a kind of blasphemy to demand access to Holy Communion while continuing to cohabitate with a person who is not their legitimate spouse. Therefore, our Bishops’ Conference did not see the necessity to issue relevant norms.

RC: We’ve had the famous dubia sent to the Pope and a filial correction – mostly by laymen – sent as well. Neither have garnered a response. However, many feel Francis has already responded in a sense, when he officially endorsed the Buenos Aires bishops’ apparently heretical instruction to the divorced, remarried and still cohabitating. Should we still expect anything more from Francis on this matter?

BAS: The Buenos Aires bishops’ instructions do not express directly a heresy. Yet they allow, in individual cases, “divorced and remarried” people to receive Holy Communion in spite of the fact that they do not want to stop sexual relationships with their non-conjugal partner. In this case the mentioned pastoral instructions deny in practice, and hence indirectly, the Divinely revealed truth of the indissolubility of marriage. The sad circumstance is that the Pope approved such instructions. By this way the Pope gave, in my opinion, directly an answer to the first point and indirectly to the four other points of the dubia. We can only expect through our appeals, prayers and sacrifices, that Pope Francis may answer in a most unequivocal manner to the five points of the dubia according to the relevant teaching of the Ordinary and Universal infallible Magisterium.

RC: The threat to the Faithful has been clear, not only since Amoris Laetitia was promulgated, but just from the discussions alone at the synods. The confusion it has all caused cannot be questioned. However, much like the usefulness of Humanae Vitae was lessoned due to how long it took for it to be published, is all this now too late to stop the damage, especially when the Pope has now officially given permission for some divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion?

BAS: We have to bear in mind that the Church is not in our hands, and not even in the hands of the Pope, but in the almighty hands of Christ, and therefore we cannot say that all this is now too late to stop the damage. We can also apply the following affirmation of Saint Paul to our situation inside the Church: “Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom. 5:20). God had permitted this current extraordinary doctrinal and moral confusion in the Church for the aim that, after this crisis, the truth will shine brighter and the Church will become spiritually more beautiful, especially in the married couples, in the families and in the popes.

RC: We have heard now, for over a year, that a formal correction coming from the cardinals is imminent, yet nothing has happened. What do you believe is the hold up?

BAS: 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.

RC: If a formal correction is made by a number of cardinals, and Francis continues to officially approve of bishops’ conferences giving Holy Communion to some divorced and remarried, then what?

BAS: 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.

RC: For the typical Catholic, who goes to Mass but maybe doesn’t follow the politics of the Church like Rorate readers do, the casual Catholics whom hear the Supreme Pontiff saying numerous confusing things over the past few years, things that appear contrary (hopefully) to what they’ve been taught their entire lives, what does Your Excellency say to them? And how do serious Catholics push back when, at every turn, they’re asked by modernists if they think they’re “more Catholic than the Pope”?

BAS: First, these faithful have to continue to read and study the immutable Catechism, and especially the great doctrinal documents of the Church. Such documents are theme here, e.g., the Decrees of the Councils of Trent about the sacraments; the encyclicals Pascendi from Pius X.; Casti connubii from Pius XI; Humani generis from Pius XII;Humanae vitae from Paul VI; the Credo of the People of God from Paul VI; the encyclical Veritatis splendor from John Paul II; and his Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio. These documents do not reflect a personal and short-lived meaning of a Pope or of a pastoral synod. Instead, these documents reflect and reproduce the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church.

Second, they have to bear in mind that the Pope is not the creator of the truth, of the faith and of the sacramental discipline of the Church. The Pope and the entire Magisterium “is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on” (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, 10). The First Vatican Council taught that the charism of the ministry of the successors of Peter “does not mean that they might make known some new doctrine, but that, by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles” (Pastor aeternus, chap. 4).

Third, the Pope cannot be the focal point of the daily life of the faith of a Catholic faithful. The focal point must instead be Christ. Otherwise, we become victims of an insane pope-centrism or of a kind of popalatry, an attitude which is alien to the tradition of the Apostles, of the Church Fathers and of the greater tradition of the Church. The so called “ultramontanism” of the 19th and 20th centuries reached its peak in our days and created an insane pope-centrism and popolatry. To mention just an example: There had been in Rome in the end of the 19th century a famous Monsignor who led different pilgrim groups to the Papal audiences. Before he let them enter to see and hear the Pope, he said to them: “Listen carefully to the infallible words which will come out of the mouth of the Vicar of Christ”. Surely such an attitude is a pure caricature of the Petrine ministry and contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Nevertheless, even in our days, not so few Catholics, priests and bishops show substantially the same caricatural attitude towards the sacred ministry of the successor of Peter.

The true attitude towards the Pope according to the Catholic tradition has to be always with sane moderation, with intelligence, with logic, with common sense, with the spirit of faith and of course, also, with heartfelt devotion. Yet there has to be a balanced synthesis of all these characteristics. We hope that after the current crisis the Church will reach a more balanced and sane attitude towards the person of the Pope and toward his sacred and indispensable ministry in the Church.


271 thoughts on “Bishop Schneider: “It is a Kind of Blasphemy” for Sinners to “Demand Access to Holy Communion””

  1. “A certain peak has reached in this process of implicit recognition of divorce in the life of the Church, when Pope Francis ordered to publish in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, his letter of approval of similar norms which issued the bishops of the Pastoral Region of Buenos Aires.”

    Interesting that +Schneider considers the publication of the Buenos Aires nonsense in the AAS as the straw which broke the camel’s back. I hope many more bishops will remove the fence posts from their posteriors and publicly affirm the Catholic Faith. May God let this year be the one in which Catholics reclaim the Church from the modernists and nail the coffin of the ’60’s firmly shut.

  2. Did anybody else notice that the pic at the top appears to be from the set of Fr. Mitch Pacwa’s show on EWTN? I wonder if it was a recent interview and Raymond Arroyo isn’t the one person at EWTN who’s starting to get #Woke

    • The pic on my computer almost looks greenscreened. Maybe a grab from an old interview?

      At this point Protestants, agnostics, atheists {especially the ones that the Pope likes to give interviews to}, UN bureaucrats, Anglican “bishops”, sodomite-supporting and Lesbo-Lutheran “bishopettes”, Barack Hussein Obama and Hezbollah are all wide awake to the Pope and his agenda.

      Could be that Catholics will be the last to arrive at the party.

      • I still can’t figure the pope’s support of Abortionist Emma Bonino.
        May God continue to bless 1 P 5.
        Colossians 4:2-18
        Be persevering in your prayers and be thankful as you stay awake to pray. Pray for us especially, asking God to show us opportunities for announcing the message and proclaiming the mystery of Christ, for the sake of which I am in chains; pray that I may proclaim it as clearly as I ought.
        Be tactful with those who are not Christians and be sure you make the best use of your time with them. Talk to them agreeably and with a flavour of wit, and try to fit your answers to the needs of each one.
        Tychicus will tell you all the news about me. He is a brother I love very much, and a loyal helper and companion in the service of the Lord. I am sending him to you precisely for this purpose: to give you news about us and to reassure you. With him I am sending Onesimus, that dear and faithful brother who is a fellow citizen of yours. They will tell you everything that is happening here.
        Aristarchus, who is here in prison with me, sends his greetings, and so does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas – you were sent some instructions about him; if he comes to you, give him a warm welcome – and Jesus Justus adds his greetings. Of all those who have come over from the Circumcision, these are the only ones actually working with me for the kingdom of God. They have been a great comfort to me. Epaphras, your fellow citizen, sends his greetings; this servant of Christ Jesus never stops battling for you, praying that you will never lapse but always hold perfectly and securely to the will of God. I can testify for him that he works hard for you, as well as for those at Laodicea and Hierapolis. Greetings from my dear friend Luke, the doctor, and also from Demas.
        Please give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea and to Nympha and the church which meets in her house. After this letter has been read among you, send it on to be read in the church of the Laodiceans; and get the letter from Laodicea for you to read yourselves. Give Archippus this message, ‘Remember the service that the Lord wants you to do, and try to carry it out.’
        Here is a greeting in my own handwriting – PAUL. Remember the chains I wear. Grace be with you.
        (Franciscan Breviary)

        • The Vatican supports abortion. Period.

          No, not “officially” but you must read the Sustainable Development Goals of UN Agenda 2030 and you will find the demand for contraceptive and abortion services world wide, and…the Vatican officially supports the SDG’s.

          Oh, yes, of course they have issued the requisite “condemnation” of the language above referred to but anyone who has any experience with or understands the work of the UN KNOWS the UN is not going to in any way accept such suggestions, take them into consideration or implement them. Thus it is the nadir of disingenuousness to suggest that the Vatican and this Pope specifically, is actually taking a stand against abortion by doing so. Vatican bureaucrats ALL know such talk is worthless as a fart at Octoberfest.

          So why should we be surprised that this Pope calls Bonino “one of Italy’s forgotten greats”? He runs down the having of children and all the rest of it.

          And think about it for just one second more: The Pope appeals to Catholics the world over who support abortion. Indeed, it is the Cathgolic Church that has been one of the single most important defenders of abortion since the ’70’s thru the consistent {but in recent elections, thank God, lessening} support for the Democrat Party which has as one of its planks the absolute right to abortion on demand. Catholics have entrenched abortion in the USA.

          Hopefully, Catholics will wake up to these facts and hopefully they will rage against them till the smoke of Satan is driven from the sanctuary of the Church.

          • In the old days, in imitation of the old movies we used to say, as kids, “he speaks with forked tongue”, about people like the present Pope.

            Now, if I say that I am an anti-native american racist.

            God help us. The lunatics are running the asylum!

          • I agree with you 110% about the evil of the U.N., but I don’t assume that the Pope and others realize just how bad it is. I am constantly amazed at the naïveté of most Catholics I know, and at the utter cluelessness of many bishops about real-world dynamics. It is possible that Francis & Co. actually believe that their getting on board with the U.N. on some things may give them an “in” by which they can have some positive influence. You and I probably know more about the real nature of the U.N. than these clerics do.

          • With this Pope and some of his allies, I am not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I am more willing to say I do not know their hearts, but have suspicions they just don’t care, that is, they think abortion and contraception are here to stay and we might as well get over it.
            Naturally, they toss out the occasional platitude to connect them to the Catholic masses.

            This is EXACTLY what happens when the eternal truths and warnings of Pascendi and Moralium Animos are disregarded.

  3. Let’s pray that, if it is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, a formal correction will be issued soon. In any case, as Bishop Athanasius says, let us follow Jesus and the timeless, incorruptible teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

    May the Lord help Pope Francis — and all those clergymen who increasingly speak the language of the world, the flesh, and the devil — to correct course and, with contrite hearts, gather together once more the sheep who have been scattered by confusion and equivocation.

