Bishop Athanasius Schneider: ‘We are in the fourth great crisis of the Church’

[pnewton]

How can we start a Catholic re-education program outside of the Bishops w/out a direct challenge to them?

When you say, “outside of the Bishops” you are saying outside of the Church. As I see it, the only way to do this would be in a non official capacity, person to person, word of mouth, grass-roots… etc.

There is nothing wrong per se with education outside of the Church, but it can lead to dangerous problems.

 

[Memaw]

Thank you Rev. Pasquella,
So many good sincere cradle Catholics and converts continue to receive in obedience to their Pastors & Bishops as if that is the only way to do it. The Priests do not seem to want to volunteer the fact that receiving on the tongue while kneeling is the Norm of the Church. They seem to be bothered that kneeling might make communion 3 minutes longer than usual. How can we start a Catholic re-education program outside of the Bishops w/out a direct challenge to them?
I thought of printing up fliers to hand to parishioners outside of church that gives them the facts and assures their right to receive on the tongue. I thanked people outside of church for receiving on the tongue and they felt it was the proper posture for communion.
How can we, the laity, press our bishops and pastors to ask them to facilitate kneeling again for those who wish to do so? Many who want to kneel don’t have a kneeler or altar rail to assist them so they are forced to stand. We, the laity, must make the USCCB know that we want our kneelers back and for them to explain the difference between the Norm of the Church and the Indult.
Talk about advanced application of Theology of the Body, how else should the Bride of Christ receive her Lord?

I always receive on the tongue but I can’t kneel, (age) until they put the Communion Rails back. God Bless, Memaw

 

[drolla]

When I say “outside the Church” I didn’t mean outside the Magisterial teaching of the Church, but outside the objecting Bishops & Pastors and DRE’s ability to shut us up on Parish grounds… Literally, outside the Church’s property to still reach the parishioners.

 

[pnewton]

When I say “outside the Church” I didn’t mean outside the Magisterial teaching of the Church, but outside the objecting Bishops & Pastors and DRE’s ability to shut us up on Parish grounds… Literally, outside the Church’s property to still reach the parishioners.

I understand the distinction. One can be inside the Church’s doctrine, but outside of the Church’s authority. For example, Catholic apostolates must be approved by the bishop where they operate to bear the name Catholic. Otherwise, they are just a group of guys doing something Catholic, maybe (maybe not).

Personally, I have had my belly full of extraneous “tongue only” evangelists. It is not the fault of anyone here. It the way this was pushed in years past. I would give this one advice to anyone on this crusade. If this subject is your only relationship with someone, or point of interaction, and if you are not easily accepting of “no”, then you could expect about the same receptiveness as a telemarketer selling time share deals. Just think how it is when some Jehovah Witness comes a-knocking. Would you be open to listen? If they are rude strangers, are you going to listen?

 

[lanark]

This is an older thread but it seems as pertinent as ever, and it is particularly relevant to me who is struggling with reconciling some of the teachings and actions of the post-V2 Church with everything else that has been taught before it.

I have been looking to convert to Catholicism for a few years, but the crisis that Bishop Athanasius points out (although people have been discussing the crisis for over 50 years) is one that really stops me, and has at times put serious doubts into mind as to whether or not Catholicism is true. I go back on forth over this problem daily. The Bishop, and others, and the most of the people in this thread all seem to hit on the problem. Since Vatican 2 the Church has altered radically. Not many people in the Church really believe anymore, they aren’t educated in the faith and have no interest in adhering to teachings that they see as being irrelevant, and they are willful and seek to change the Church to conform to their views rather than being conformed by the Church. This is also not a problem just with the laity as it seems to be a regular occurrence for a Cardinal or a Bishop or even the Pope to do or say something that seems completely at odds with the faith (only for someone to come along later and laboriously try to explain it away, or worse, embrace it and be thankful the mean old Church is finally doing a U-turn).

The Church itself doesn’t seem to be interested in fixing the problem. It’s been 50 years since V2, surely everyone is well aware of the problems now. Bishop Athanasius, in his wonderfully charitable and meek manner, outlines the problems in the documents (youtu.be/z8iBeaGeuxw) in another interview and he also called for a new Syllabus of Errors to make Church teaching crystal clear and to stop any interpretations of a ‘hermeneutic of rupture’. But this shows absolutely no sign of coming to fruition.