    St. Athanasius of Alexandria, pray for us!

  4. I wonder if Cardinals Burke and Brandmueller will refuse to sign the 3-Bishops’ straightforward correction of Francis!

    As I said elsewhere; B&B need to lead, follow, or get out of the way of those like the 3-bishops who have the guts to state the truth in season.

    At this point it looks like they are getting out of the way…

    • I don’t for one minute believe that B&B are getting out of the way. I fully believe that there is a collaborative effort going on behind the scenes in order to get as many high-level prelates to climb on board as possible. There is a squeeze going on from many different angles and we’ve already heard plenty of stories about how Francis’ loyal following is dwindling quickly. This latest statement from the Kazakhstani bishops is just one more salvo across Francis’ bow.

      Do you really think that Burke and Brandmuller have walked away from their posts? Really? Shame on you as there has been not one iota of evidence to support that position. Both Burke and Brandmuller have continued to make public statements which show they have not removed themselves from the fray. Just because they aren’t moving as fast as you’d like doesn’t mean they are “getting out of the way.”

      I can’t imagine what it must be like to live in your household.

      • We’ll see what they do or don’t do. If you hope they make good on their PROMISE to correct the Pope, I’m with you. Maybe they will! For the moment, they are getting out of the way and that is surely better than mucking it all up like Mueller does every now and then.

        As for my timeline, take a look at these men’s careers in a time of great turmoil of the Church. There have been crises after crises in the Church for decades and name which of them that has gone to war over those crises. Huh?

        A career doing good is fine and dandy. But as for warriors, neither of them are that and they never have been. But alas, maybe in their old age they will rise to the occasion and muster something out before the grave overtakes them like their other two compadres. We can always hope.

        For myself, I am glad to see some guts finally being demonstrated by Schneider, et al. It’s about time Catholic prelates started acting like men instead of 12 year old girls at a sleepover.

        As for the last, well, you’ll have to ask my wife! But I’m pretty sure she likes things just fine after 30 years and ditto my kids and their spouses and Grandson Numero Uno! We’ll have to check in next year with the two that are due!



      • There’s 473 days of evidence to support the idea that B&B have abandoned their posts….still no fraternal correction….that’s hardly a rash judgment. Scolding your grand kids might work, but it doesn’t hold sway here.

        • Indeed.

          Maybe B&B will let Schneider walk point for a while and see if he draws fire and if he doesn’t, come out of hiding to “save” the day!

          At this point, with what Schneider has been saying, I really don’t care so much what those two old guys have to say. A man’s mettle is proven under pressure, and Schneider is proving his on behalf of Our Lord and Savior and the Church.

      • “But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
        . . .
        But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
        (Galatians 2, 11-14)

        “Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses.
        Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear.
        I charge thee before God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by declining to either side.
        Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste.”
        (1 Timothy 5,19-22)

        This quotes are not reminders for you but for all bishops and cardinals. If you don’t mind.
        And yes, even bishops may been criticized by the faithful flock, when they are doing wrong, or not doing good.
        We are even obligated to do that, as canon 112 of the Catholic Church explains to us.
        Everybody who keep thinking and saying that such delay of these very important and in every means very necessarily properly apostolic and brotherly acting, could be so just because it might be God’s wish, should think twice, and if necessary more than twice.

        We are all here to do our job, and not to not do our job.

        • I think waiting for a certain time was perhaps right and an act of prudence… but we’re past that time.

          That said, I think there are some machinations going on in the upper hierarchy that we’re not fully aware of. I don’t know what they are, but I do know they are preventing Cardinal Burke from immediately issuing the correction. Whether whatever they are should be preventing him, I don’t know, but I do know that is the case.

          • “That said, I think there are some machinations going on in the upper hierarchy that we’re not fully aware of. I don’t know what they are, but I do know they are preventing Cardinal Burke from immediately issuing the correction.”

            Uhhh, what??? You “think” machinations going on…but you don’t know what they are…..but you know that’s what’s preventing Burke from issuing the correction. Care to elaborate?

          • Cardinal Burke himself told me on Gaudete Sunday that there is a “complicated situation” going on that prevents him and if not for that situation he’d issue the correction immediately. That’s what I mean.

          • Of COURSE there are “complicated situations” going on! LOL.

            Come to think of it, there are always “complicate situations” going on.

            This whole thing is a “complicated situation”.

            It was pretty darn complicated for ole Jack Fisher and Tommy More, too!! 😉

            Schneider doesn’t seem so gagged by his complicated situations. He told me in an email 12/15/17 a statement of the bishops was going to come out and fancy that, it did. Pronto to-boot. And no revisionist gobblygook in it, either.

            Praise God for Bishop Schneider and all those with him, of whom I hope and anticipate there will be many more!!

          • Again, Rod, the “complicated situation” revolves around the three or four moves “on the ecclesiastical chess board” that Burke and his supporters must answer. Primarily, what to do if and when Francis thumbs his nose at a formal, fraternal, public correction. Deposing and removing a pope is serious business- never before done in the entire history of the Church. That, in my opinion, is what is holding up the formal correction.

          • Good call. I suspect you are right, among myriad other things that might be or might be thought to be deal breakers for immediate “correction”.

            What impresses me is that Schneider, et al statement is a direct statement calling out the Pope for error. The passage has really not gotten the press I thought it would, but it is there and THAT is important.

          • This is very serious business indeed. Bergoglio will not down easily.
            He wants to take the Church down. His rage seems endless and in such full force, my opinion, of course.
            Allegiances will be formed and REQUIRED, in my humblest of opinions by this man.

            Cardinal Burke knows the man well, and his capabilities and the consequences.
            Yet, Truth cannot be held hostage by any man.

          • The things are not so much complicated, as they are in its essence simply non-Catholic (any more), where and by whom they SHOULD and MUST be kept Catholic. Like this totally insane, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-Gospel call for a “prayer” by, we know who!:
            While we all (the faithful ones, as lay-people as but then especially the clerics) keep talking and writing trillions of trillions of the words about how complicated this situation is, the situation is (because of that) just being more and more complicated.
            Yes, the situation became complicated and must be complicated since some of the leading people in Church have said things like this; – No, the Church of Christ is NOT the only way to reach Heaven! (Since they have banned the EENS!) I keep asking myself almost daily, how on earth anyone may even think that all things for the Church and whole the World can become better?!
            Yes, the situation became complicated since some of the leading people in the Church have forced once Catholic states to become a pagan states! (

            If we do not quench the fire in time, while the fire is small, it will swallow us.
            With waiting, keeping/staying silent, calculating,… we become complicit in all that what we then cannot see clearly any more, but we call it the complications. Or we can see and even understand, partly or mostly,… we aren’t able to act properly as we could while the fire was small…

          • Not defying, but his main goal is to destroy the Catholic Faith by so many as possible! Keep in mind, this is a ‘video’, but this is officially ‘prayer intention’ of the occupant of the Seat in Vatican City, what many understand as ‘pope’, as vicar of Christ himself!…
            I mean, really?! If this can be vicar of Christ, than I am easy an angel!
            This bad fruit of the IIVC deserves to be called what he is, deceiver, the destroyer.

          • Jafin, I agree.

            But more:

            In the Catholic Church the proper time for prudent resistance was at least 50 years ago; Resistance in manly honesty and up front without flinching in the face of the deluge of heresies, insults to decency and doctrinal ambiguity spouted off by buffoons, perverts and frauds.

            But the “good men” sat back, hesitant. They didn’t name names. Always in that “fraternal spirit”.

            They didn’t act like Phineas, St Paul or Jesus.

            And now, like a litter of untrained puppies, the dogs are couch-eating, boot-chomping, chicken-killing, egg-stealing, worthless mutts.

            And their masters don’t know what to do with them.

      • The 1st sentence of your 3rd paragraph is well out of order. You are a Woman and have no business spouting
        such catty remarks about a Man’s household.
        Getting personal in such manner with a fellow Catholic and Poster is plain disrespectful.

        “The Sledgehammer’s Wisdom” by Granny Atlanta. LOL!

          • We all need to admonish each other at times to bring attention to ill-judged remarks. This is
            charity of a high order for it is difficult to confront and deny “human respect”. My remarks are clearly
            interpreted as a light touch with some humor.

            To “flag” a comment is more appropriate perhaps but not always an effective means…
            But I respect policy and your position Jafin, and take note.

            By the way………..I LOVE GRANNY ATLANTA!

          • The internet lacks the subtlety of actual human interaction and it’s a bit hard to judge such motivations and nuances from it.

          • Agreed. We all need to be very careful to make what’s clear to ourselves CLEAR to ALL.
            The Devil is a master of making mountains out of mole hills.

          • Although I have yet to “flag comments” (as far as I can recall) I must say that SUPPORT on this forum for the
            egregious attire of the Swiss Guards “uniform” resplendent in camp color and psychedelic provocation gives one
            definitive cause to express disappointment and “press” the outrage button…!

      • Keep things on topic and don’t attack other people here. That’s against our comment policy and a sure way to get banned . I recommend you take a minute to go and read it.

        • Jafin, thank you for your correction. I have read the comment policy, but feel as though it’s rarely followed. Yesterday, in a different thread Rod used the words “homo” and “fag” when responding to a man who was questioning a predisposition towards homosexuality. He was not chastised for those comments. In fact, he was patted on the back for saying them.

          In another thread yesterday I saw Rod joking about his family complaining about his cantankerous behavior and he laughed it off, saying that they should be grateful because he’d be much worse if he didn’t have his head in his Bible every day. My comment above really had more to do with that as it could easily be read into his statements that he speaks whatever is on his mind, regardless of how hurtful they may be. I’m sorry for judging him so harshly.

          My post above was in reaction to his constant vilification of Cardinals Burke and Brandmuller for not putting forth the Formal Correction in the time frame Rod feels they should have. He has called them cowards and worse and not one iota of correction has come from the moderators or others on this board.

          I try very hard to be prudent and always uplifting in my posts as I firmly believe that we are here to help lead others to Christ; not tear them down.

          I’m sorry for disobeying my own Cardinal Rule. I’ll try not to let it happen again. Thanks for reminding me!

          • Personally, I laughed off your blither, so no harm done as far as I’m concerned.

            “I saw Rod joking about his family complaining about his cantankerous behavior and he laughed it off,”

            Go back and read what I said and if you have any ability to assess context, you will see that is not what I was saying at all.

            Are you still married?

            I am, and my wife and kids are pretty protective of their pops. If my wife or one of my daughter’s heard you run your pie hole at their dad you’d be lucky to get away with an earful. They are feistier than me!

            I mean, surely I must get it from somewhere?

          • “run your pie hole”…? How rude. If you don’t respect your elders, how do you expect your wife and children too? Are you selective in how elders are to be respected? What example are you giving your family?

          • How in the world do you know “Granny” is my elder?

            And according to your withering wisdom, who are you to scold yours…if I am?

            This is a place of discussion and at times debate among equals.

            If the kitchen is too hot for you, may I suggest you go lounge on the portico and leave the mashing of the potatoes to those who don’t mind the steam?

          • Oh, I’m all for having my cup of tea out on the portico. Perhaps after you’ve mashed the potatoes, you’d like to wash the dishes? Maybe even Barry would like to join you (reading his comment below). Barry being so manly, I’m sure he can handle the steam… 😉

          • Thank you, Damask Rose. Rod did change the “piehole” comment — but he also changed more than that. Rod has shown over and over again that he cares not one whit whether his words uplift others or tear them down. And it seems that most here on 1P5 applaud him for his efforts as the Moderators look the other way.

            I’m moving on…..but thank you for your efforts.

          • Douay-Rheims
            Romans 12:20: But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.

            Though you have no enemies here Granny, this scripture is relevant and I implore you to continue to enlighten
            and support this forum with your goodness and example. Once again, forgive the poor language and “take a bullet
            for the team” a bullet deflected by your humility and an example to us all.
            Please STAY!

          • Barry, you make me laugh. Thank you for that. But, I think I’ve taken a whole chestful of bullets here and need to know when to stop. It pains me to see a Catholic website fire off so many of them……and I see that as a sign that Satan is on the prowl. A sign of the demonic is accusation. He wants us to accuse others without evidence, point fingers, blame and gossip. Christ has conquered Satan, but we don’t act like it. We follow the wily demon down paths that have been laid bare by the Blood of our Savior. What a victory for Satan if he can get us to fight amongst each other? God holds us to a much higher standard than that.

            We all must be on guard against falling into Satan’s traps. He is here to steal our peace by drawing us to battle one another. Don’t allow it.

          • You are indeed a very charitable woman GrannyAtlanta and I have read your other reply to me as well as
            your reply to Margaret and Karl J.

            I am impressed by your candid remarks, your honest views, and your very dignified response. I added fuel
            to the fire which has lead to this conclusion. And have learned a valuable lesson here. And may I deeply
            apologize for whatever degree of culpability I am responsible for in relation to your decision.

            I disapprove of comments from time to time myself and am quite aware that some posters dislike mine also.
            We are all coming from different stages in life, with differing temperaments, personalities, and sense of humor.
            And dare I say it, “issues”.

            We all experience a very unique perception of reality and sometimes conflict is inevitable, however what holds
            us together is obvious: GOD, HIS SON (GOD) and The Holy Spirit (GOD) and the Great Love Of Our Blessed
            Mother together with all the Angels and Saints of the Church Triumphant.

            Leave the door open, take some time away and pop back in at a future date of YOUR choosing and say hello.
            Thank you.

          • Christ is Born!

            Dear Granny,

            Please stay! We need your words of charity and wisdom. I’ve actually saved some of your posts because they’re so good.

            Much love,


          • Oh, Gosh, Margaret! Your post actually made me cry.

            Every day I simply ask God to allow me to glorify Him in some way. How can I please Him today? He has blessed me beyond measure and I have come to know Him intimately in a deep and life-changing way. I want to know when I displease God. I want Him to correct me. I thank God when He corrects me.

            The story that Fr. Weinandy gave which preceded him writing to Pope Francis is not foreign to me. God wants each one of us to trust Him so implicitly that every hour of every day finds us in union with Him. Not chasing after human warriors. God wants us to simply throw up our hands and say, “I don’t get it, God. But I know that You do and I trust You to bring about good from all of this mess.” And then to WALK AWAY and leave the details to Him. That’s the hard part — especially for me. I want to “fix” all the problems I see around me and He knows it. When I try to boss Him around, He has come up with a beautiful reminder. I simply hear “Where were YOU when I created the earth?” and know immediately that’s my cue to back off and leave the details to Him. (That is a passage from the book of Job, Chapter 38 I believe.)

            He IS faithful! He will WIN in the end, even if things are ugly and messy. It’s our FAITH IN HIM that He is working on. Do we REALLY trust Him?

            Another big “ah-ha” for me is that God IS interested in the small sins. We work hard to avoid the Big Ten, but easily dismiss pet sins which we favor. Gossip. Anger. Resentment. I love God so much and want to please Him, so He has been good to work with me on the little things, too. It is through that revelation that I’ve realized that if I work to cooperate with Him on the little things, He graces me with even more difficult things in order that I can continue to grow. It is those little things which cause me to stumble most — not the big ones. God has shown me that every single day I can grow if I pay attention to being holy in the small things.

            I have been through many tough trials in my life. I’ve walked my Isaac up the mountain and watched God supernaturally deliver my child from death. Not once, but twice. I’ve many times asked God why He puts me through such trials and His response is “So you can be my witness.” So that is what I try to do. Every day.

            God is faithful. God wants to know each one of us on such an intimate basis that we can hear Him whisper in the midst of our storms. I am no better or different than anyone else here — and most undeserving of His attention. But, boy am I grateful that He loves me enough to show me every day that He is near.

            Trust HIM and HIM alone, dear Margaret. Men will always disappoint. God won’t. EVEN when we don’t understand His ways, we must Trust that He is always looking out for our best interests.

          • I’m saving this post too. You are a blessing, Granny (and you can tell your grandchildren I said so too!) ????

        • Jafin, I have been waiting to see if there would be any admonishment from you or any other moderator for the comments that Rod made below, AFTER you admonished me for my one sentence of digression into personal attack. Nope. Silence, which only proves the point I tried to make in my first sentence below wherein I said that I feel as though the combox rules are rarely followed. I pointed out that just one day earlier Rod had called one person a “homo” and “fag” and yet was not admonished. And still hasn’t been. Yet, I was quickly disciplined for saying “I can’t imagine what it would be like to live in your household.” Pretty benign by comparison — but I was wrong in saying it.

          Rod completes his assessment of me by saying that I “run my piehole” (which he has now deleted) and also asks if I’m married to which he then congratulates himself on 30 years of marriage.

          If this is a Catholic website, then the overall demeanor should be to edify one another and help one another get closer to God. It shouldn’t be a safe haven for some and not for others. In the post wherein Rod called the person questioning homosexual inclinations a “homo” and “fag” there have been (so far) 7 Up votes. That is shameful. Rod could certainly have disagreed with this person’s opinion without stooping to using vulgarity. Yet, it seems that vulgarity is often applauded here as if this website were some kind of frat house.

          I’ve waited to see what, if any, correction would befall Rod for his personal attacks on me below. It was an experiment of sorts, to see if posters were treated evenhandedly. It’s obvious they’re not. So, I will move on from 1P5. There are many good and respectful Catholic websites out there.

          • Karl, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your encouragement. But, I have found that staying active on this board is not helping me grow in my own holiness. I spend way too much time trying to calm myself down and respond in a charitable way when my knee-jerk reaction is to respond in kind. I am a work in progress, just like everyone else here, but God has made one thing unequivocal in my life. He comes first. Always. In every way.

            Satan is on the prowl and wants there to be acrimony and derision. That is not of God. If this site doesn’t aim to point others to Christ at all times and hold each other accountable for bad behavior, then it is not where I need to be. I have unsubscribed to this site and while personal responses continue to hit my inbox, I will not be coming here to read articles or contribute. Thank you again for your encouragement. There are many good Catholic websites which have a balanced view of what is happening in the Vatican without the acrimony.

          • Granny, you may dislike my replying to you given that I criticized some comments you made.
            My point was to inform not embarrass or offend, AND I would be very unhappy to see you “move on”
            for the reasoning you gave.
            I have always enjoyed your posts (as have many others) and appeal to you to “offer it all up” in humility and
            continue to support this site with your love and passion for the integrity of The Church.
            Don’t go, dig deep and be sustained. God Bless!

          • Barry, there is no part of me that enjoys walking away and I do know that there have been some inroads that I’ve been able to make here. Just the other day I was overjoyed when cs acknowledged he saw my point in a post.

            I have a pretty thick skin as I’ve been participating in Catholic commentary for many years. Yet, this is the only site I’ve participated in where there is a consistent lack of charity which goes unchecked. The “homo” and “fag” comments the other day — which still haven’t been removed — just put me over the top. I spend way too much of my time trying to calm down and respond charitably when my heart is aching for the person on the receiving end of a diatribe which is wholly unwarranted. The pack mentality where many join in ganging up on someone is unprecedented in my experience. Is this Catholic? Does it lead others to Christ? There are many people who will read these comments and never respond, but walk away nonetheless with a bad taste in their mouth. Does this honor God? Do we really think God doesn’t care? I honestly believe He does care.

            I have dug deep and stayed active well past what I have felt was wise. Each and every one of us has to decide what helps and hinders us on our path to holiness and I know that my own spiritual growth has been hampered because of the hours I’ve spent here trying to make a difference. I really do need to move on, but thank you for your words of encouragement. I will continue to post on other Catholic websites with the same moniker.

          • You should take a breath, read St Paul, and Jesus for that matter. Their language is far harsher than any of the the terms I used. FAR. I mean this not to inflame, but to educate.

            We are in a war and Catholics have played patty cake for decades.

            The enemy must be identified and not mollycoddled. Neither Jesus nor St Paul was a mollycoddler of those who sought to destroy God’s Church.

            More I think about it, tho, the more I think you might be right. Maybe handing one-word descriptors on “homosexuals” is inadequate.

            Possibly it would be best if we specified in detail what they do when we refer to them?

            Maybe that would mollify your concerns?

          • Let me say this…

            The moderators here are all volunteers. We have other things in life to deal with than police all the comboxes 24/7. Your previous comment was made yesterday. That is not a lot of time. Be patient.

            Furthermore, we follow the comment policy closely. If you read it, you’ll see the specifics of what’s allowed. I have read RodH’s comment and, while I would certainly not use that language, especially in this place, the message and sentiments contained are actually quite Catholic. You were warned, not admonished, to avoid personal attacks. That’s it. If you don’t like the comment boxes here and how they are moderated you’re free to leave.

            That said, RodH, if you’re reading this, please be careful to not scandalize others with terms like “fag” so as not to cause your brethren to stumble. Thanks!

          • Jafin, I don’t know of a single combox moderator on any nonprofit website who is paid and I know full well that each of you have lives to live, just as I do. What is unconscionable, though, is the lack of contrition you show when called out specifically for allowing some posters to flagrantly violate the combox comment policies. In past posts I have seen you contribute to the chaos rather than deflate it. But since you have your posts blocked on the master list, I can’t pull any of them out right now as proof.

            So, let me say this:

            James 1: 26 — “If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless.”


            Psalm 141: 3-4 — “Set a guard over my mouth, O Lord; keep watch over the door of my lips. Do not turn my heart to any evil, to busy myself with wicked deeds in company with those who work iniquity; do not let me eat of their delicacies.”

            Your remarks sully the reputation of a website that was set up to honor God.

          • Jafin needs no help from me, but I gotta add I find it somewhat ironic that this poster now turns her guns from me and Barry to the Moderator.

            Who’s next?

          • If you don’t like it here, you don’t have to comment here. I don’t have time to argue with you about the comment box policies. You’re just arguing at this point.
            From the comment policy:

            8. Trolling/arguing/being a sophist in the comment box without contributing in a meaningful way to the discussion will not be tolerated.

            9. If you don’t agree with these rules, don’t participate.

            Good day to you.

          • Yes, I did ask you if you are married. I’m curious since you have been comfortable disparaging the marriage of one who has been and happily so remains.

            And let’s not forget why…over words applied to sodomites.

            So are you?

            If so, Congratulations!

            If not…I think you should think twice about insulting one who is.

            As for congratulations, I congratulate everyone else who is happily married {especially my wife! }, and indeed, most especially those who have been married longer than we have! They are great models for the rest of us and deserve the recognition.

      • Have you seen Burke’s latest interview in The Catholic World Report (22 JAN)? Because you are so incredibly wrong it’s mind boggling…..Burke’s white flag is flying.

  5. It is apostasies for clerics in the Vatican to promote those sorry excuses for clergy like Martin Amer. Mgz. Farrell Bishop of Ireland and another in the Vatican to promote this as well. Eternal shame on the Vatican for doing this..

  6. I hope that Bishop Schneider,s flock know how blessed they are! Unfortunately, I don’t feel the same about the leadership of the archdiocese I belong; it is sad since I first liked him but he has turned out to be…well very disappointing, and the same goes with other cardinals such as the one overseeing Washington.DC. Of course I don’t even want to mention the new elected (2017)cardinals in America.Of course Cardinal Burke is one rare exception,but I don’t think that american hierarchy will support these few faithful voices”crying out in the desert”. I hope Cardinal Burke doesn’t let me down….Cardinal Muller has had me confused a few times, for sometimes he seems to adhere and defend orthodoxy, while in other occasions he sounds more like “an agent ” of the pope.I have been so discouraged and tempted to leave the Church that has become increasingly more alienated, specially being a cradle catholic growing up in pre-Vatican ll.

    • Read about St. Athanasius, who went through much the same experiences. Almost all the bishops of his time were heretical, and orthodox Catholics were driven out of their parish churches. It was the laity who held the faith, and by their faithfulness, worked with Christ to rebuild it.

      Perhaps it is not a coincidence that Bishop Schneider’s first name is Athanasius.

      Consider St. Peter, who when Christ asked him if he wanted to leave too, responded by asking Our Lord where else there was to go, since only He had the words of eternal life.

      If you leave the true Church, and the true Magisterium, where would you go for the words of eternal life? “This is My Body…”

  7. Some Catholic journalist/detective, fluent in Spanish, should be in Argentina, ferreting out the full story of the long, long, close, close relationship of Jorge Bergoglio and Gustavo Vera. The whole world would benefit.

  8. As the Adulterers for Communion continues to rage, the new possible problem will be the upcoming Synod on the youth. I have read the Preparatory Document, and its just mushy. A snippet:

    Going Out

    Pastoral vocational care, in this sense, means to accept the invitation of Pope Francis: “going out”, primarily, by abandoning the rigid attitudes which make the proclamation of the joy of the Gospel less credible; “going out”, leaving behind a framework which makes people feel hemmed-in; and “going out”, by giving up a way of acting as Church which at times is out-dated. “Going out” is also a sign of inner freedom from routine activities and concerns, so that young people can be leading characters in their own lives. The young will find the Church more attractive, when they see that their unique contribution is welcomed by the Christian community.

    The youth don’t stand a chance!

    • I haven’t read it yet, but would be interested to know what is said under the subject of vocation. I am sure this will be another area which they attempt to pervert.

    • It would be naive, after everything that has transpired in this regime as well as in the Catholic Church in my adult lifetime, for me not to expect the attempted, complete annihilation of traditional Catholicism. There is only destruction on the horizon, from inside the hierarchy. It is time for me to understand this reality and for everyone, as well. That is the plan.

    • I agree with everything except your last sentence. I’d write this:

      The youth don’t stand a chance unless God gives them the grace to defend the Faith they professed in Confirmation.

      • Yes, I should have clarified my statement.

        To be honest, a majority of youth don’t even know the faith, let alone process it. It is they who, humanly speaking, don’t stand a chance. Naturally, Our Lord is in control of the situation. He’ll do something in His own time.

    • I think the angle in this next synod is to aim for a married priesthood. “The youth will be more likely to become priests if we let them get married too!” Possible also deaconesses… I wouldn’t expect them to stay on topic. We had 2 synods on the family and that was all about desecrating the Eucharist…

      • As I’ve said ad nauseam, if the Latin Church wants married priests, they should adopt in toto ALL the rules and regulations which Eastern Catholic married priests MUST follow.

        Otherwise, DON’T do it!!!!!!

          • I don’t quite understand. Do you mean the Anglican Ordinariate which was established by BXVI or the Anglicans aka Episcopalians?

          • I mean the CofE. All those who want married priest and gay priests and the like should just join the CofE where anything goes.

          • That’s what I thought you meant. Two points, if I may:

            1) My pastor is a Ukrainian Greek Catholic married priest.

            2) The Episcopalians are the CofE in the USA.

        • “if the Latin Church wants married priests”…

          That’s the question of course.

          DOES “the Latin Church” want married priests? Or are the prelates so insistent on changing the entire doctrinal and operational foundation of the Church that they want married priests {& “deaconesses”} as a tool to affect that change?

          • That’s the 64,000 £ question. My pastor is a Ukrainian Greek Catholic married priest. He has 2 parishes (us and our sister parish), is a hospital chaplain, makes sick calls every day and somehow finds time for gardening. He has a great sense of humor and gets along easily with people. Is he perfect? No, but he’s very wise. His English is getting better but you have to really struggle to understand him because he talks better Ukrainian than English.

  9. Has there ever been any comprehensive research into the prevalence, (or otherwise), of validly married/divorced/civilly re-married Catholics who are agonising over their exclusion from Holy Communion? I’m sure they do exist, but we live in times when the majority of Catholics, whenever they attend Mass, (however frequently or infrequently) will get up and receive Holy Communion along with everyone else “because that is what you do” without any examination of their own spiritual condition. So, when it comes to the divorced and re-married …….. how many of them really care? Therefore, may one ask if this obsessive pre-occupation with this particular on the part of so many of the hierarchy may serve some other purpose. Is this particular matter a “test case” that maybe used a precedent in other areas?

    • This is exactly the point that Cardinal Pell made after the first synod. He said its not as if we are swamped with d&r who want to return to the sacraments – this is just a stalking horse for “gay marriage”. I think he was right in part, but it also became a stalking horse for ditching Humanae Vitae…watch this space.

      • Yes, we have good reason to suppose that “the writing is on the wall” for Humanae Vitae. Obviously, if we are going to forge a Catholic-Lutheran amalgam, a more mature and enlightened position on contraception is necessary. Let nothing be a hindrance!

    • It’s the abolition of sin. Mercy, Mercy, Mercy. It’s the “god” of surprises. We are back to the Oracle of Delphi. For a Catholic attitude on the invalid marriage issue check out Charles Peguy.

    • Yes, I do believe that is the phenomenon being discussed here. That is why Bishop Schneider says (with two added emphases on my part) :

      [One has to say that, for a Catholic, there is no divorce because a VALID sacramental bond of a ratified and consumed marriage is absolutely indissoluble and even the bond of a natural marriage is per se indissoluble as well. Furthermore, for a Catholic, there is only one valid marriage being his LEGITIMATE spouse still alive. Therefore, one cannot speak of a “re-marriage” in this case.

      The expression “divorced and remarried” is consequently deceptive and misleading. Since this expression is commonly known, we use it only in quotation marks and with the previous remark “so-called”. ]

      So, yes, he is referring to people who did not get an annulment. We need to remember, however, that the annulment doesn’t nullify the first marriage, but rather declares that it was never valid to begin with. Thus, of course, if the first marriage were valid, they couldn’t have got an annulment.

  10. The average IQ is 100 (by definition). Added to the lack of sufficient intelligence to comprehend writing that is generally well above the 6th grade level that ordinary people can understand, is the reality that very few males can be persuaded to read anything more substantial than a pamphlet, if that; the reality that many people have ADD or are dyslexic; the reality that the vast majority of Catholics have never heard of any of these documents, except for the Catechism; and the reality that today very few people read whole books at all.

    And this is not hypothetical. In my business, I am always trying to get people to read in order to speed things up, and very few of them do, even when it is clearly in their personal and financial interest to do so.

    I tremendously respect these bishops for standing up to Bergoglio, but good grief. This advice might be followed by perhaps ten percent of Catholics, if we bombard them constantly with it, and if we had access to the hundreds of millions of Catholics that we do not have access to.

    The best advice I can give, at least for most Americans, is to point to the place in the Gospels where “Jesus said,” and then tell them what Bergoglio said by contrast. I have had some success with that.

    In my experience, many American Catholics are culturally subconscious Protestant fundamentalists who care very little about what “the Church says,” but are much more responsive to the direct words of the Bible. I don’t say this as an impartial cultural observer, but as one who has tried it quite often.

    (In case you want to know what “culturally subconscious Protestant fundamentalists means, I have frequently been told by women who took their wedding vows in a Catholic Mass that they did not care what they had vowed, they were not going to obey their husbands. My pointing out that that had vowed no such thing is invariably met with disbelief, and emphatic assertions that they had done just that. They had watched too many movies. The culture completely overrode their own experience.)

      • IQ doesn’t change much over time, except in cases of dementia, illness or brain injury.

        The last paragraph was an attempt to explain why taking confused Catholics directly to the Bible tends to work better than sending them to Church documents, or explaining Church teachings.

        American culture is Biblical, not dogmatic, and it saturates everyone, regardless of what church they grow up in. That is why showing people the words of Christ in the Bible is more effective, and more credible to them than teaching them about dogma, doctrine, or the magisterium.

        Furthermore, from a secular perspective, we have been taught to despise authority for generations now (“the first rule is, break all the rules”). The Catholic Church teaches with authority. BECAUSE OF THAT, it’s teachings are to be disregarded. Insane, yes, but very often true in practice.

        The part about the Catholic brides believing they had made Protestant wedding vows floored me when I first encountered it, and started my thinking about the subconscious absorbing of Protestant culture.

        • I think this is why…… American Political Culture is so messed up.

          Did you know that before the 70s, Christian Fundamentalists did not care for Abortion ? The Catholic Church was the Only Church at that time speaking out for the Unborn. It wasn’t until the Civil Rights Acts that Fundamentalists began to team up with Catholics……..

          • Having been around at the time, I assure you that abortion was very much a concern. It was legalized, or not, by the states, until the Supreme Court pre-empted the question. New York State had already legalized abortion before then.

            The local Planned Parenthood is in a professional mall. There is an evangelical church in that mall also. The protesters are always Catholics. None of the evangelicals show up. They do quite genuinely wish us well.

        • I think this is right on. Great assessment.

          Most people couldn’t care less what the CC says, but will at least listen if you bring up the Bible.

          Catholics; Read the Bible! It’s OUR book after all!

      • My point is that while most readers of OnePeterFive are capable of taking Bishop Schneider’s advice on what to read, the vast majority of Catholics are not, for intellectual or educational reasons, or because they have no knowledge of the existence of the documents he recommends, or that they would be helpful.

        For such Catholics, show them the words of Christ directly from the Gospels.

        All the rest was commentary.

        • Dear Hudson,

          I’m not sure if you are trying to be superior and insult the average Catholic but it certainly reads as if you are firstly IQ is man made whereas wisdom comes from God and cannot be measured.

          Saint Bernadette of Lourdes couldn’t even read and yet in her heart she knew the truth, she also experienced many so called intellectual and superior Catholics attacking.

          Our faith is not transmitted by books it’s transmitted through faith, acts and speech, listening to the word of God so, if you are seeking a faith that is based on reading books I suggest you go Protestant.

          Our Lady at Lourdes did not recommend reading as a solution to the crisis, Our Lady of Fatima clearly stated frequent mass, frequent confession, praying the holy rosary everyday, frequent adoration, sacrifices and wearing the scapular as being the necessary route to revers communism and its spread.

          • Dear Christopher

            I agree with you almost entirely.

            However, IQ is a God-made gift; the only thing that humans have to do with it is try to measure it, either globally, or by sub-factors. It is no more man-made than an optician’s eye chart’s results. We make the chart. Not the eyesight.

            St. Bernadette was severely dyslexic, not that there was such a word, or concept, at the time. This was the one miraculous healing that she was granted from the water of Lourdes. She felt she was not disobeying Our Lady by going there to be healed (“It is not for you”), since what she wanted was not physical healing, but the ability to read. She received it, and was able to read thereafter, as well as to write.

            Bernadette was considered to be stupid, which she certainly was not, because she was dyslexic, and unable to learn to read.

            My comments on reading levels and intelligence were focused on Catholics because Bishop Athanasius Schneider, whom I adore, advised Catholics to read papal encyclicals in order to make sense of what is going on.

            It is equally true of Protestants. It is amazing how many “Bible believing Christians” have one and don’t read it. I find no particular difference between the two groups, except that Catholics have so many other resources in our faith. A Protestant rarely kneels and prays to Our Lady, says the Rosary, or goes to Mass.

    • Dear Hudson, I’m sorry but I have never read anything about Saint Bernadette being dyslexic. However I have read that Saint Bernadette is the patron Saint of those who are ridiculed, which fits nicely into what you were originally trying to imply with your IQ comment.

      • Dear Christopher

        You will not find anything in her biographies, of which I have read several, about her being “dyslexic” unless the book was written by a special ed teacher. Which is not surprising, since the condition was only defined during the late twentieth century, not the nineteenth.

        However, the description matches perfectly. There was nothing wrong with her eyes, her intelligence was solidly normal, as can be seen from her writings, and yet she was unable to learn to read. After she went to the spring and washed her eyes, she was able to learn to read normally, with no further problem.

        Most of her biographies do not mention her washing her eyes in the spring water. But how then did she go from being illiterate, to suddenly being able to read, and to write letters?

        As was true until recently, dyslexic children were usually considered to be stupid.

        I probably noticed it because I am dyslexic myself, and only escaped the usual consequences because my mother taught me to read by the sight-say method, which does not require accuracy in perceiving the letters, but treats words as lumps of a certain general shape.

    • It is also useful to point that Francis is always calling people who disagree with him as pharisees when on the question of divorce is he is the one who is of one heart and mind with the pharisees in opposition to Jesus.

        • In Mark and Luke, there is a blanket prohibition of divorce.

          However in Matthew, He follows with: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity (RSVCE).

          The word that is rendered “unchastity” in the RSVCE is pornea. Other translations render this as : sexual immorality, immorality, sexual unfaithfulness, fornication, etc.

          So basically some will argue that if your wife/husband is guilty of adultery, fornication, sexual immorality, you are allowed to divorce her/him.

          Which of course does not make sense because then Jesus it seems is giving you an out: commit sexual immorality and you are allowed to be divorced.

          The NAB renders this word much better :”(unless the marriage is unlawful)” and applies this exception in the right context.

          A word study of pornea in the Bible and surrounding context in first century Judaism shows that this translation of pornea by the NAB is more correct.

  11. Bishop Schneider !!!! There you go, get the truth out. Stand up and lead. Doesn’t it feel better.

    But don’t use “kind of”, which creates “wiggle room”.

    Here try this, if a family member or close friend is pregnant, ask her if she is “kind of ” pregnant. You’ll get a rock solid response…..

    Same goes for “kind of blasphemy ”

    Of course we know that you know but,,,


    • I don’t think he uses “kind of” to mean “rather” or “a little bit” (as in, “That’s kind of big”). I think he uses it to mean “a TYPE of blasphemy.” One KIND of blasphemy; implying that there are other kinds (for example using the Lord’s name in vain). Lemons are a kind of citrus fruit (because there are other kinds of citrus fruit other than lemons; not that lemons are rather like citrus fruit). Since English is not his first language he may not even be aware that “kind of” can mean “a little bit.” Because that usage is less common than “kind” meaning “type” which most people who speak English as a second language know well.

  12. On a lighter note…

    Couldn’t help smiling at the sentence in paragraph 3 that, in part, reads:

    ” the awareness and conscience of sin is, thanks be to God, very deep routed in the souls, and even in the civil society.”

    I’m guessing the translator must have been distracted by the pain of a recent route canal.

    I get my kicks on Root 66.

    • It could also be seen in the meaning of “rout”, as well. For, certainly, based upon the behavior of the “pastors” the flock is in full, anarchistic, disarray and in desperate need of faithful, authentically, historically CATHOLIC LEADERSHIP!

      And has been for many decades.

      • Back in the 1960s, a friend and I walked out of a stupifyingly boring Andy Warhol movie—“Chelsea Girls”—that seemed utterly interminable. This is the same man who made a 5+ hour movie of someone sleeping; and an 8+ hour movie of the Empire State Building. I never saw either of them but was told, of the latter, that every now and then a light would go on or off, or a bird would fly across the face of the building.

        This papacy mostly seems like a Warholian pontificate: it can’t end soon enough. I doubt Francis will be ousted; but maybe it’ll turn out to be not a movie but a really bad play and he’ll be booed offstage.

          • Well, back then we had a Peabody-Sherman relationship; he was the experimenting erudite one; I the hapless Sherman just tagging along.

            With regards to “explorations of thought,” T.S. Eliot, in his introduction to Josef Pieper’s “Leisure: The Basis Of Culture” writes that “…even if some of its avenues turn out to be blind alleys, it is, after all, worth while exploring a blind alley if only to [establish] that it IS blind.”

            In this case, though, I’d say you chose the better part.

          • In theory, it is good to keep an open mind, rather than being against the possibility of a different perspective. But in doing so one must objectively investigate untested/new things.

            There are things/experiences that I took part in in my youth, that were not so bright, in retrospect. Fortunately, I generally stayed on the straight and narrow, perhaps even because my nature has always been a “conservative” one, rather than being one who was driven to seek out whatever looked to be new and/or exciting. It is just who I have always been. As far back as I can remember.

            It is why I still get goosebumps and even misty eyed, hearing this:


            You will know it.

  13. I am a big fan of Bishops Schneider, but let us not forget that NONE of this matters a bit unless leadership and parish priests are willing to discipline the faithful on a regular basis.

    Enforcement of the Sacramental law and TEACHING on the necessity for it are essentials.

    As I’ve mentioned many times, at this point things have gotten so far astray, that no restoration of catholic culture and truth and witness to the world can occur without mass excommunications, laicizations, and likely interdicts.

    A well-run home sees the administration of discipline on a regular and ongoing basis. The catholic church has been a very poorly run home for many many years. it shows to the world and family {of God} has gotten a very bad name because of it.

    • Sounds like the St. Mary’s in Astana Archdiocese does all of that. Unfortunately, the jurisdiction of these bishops is limited to their diocese.

      • That’s the point. There are those places…

        As for jurisdiction, thankfully their words have escaped the borders of their bishopric.

  14. I am not Catholic. I need an answer if you will.
    You can have a marriage annulled by paying the “Church” for it ,{ I do not know what the bounty is}, but you cannot remarry in a Catholic church if you are divorced without the paid permission from the church. There seems to be no limit on the timeline for getting the “permission from the church if you pay up. Therefore you cannot have communion.
    Does this not seem to be a bit of an extortion plan?
    To me I would think the church would be happy if you wanted to attend church and take part of Communion as a family.

    • A valid marriage (the technical description is ratum et consummatum est) cannot be dissolved by any human power, be it the Pope, an ecclesiastical tribunal or a civil judge.

      A declaration of nullity (that’s the correct term NOT an annulment) states that a valid marriage never existed in the first place.

      Example: If the groom and/or bride had too much to drink from their bachelor/ette party the night before but still go through with the ceremony because “well, the family’s all here and we spent all this money so we might as well go through with it” can be grounds for a declaration of nullity.

      There are other reasons too. I don’t know where you live but if you asked a good Catholic priest who is knowledgeable about what goes on during a tribunal, he could set you straight.

      My former pastor was on our marriage tribunal so he’s up on this kind of stuff.

      • I am not trying to impune your faith but I do not understand how a priest can make or church elders determine what is a valid marriage.

        This is what another poster said..

        ” HudsonLink SteelerK9 • 33 minutes ago
        In my diocese, the fee is reduced, or even dispensed with, if the couple are too poor to pay. And the fee is far less than the actual cost of the time that the canon lawyers spend reviewing the case.

        There is no time limit for the reason that annulments are only given for a cause that made the marriage invalid at the time of the wedding. Nothing after that counts, unless it shows that there was reason for the marriage to have been invalid in the first case.

        There is no statute of limitations.

        • “I am not trying to impune your faith but I do not understand how a priest can make or church elders determine what is a valid marriage.”

          1) Slight erratum: It’s “impugn”. (Sorry, its the proofreader in me.)

          2) In the Latin Church, the marriage is confected by the free and full consent of the bride and groom. The priest is only a witness.

          In the Eastern Catholic Churches, *the blessing of the priest* is necessary for the validity of the marriage as well as the free and full consent of the bride and groom.

          3) In the Latin Church before VII, you didn’t say “I do.” but “I WILL.”

          4) In the Byzantine and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, it’s an oath. Groom: “I, (name of groom), take you (name of bride) for my lawful wife, and I solemnly promise to you my love, faithfulness and matrimonial honesty, and that I shall not separate from you until death. May God in the Holy Trinity and all the saints help me keep my oath.”

          Source: Schudlo, Rev. M., compiler. My Divine Friend. 1959.

          I really don’t know much about the process of nullity. As I said, my former pastor would know this better than I.

    • In my diocese, the fee is reduced, or even dispensed with, if the couple are too poor to pay. And the fee is far less than the actual cost of the time that the canon lawyers spend reviewing the case.

      There is no time limit for the reason that annulments are only given for a cause that made the marriage invalid at the time of the wedding. Nothing after that counts, unless it shows that there was reason for the marriage to have been invalid in the first case.

      There is no statute of limitations.

      • So it comes back as no more than extortion from a couple that gets divorce and wants to remarry someone else in the Catholic church?
        I had a friend that is catholic and his fee was $500.00. He remarried another Catholic lady.
        I asked him how he felt about having to pay this fee so he could marry Catholic again. He said in retrospect that it was not worth it. He divorced his second wife.

        • It is a fact that some tribunals are linient and can get things wrong.

          But the fee for an annulment is to cover the cost of the canon lawyers as already explained. If you were to go to a secular court you too will have to pay for your lawyer. Same with those who divorce. They have to pay their divorce lawyer.

          If I may say, $500 is a measly amount considering the time and effort that canon lawyers spend on the case.

          As already pointed out by HudsonLink, the determination of invalidity has to be from the time the vows were made and not anything that comes after.

          Your friend is obviously not really Catholic considering he is divorcing again. He is a joke.

          • You point out that the lawyers of the church are pd. The $500.00 was pd 30 years ago. He still had to go to divorce court. So he was zapped again.
            As far as my buddy being a joke all I can say is that if you are a Christian then that was not needed.
            Perhaps if you would of lived like he was living with his second wife, and what she did, you might have a different view. Then again if you are so much a follower of the Catholic church and refuse to understand folks you are doing your faith a disservice.

          • Look, if he wants to be Catholic, then he goes by what the Catholic Church decrees.

            And no he was not zapped again. It was his fault for not being faithful to his vows. The fact that he remarried and cannot commit even to that, means that he has problems.

            It is not about understanding folks, it is about calling folks to live their Catholic faith. Divorcing and remarrying and divorcing and remarrying is NOT living out your faith.

          • At least not your faith.
            The issues were not with him but the woman he married. I would guess that according to you he should of stayed married but stayed separated for the remainder of his life. That is archaic thinking.
            It is about understanding folks. The Dogma that man writes can really screw up the real meaning of being a Christian.

          • I’m a convert from Protestantism, raised Methodist, holding a Masters in Theology from a Wesleyan Seminary. for a time I was an elder in a Calvinist denomination and have worshiped in Lutheran and Anglican and Baptist groups.

            1} The “real issues” involved a choice he made, the choice to marry that woman.

            2} Blame Jesus for “archaic thinking”. It is His direct and clear speaking on the issue that is reflected in Catholic doctrine.

            3} “The Dogma that man writes can really screw up the real meaning of being a Christian.” Now that’s the truth. Arguably the single most disastrous social plague in the developed world today is divorce and so-called remarriage {what Jesus calls adultery}.

            The devastating impacts it has had on children as well as those involved in the divorcing, seem to have little deterrent effect on those who are hellbent on “screwing up the real meaning of being a Christian”, for they do it at almost the same rate as non-Christians.

          • While I appreciate your thoughtful response I will say this. When you find a person that you love and they love you and you wish to marry, you are not thinking that it will end. I know that this was not my friend’s thinking when he got married. He did not have children in either marriage.

            I agree that divorce can hurt children in so many ways. If the parents bad mouth each other and attempt to turn the kids against the other parent, no one wins.

            I am not trying to argue religious points. I can read that you are accomplished in your field. I respect that.

            I do know that pretty much everything that Christ said was written down years after his death to include Paul’s Letters which were written 50 years later.

            Thank you again for the information.

          • The point made in some annulment proceedings is that one member tries to get the tribunal to believe they DID enter into the marriage with intentions that it would end, in other words, that they “really didn’t mean it”. This becomes absurd to me after many years of marriage, children, etc. I admit it, I have questions about the culture that has developed from the fact that very very few annulments used to be granted and now many are. But even if violations are rampant, rampant violations don’t destroy the integrity of the teaching, they only highlight its debasement!

            I’m not sure exactly what you mean by the writing down of what Jesus said, but we are told in St john 21:25 that Jesus did {and said goes along with it suppose} many things that St john didn’t write down. I suspect that goes for all of the Apostles and authors of Scripture. In 2 Thess 2:15, St Paul admonishes the believers to hold to the traditions he passed to them, those in writing and those he gave them orally. This passing down constitutes Tradition in the Church.

            Children are injured in divorce regardless of whether the parents bad mouth each other. Divorce itself is a severe injury to anyone effected by it. Our culture unfortunately bears this out. Hence, as usual, the words of Jesus are shown to be eternally wise; better for those involved in severed relationships to remain single and celibate than to compound the problem by entering into further complicating relationships, relationships He calls adultery.

          • It’s twice that he has been divorced. That says something.

            The real meaning of being a Christian regarding marriage is simple accordin to guess who – Christ Himself.

            Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. It’s that simple.

            And no, it is not archaic to say that he should remain separated for the rest of his life, it is called fidelity to his vows. Now of course, if you are not Christian, I suppose you can make up your own rules. But if you are a Christian, Christ sets the rule. You either abide by His rule or you don’t in which case you really are not Christian.

          • “He without sin cast the first stone.” Seems to me that your milk of human kindness is a bit low.
            You should of said that if you don’t abide by these rules you are not catholic.
            I will venture to say that most ,if not all, Protestant faiths do not share the view of the catholic church.

          • I love it when people quote the Lord. Especially when I can fire back with the rest of the quote!

            The parting shot from the Lord is ‘GO AND SIN NO MORE”. But of course that is too inconvenient to mention. So what you are saying is that the milk of human kindness of Jesus Christ must be slow too for ACTUALLY teaching that.

            And , no, it is not a case of merely not being Catholic. It is not being Christian because Christ’s command is not merely for the Catholic but for all those who profess to follow Him.

            And you are right, most Protestants do not believe what Christ taught. So what else is new?

          • Your opinion. You follow “The Church” as if everyone else is wrong. That is a wrongheaded way of thinking. However, if you are happy then Amen.

            FYI, I believe Christ was talking to first the people that were going to stone an individual. The part you quoted was said to the one that he saved. I guess that was a bit to inconvenient for you to mention as well.

            As far as taken issues with God, that I always believe is between the individual and his Creator.
            Have a blessed day.

          • You are correct. But having told the people, he told the woman who sinned go and sin no more.

            So I am saying the same vis a vis your friend. You on the other hand seem to think that Jesus thinks adultery is okay. He doesn’t.

            And yes, it is between the individual and the creator. But we are all called to admonish the sinner and point out their error. And this is not a case of casting the first stone but actually calling them to obey the Lord. We are not here to enable them in their sin.

            The problem with your sentimental outlook is that it is not grounded in the Gospel.

            So, if you are truly his friend, when are you going to be like Christ to him and tell him to “go and sin no more”? Perhaps never, because you think that adultery is no longer a sin.

            And by the way, truth is not relative. If the Church is right, then yes, everyone else is wrong.

          • I love when folks tell me I am not grounded. That is rich. That one caused me to laugh. My view is not “sentimental” by any reason.
            Perhaps you should communicate to the poster Karl I have had a nice conversation with.
            He is Catholic but does not come off as a “I am right and you are wrong” individual. Perhaps you could learn from him.
            He has a good way explaining his belief system.

          • Where did I say that you are not grounded? The question is on what are you grounded?

            As for having a “nice” conversation, I don’t do nice.

            Nice is lame. Nice is bland. Nice leaves people in their sin. Nice means don’t rock the boat.

            The Gospel is NOT nice. God is NOT nice.

          • When I was a young lad I asked my Dad why I had to attend church. His response has stuck with me my entire life.
            He said” By going to church you learn how to treat people and get along in life w people. He was right.
            Never mistake kindness for weakness. I would venture to say that Christ was the most gentle and kind being that has ever walked the Earth. For someone that wants to be Christ Like you do not strike me as such.
            You got your knickers in a knot by what I wrote. Oh well.

            I think you need a dose of humility.

          • It seems your Dad is clueless as to why one goes to Church.

            You can “learn how to treat people and along in life with people” without going to Church.

            You go to Church to WORSHIP God. Going to Church is not about learning to get along with people. You might as well just read Norman Vincent Peale.

            It is clear then where you got your ridiculous notions of Christianity. But then I can’t blame your father because he probably was foolishly taught the same by someone else.

            And yes, Christ was gentle but he did not suffer pride. He did tell Peter that he was Satan and to get behind him. If you remember, it was in the context of Peter telling Him he should not suffer. And yet that is what you are proposing for your friend. Abandon the Lord that he may find yet one more paramour. I think the Lord calls that being Satan.

            So yes, I do encourage you to read God IS not nice. You need to read it.

            And by the way, humility is rooted in the word humous – “of the earth”. It basically is an acknowledgement that we are creatures.

            There is nothing more arrogant or prideful than to think that we know better than God as to what is permissible and what is not. And that seems to beyour position. So while you feign humility, you are in fact soaring in pride – non serviam.

            Interesting that you have put yourself above God and His clear teaching and yet you consider yourself humble. 🙂

          • First my Dad’s views come from being raised up a very hard way. I doubt that you would of survived. My Dad was never foolish.

            I have never said I put myself above God, those are your words.
            I never have, nor would I.

            Your attitude is why some folks don’t like Catholics. You are narrow minded at best. I base my view on folks on a one on one level. That is beyond you. You have no milk of human kindness.

            You still need a dose of humility or to be knocked off that high horse you ride. I have met Pentecostal Preachers with more understanding than you seem to have when someone asks a question.
            You must be a very sad human being. I do feel for anyone that has to be around you with this type of arrogance that you display.
            I feel sorry for you more than others around you.

            I also do not “soar in pride” nor quoting Latin makes sense with this conversation.

            Your condemnation of my friend, my Dad and me is over the top for what I asked. You are not a fine example of a Christian. You definitely are not Christ like in your life , if this is how you feel.

            Good luck with your life. I know you will comment. You have to. It is hardwired into you.

            Remember do not take kindness for weakness.

          • Since your Dad said that the reason you go to Church is to learn to get along with people, then indeed he was foolish because he did not know the reason we go to Church. As I pointed out reading How to Win Friends and Influence People by NVP will achieve that too.

            You didn’t have to say you put yourself above God. The fact that you think it is okay to serially marry when God said it is a sin, means you put yourself above God even though you do not want to admit that to yourself.

            I am not here to be liked. That is the whole problem with our society – human respect. No one is saying the truth anymore because they want to be liked. I am here to talk about the truth – but you seem to have little interest in that.

            As for humility, I already showed that it is those who think they know better than God when it comes to what is sin who are prideful. But they think that their relativism is actually humility. Talk about an inversion of truth.

            As for not having the milk of human kindness, you must think that God does not have it either for actually saying things like: if you divorce and marry another you commit adultery, go and sin no more, etc.

            And of course Pentecostals will understand your point of view. They allow divorce contrary to what Christ teaches. This is not about whether you are Pentecostal or Catholic but whether you actually believe what Christ says.

            What is a sad human being? The one who thinks he knows better than God. As St Paul said in Romans, the one who has exchanged the truth for the lie. That is a sad individual because Paul also said that God leaves them to their sin.

            Oh yes you do soar in pride but you think you are being humble by being relativist. Non Serviam simply means I will not serve. It is the motto of those who determine their own morality without reference to God’s command.

            And FYI I am not condemning your friend. That is above my pay grade and above anyone’s pay grade. I am pointing out that since he has been divorced twice, he can’t keep blaming it on the woman. If the first marriage was null and void, what will he say this time? That this one is also null and void?

            And I may not be Christlike in being harsh but seriously your sentimentalism and relativism is the reason we are down in the gurgler.

            Because while I can admit my harshness, you can never admit of your sin because you do not think it is a sin. How then can you repent when you have change the bad into a good?

            And it’s funny this line of yours about me commenting. You seem to have forgotten that I am responding to your comment? So if it is hardwired into me, it must be hardwired into you as well. But I take it you don’t even see how illogical you were just then.

            I never took kindness for weakness. I took sentimentality for what it is: mush.

          • “I would guess that according to you he should of stayed married but stayed separated for the remainder of his life. That is archaic thinking.”

            My wife abandoned me for her lover 1990.

            It is 2018, I remain faithful to our vows.

            I guess I am an archaic.

            The difficulty is that I AM RIGHT and THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS STILL WRONG!!

          • My heart goes out to you. You have your convictions and I will respect your zeal.
            My question is what do you mean the church is wrong?
            Again, I am not trying to argue or fight about someone’s faith unless they start on me first.
            I ask because as a person who is not catholic is asking.

          • I am going to stop posting here, but since I interjected with my comment, I can try to see this through.

          • Before you go, I am not sure what you mean by “See this through”.
            My second cup of coffee has not kicked in.

          • I mean, I want to try to answer your question(s) about what I mean related to the Catholic Church is wrong.

            But, understand, I want EVERYONE to be Catholic because Jesus founded a single body of believers. That is what all of us should be working for. But, again, you are not communicating with a scholar here, my degrees are in science, not in Catholicism or its study/studies.

            I have not even had a coffee yet, today. A Coca Cola, yes. Good idea.

            I have a coffee heating up. Organic Instant Coffee.

          • Karl,
            I have no issues w my buddy being catholic at all. I had questions about the annulment process. You answered a lot of them.
            reading what you wrote I agree that you got hammered by the one’s that you came to for help. That is wrong.
            This is why I have issues with the dogma of religions. Man can sure screw it up for the believers.

            I got my coffee so thee cobwebs are disappearing.

          • Got my coffee too.

            How many men or women do you know, who meant their vows, but who divorced and who understand/understood that when Jesus said 7 X 70, we must be willing to forgive, that his fingers were not crossed behind his back.

            He meant it.

            My wife, is right now, going through an ugly divorce with the man she abandoned our marriage for. Our children know that if she assesses her life and concludes that she must repent of what she has done. Then, actually does that, thoroughly and sincerely, and comes to me, repents, makes restitution as best she can(will be a life-long effort) and asks if it is possible that I might consider working to heal our brokenness. My answer would be yes. Because, it is what Jesus would do in my place.

          • I have family that have been divorced for different reasons. They are good people. They also are, in my view, good Christians. I do not look down on them for their divorcing their partners. In each case there were different reasons. All made sense. I know for a fact that none of them entered into thee marriage with the feeling that they were going to divorce in a few years.
            I take it she got remarried either in another faith or a civil union?

            Again I admire your behavior on this matter in reference to your wife.
            I do hope that it goes well for you and her and your children.

            For they can be pawns in a separation/ divorce.

          • She remarried civilly.

            Yes, children are the ones who usually face the brunt of the fruits of divorce.

            Two of our children are divorced after having married only civilly. Another may divorce, who is married in the Catholic Church. It is a concern very close to my heart. Their separation seems to be just, but I am not privy to the details of the difficulties, but they appear, from the little that I know, to be serious and not willing to be addressed. I want to intervene, but my older children, whom I trust, have asked for me to stay out of things. I am honoring their judgment.

            I am certain that the brokenness among their parents has contributed to the brokenness in our children’s marital lives. This is something that the Catholic Church seems oblivious to.

            Thank you for being patient with me. I have a short fuse when it comes to divorce, because I know its fruits well. But, I am Catholic
            and a Catholic MUST view the big picture and be willing to actually listen to, sometimes, very difficult circumstances. I listen, always, but sometimes only after having had time to stew on things after my emotions pass. But I make an effort to listen.

            The hard part is that my decisions about what to do MUST come from the traditional Catholic ways, not secular or ways that have come about as Christendom has decayed, for centuries. This is where some conflict arises. This is where my difficulties with Catholicism surface, because, in my lifetime, the practices of Catholicism, certainly, have embraced things that are not consistent with its traditional ways.

          • If you are a Christian we have a place to start, then it depends upon High Church or low Church, and I am NOT trying to be hurtful saying that. It is just a general reality that Church’s have moved further and further from what used to be believed, but I am ABSOLUTELY, no scholar about any of this.

            My problems with the Catholic Church center around marriage.
            And it can get complicated.

            How the Church deals with marriage has drifted away from the way that I was raised and taught. Even that will raise arguments. Catholics are a varied bunch.

            Generally, other issues create little problem for me.

          • I appreciate your response. No insult to me or my friend that I wrote about before.
            I thank you again for a rational discussion.
            Peace be with you.

          • My issue with that would be, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

            I am as guilty as they.

          • We as Catholics hear that, as the half-gospel that is practiced now in Catholicism. We hear only of forgiveness. We NEVER hear of the need to repent, much less, make up for(restitution/restoration) the damage done by our sinful choices.

            That is a HUGE part of the decay in Christendom, or as it should be now, ChristenDUMB!

            To NOT stress the need for ALL, is at the basis for the abuse of Mercy, and calling Justice, legalism. Unless Mercy and Justice, like the Trinity and like married couples, are ONE, distortion of TRUTH is ever present.

  15. “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” (1 Corinthians 11:27-30)

    • Maybe no one is interested, but here’s a communion exhortation from a Protestant service:

      “All those who do not have true faith must not presume at all to come to the Holy Table, pretending and falsely testifying to be members of the body of Jesus Christ to which they do not belong. Such are: all idolaters who worship and serve other than the one God; all perjurers; the slothful who serve no purpose and are of no account, though they could be; all who are disobedient to their father and mother and to those whom God has purposely appointed to rule over us without contravening His authority; all ruffians, quarrelsome persons who unjustly beat and smite their neighbors, whom they hate; all lechers; the intemperate who live dissolutely in their eating and drinking; all thieves who work damage and injury upon their neighbors; all false witnesses and perpetrators of crimes; and all those who live wickedly and contrary to the holy commandments of God, who do not intend to obey His holy law nor live according to His Word by following the holy Gospel, like true children of God. Let them not presume to approach this Holy Table, to which only those are to come who really belong to the body of Christ, united and rooted in Him by true and living faith which works through love. For it shall be to their judgment and condemnation if they come here; and they shall be rejected as traitors and the successors of Judas.”

      (John Calvin, “The Form of Church Prayers.” in LITURGIES OF THE WESTERN CHURCH, ed. Bard Thompson [Fontana Books, 1962] pp. 220-221.)

      • I find it interesting that in the list, there is no mention of adulterers. It is probably due to the earlier permission of divorce in the Calvinist church. Although one could say that this falls under “and all those who live wickedly and contrary to the holy commandments of God”, he did mention specific sins so the absence of adultery from this list interesting.

        • I don’t know. There is a specific mention of adultery in the service of John Knox:
          “Dearly beloved in the Lord, forasmuch as we be now assembled, to celebrate the holy communion of the body and blood of our savior Christ, let us consider these words of Saint Paul, how he exhorteth all persons diligently to try and examine themselves, before they presume to eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For as the benefit is great, if with a truly penitent heart and lively faith, we receive that holy sacrament (for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us, we be one with Christ, and Christ with us) so is the danger great, if we receive the same unworthily, for then we be guilty of the body and blood of Christ our savior, we eat and drink our own damnation, not considering the Lord’s body: we kindle God’s wrath against us, and provoke him to plague us with diverse diseases and sundry kinds of death.
          “Therefore if any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of his word, an adulterer, or be in malice or envy, or in any other grievous crime, bewail your sins, and come not to this holy table: lest after the taking of this holy sacrament, the devil inter into you as he entered into Judas, and fill you full of all iniquities, and bring you to destruction, both of body and soul. Judge therefore yourselves brethren, that ye be not judged of the Lord: repent you truly for your sins past, and have a lively and steadfast faith in Christ our savior, seeking only your salvation in the merits of his death and passion, from henceforth refusing and forgetting all malice and debate, with full purpose to live in brotherly amity and godly conversation, all the days of your life.” (“The Forme of Prayers,” LITURGIES OF THE WESTERN CHRUCH, p. 301)

          • Yes, but let’s not forget that “adulterer” in Reformed teaching is not the same thing as it is in the Catholic faith.

          • I was thinking in the general terms of the title of Steve Skojec’s article, that for sinners to demand to receive communion is a form of blasphemy. That concept is now completely foreign to the liberal Protestant churches, where the current fad is to invite everyone (including unbelievers and the unbaptized) to receive communion.

          • “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship [communion] with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” (1 John 1:5-6)

  16. Does +Schneider go too far in his claim that it is “a kind of blasphemy to demand access to Holy Communion while continuing to cohabitate with a person who is not their legitimate spouse”? Doesn’t that happen under the brother-and-sister option? Or does the bishop mean to imply only those who are unrepentant?

    • No, I don’t think he is over the top at all, but as for the BS option {sorry, it’s just what the abbreviation turns out to be…} it’s actually an interesting question.

      The argument seems to be that the BS option sort of in and of itself demands special “mercy”.

      I find great trouble in it. For example, the Baltimore Catechism {} says:

      “Q. 772. Why are we bound to avoid occasions of sin?

      A. We are bound to avoid occasions of sin because Our Lord has said: ‘He who loves the danger will perish in it’; and as we are bound to avoid the loss of our souls, so we are bound to avoid the danger of their loss. The occasion is the cause of sin, and you cannot take away the evil without removing its cause.”

      Now if two people are at all or ever have been interested in each other at all, and certainly if they have been canoodling on a regular basis in the past and the flicker of passion has not utterly left their veins, it seems obvious, close proximity seems to fall squarely in the “near occasion of sin” category categorically. In fact, this BS option seems to DEFINE in detail just EXACTLY what a literal “near occasion of sin” is.

      As I have mentioned in the past, when Sam is sitting in the living room and Sally walks out of the shower wearing nothing but a towel and a big smile it seems a stretch to me that Sam is going to put down the paper for a volume of Alphonse Ligouri….

      • Well you haven’t really answered my question. All I am saying is that the quoted assertion taken at face value goes too far. The “BS” option is plainly a legitimate and orthodox way of life for persons in such difficult situations. If His Excellency would maintain his assertion, he must set himself against Popes St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

        • There may be legitimate concerns with the BS Option and of course the priest and those involved have to take that up together, but the force of Schneider’s point is directed at those who are living in adultery {so-called “remarriages”}. They do not have a “right” to communion. Period. In fact, it is the Church’s duty to inform them just as he has and is doing and warn them of the condemnation that accompanies the receipt of communion under those circumstances.

          I have no idea why that is confusing to you. It is the position of the Church and has been for 2000 years.

          Does an adult have a “right” to baptism if they reject the divinity of Christ and the existence of the Trinity? Same thing applies. To demand such a “right” approaches blasphemy, just as he says. Pretty simple stuff.

          • That’s not actually what he says. Read the text of the interview carefully. He does identify the “divorced and remarried” but then erroneously asserts that such persons cannot receive (or demand) sacramental communion “while continuing to cohabitate with a person who is not their legitimate spouse.” This is a false statement because it is too broad: the divorced and remarried who live in continence continue to cohabitate with a person who is not their legitimate spouse, but they are not excluded from sacramental communion. (The text of the “profession of immutable truths” was more carefully worded.)

            From the 2000 Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts:

            Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives – such as, for example, the upbringing of the children – “to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses” (Familiaris consortio, n. 84), and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo.

          • Rest assured, Bp Schneider is well aware of the details you add here.

            In fact, he was a primary signatory of the following:


            “We firmly reiterate the truth that divorcees who have attempted a civil marriage and who, for most serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, cannot satisfy the grave obligation to separate, are morally obliged to live as “brother and sister” and to avoid scandal.”

            And he has never rejected the position, but has, rather, taught it.

            I didn’t take the interview quote the way you did, and it is clear from Bp Schneider’s past teaching that he affirms the teaching you referenced.

          • That is an interesting document (the filial appeal). Looks pretty solid, except perhaps points 12 and 13, which seem to contradict each other, do they not?

            “12. We firmly reiterate the truth that, despite the variety of situations, personal and pastoral discernment can never lead divorcees who have attempted a civil marriage to conclude, in good conscience, that . . . withdrawing from the adulterous union is impossible, or that, by doing so, they expose themselves to new sins . . . .”

            “13. We firmly reiterate the truth that divorcees who have attempted a civil marriage and who, for most serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, cannot satisfy the grave obligation to separate, are morally obliged to live as ‘brother and sister’ and to avoid scandal.”

            It seems to me the BS option is based upon the moral impossibility (i.e., “most serious reasons”) of terminating the irregular union. In practice, point 12 affirms that a priest cannot in good conscience counsel such persons to practice continence and continue to cohabitate for the good of their children, which is precisely what point 13 upholds as true.

          • There is no incongruity.

            12 refers to an ongoing sexual relationship.

            13 refers to the maintenance of a living arrangement under one roof that excludes an ongoing sexual relationship.

          • I’m sorry, but it seems that you’re either being disingenuous, or else reading into the text what is not actually there. Points 12 and 13 each begin by identifying the subject: “divorcees who have attempted a civil marriage” (i.e., an objectively “adulterous union”).

            Clearly, persons who live as brother and sister are still living in a so-called adulterous union, objectively speaking, but they are not adulterers, even if it is morally impossible for them to put an end to their irregular union. That is the whole point of the 2000 Declaration of the Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts.

            Unless you can demonstrate that point 12 is referring to an “ongoing sexual relationship” (which words are nowhere found therein), then point 12 does seem to contradict point 13.

          • OK…

            One more time.

            The statement in 13 qualifies the relationship: “are morally obliged to live as “brother and sister” and to avoid scandal.” The clear assumption is that those in 12 are living simply as husband and wife, not merely under the same roof as platonic roommates. Those referenced in 13 are in exactly the same condition UNTIL they live as BS. This is is the added stricture.

            So yes, those in 12 ARE engaged in a sexual relationship and those in 13 would be but for the change in moral condition of their relationship cited in the qualifying language.

            This has all been hashed out over and over. Really, I have read so many critiques and analyses of this document and for some reason every one reads it as I do except for you. Could the language have been written more clearly? Well, and I am not being critical, for you, I guess the answer is yes. For the rest of us it has sufficed pretty well. As I said before, you may have prudential concerns pertaining to the actual ability of persons living under the same roof to keep their hands to themselves, and I would agree with you in that. But I can find only you who have trouble with the context and meaning of the 2 paragraphs in question. The context is clear and no disingenuousness is intended.

          • Yes, it could have (and should have been) written better, because it is objectively erroneous on its face. I don’t think I’m being overly strict in my reading; I’m just reading what it says.

            Even assuming (as you do) that that no. 12 refers to the divorced and remarried living in a marital way, it would still be false to assert that such persons cannot in good conscience discern that “withdrawing from the adulterous union is impossible.” For persons who qualify for the BS option, how else would they arrive at the point of repentance, if not by considering (among other things) the fact that physical separation is morally impossible?

            Respectfully, the only other interpretation of nos. 12 and 13 that would reconcile the two is untenable, namely, that the phrase “withdrawing from the adulterous union” means ceasing sexual relations.

          • I do not find the “Declaration” text difficult to understand. I find your interpretation of it totally confusing.

          • I just think that the clause found in point 12 referring to the impossibility of withdrawal is false. We are traditional Catholics, but that doesn’t mean every document drafted by laymen and traditional clerics are infallible in every particular.

            Please tell me your honest opinion: True or False?

            “12. . . . [P]ersonal discernment can never lead divorcees who have attempted a civil marriage [and who live more uxorio] to conclude, in good conscience, that . . . withdrawing from the adulterous union is impossible, or that, by doing so, they expose themselves to new sins . . . .

            In my view, the bold phrase is pretty clearly false: someone can conclude, in good conscience, that withdrawing from an adulterous union is morally impossible. That is one of the criteria to qualify for the BS option, is it not?

            Example order of discernment in conscience:
            1. I’m a person of good will, and I want to get right with God and live according to the truth.
            2. I’m divorced and civilly remarried, living in sin.
            3. I can’t terminate my irregular union, because I have a moral obligation to raise my kids.
            4. I must permanently cease all adulterous sexual relations to get right with God.
            5. I must avoid the near occasions of sin, as far as possible.

            The quoted assertion (no. 12 of the filial appeal) says that it would be erroneous or ilicit for me to conclude, via personal discernment of my situation before God, that it would be morally impossible for me to terminate my irregular union. It reaches the same conclusion as a matter of pastoral discernment.

          • This is the last I’ll comment on it because I think we are going in circles. If this doesn’t clarify it, we’ll just have to see the text differently.

            In 12, we have people concluding “that withdrawing from the adulterous union is impossible” and thus they continue to live in a union complete with all the normal sexual activity that it involves AND receive communion.

            In 13, we have people who “cannot satisfy the grave obligation to separate”, that is, physically separate. They CAN however, cease the adulterous union by living as BS.

            Yes, I think the context here is clear.

            Whether this option is prudent is another matter, but I have read of those who do this and have done it and made the relationship work. Whether they fell into sin from time to time or never is unknown to me.

            I agree the BS Option is HUGELY problematic, especially if it is seen as a sort of standard method to deal with the problem of so-called divorce and remarriage.

          • Ah, I see your point now, thanks for hanging in there with me! Perhaps the “impossibility” clause is a dependent clause with the clause immediately preceding it (discussing the false notion of “fidelity” to one’s adulterous partner).



          OPEN YOUR EYES!!

      • But if Sally’s smile betrays the fact that she has only two teeth left and one of which is black, Sam may well decide to
        reach for said volume….

    • When the Catholic Church can DEFINITIVELY(100%) demonstrate that living with someone your formerly BOPPED, so thoroughly that you had children with them, while you have a LIVING spouse and you can remain with them for the good of the LITTLE BOPPERS, ACTIVELY AND INTENTIONALLY IS POSITIVELY(100%) GOOD FOR THE VALID MARRIAGE AND ACTUALLY IS HEALING OF THAT VALID MARRIAGE, THEN THEY ARE ON, LIKELY, FAIRLY SOLD GROUND.



Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...