There is no clear teaching in the Church anymore, it seems, and to hit on another point made by Cardinal Burke recently, the Church has been radically feminised to the point where discipline and orthodoxy are seen as evils of the past. In a local parish of mine on their website is a wonderful quote from Saint Gregory where he mentions orthodoxy, and under the quote in huge bright red letters is a warning telling people not to be scared by the word orthodoxy, that it doesn’t need to mean sticking to the law and they shouldn’t feel bad about anything, rather they can interpret orthodoxy as meaning having a lot of faith.

As an outsider looking in, it appears that the Church has let slip most of what it once believed in exchange for an easy life, for popularity. I know I’m not the only convert feeling and thinking this way. A convert goes through a long process of discerning the faith and then they show up at their local church, or they stumble upon an article from the tablet, or they hear something from a cardinal, and they wonder what on Earth happened to the Church they had been learning about for so long. A famous example of this would be Magdi Allam who left Islam and was baptised by Pope Benedict XVI. Writing on his Website, he said the “euphoria over Pope Francis” and the rapid way Pope Benedict was set aside was “the straw that broke the camel’s back” and convinced him to abandon his conversion to Christianity…Allam said it was “true folly” that Benedict had prayed in a mosque in Istanbul, and that Pope Francis, in one of his first speeches, said that Muslims “worship the one, living and merciful God.” You see there? Muslims worship the same God as Catholics? That’s straight out of Vatican 2, it’s one of the points Bishop Athanasius brings up that must be changed to become orthodox and it has bred a lot of confusion and led to a lot of errors.

And Magdi Allam had a strong point. If the pope himself can’t be heard teaching sound doctrine or acting in a way consistent with the faith, how is anyone else supposed to believe it? If the Church of today is noticeably different from the Church of 50 years ago, both in teaching and actions, how can they see it as the true, eternal Church of Christ?

Vatican 2 needs to be clarified in the manner that Bishop Athanasius and others have pointed out, catechesis in seminaries and parishes needs to be improved, and the Church needs to bring back the inquisition or something to stop wayward priests from spreading their errors or being bent to the will of their parishioners. There has to be an attitude change, no more burying heads in the sand, no more false charity. It does more harm than good. Unfortunately I have no faith that this is going to happen, so I and others am left in a terrible position. What to do? Follow a Church that seems inconsistent and even dangerous in its teachings at times, or just give it all up?

Apologies for the long post and any offense it may cause. I’ve been struggling with this all for so long now it has really built up in me. I feel like I discovered something wonderful only for it to disappear when I bent closer.

 

[otjm]

One of the more practical reasons is that particles from the Holy Host fall to the ground, when it is manipulated by more then one hand. And we know that no matter how small a crumb may be, it is still Christ.

Actually, no. That is not what the Church teaches, and you would be wise to not continue repeating it. TheChurch teaches that when a particle cannot be recognized as coming from a Host, then there is no true presence.

Hence when you receive Holy Communion in the hand some crumbs remain on your hand, which you dismiss as being nothing, when actually it’s everything. This falls to the ground and gets trampled by the legion of believers, who walk over Christ.

If there is a recognizable particle on the hand, then it should be consumed. And with most Hosts, there are no recognizable particles as the host does not break apart.

On a spiritual dimension. In sorts, it empowers you over God. Even if you don’t realize it. Holding God in the hand, you may be tempted to say: I got you!
God raised Jesus, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, (Phil 2,10)

that is ;not only hogwash, it also ignores Church history. The only people who question that CITH was in the early Church are those whoa re against it and refuse to read history. Further, in the 1200’s, the Franciscans asked for permission to return to CITH and were granted it, to this day.

Given that it is well within the right of bishops to state otherwise, you a;re simply ;wrong.

On an historical level, this practice was never present in the 2000 years of the Church. There has been receiving in the hand communion in the first centuries, but it was totally different from what we have today. You we’re required to kneel, even if you received in the hand. Then you we’re not supposed to touch the sacred Host, but to eat it out of your palm, and thus cleaning it in the process of every potential particle that may remain. And for women was required that they had a white veil over the hand that they received, which was later cleaned in water, and the water thrown over flowers.

You really need to make citations, or withdraw the statement.

Totally different? No, even if you could cite, it is a bit different, but “entirely” is over the top. And it is entirely within the authority of the Church, which the Church has exercised, to do it differently. You are certainly free to receive on the tongue, but not to disparage what the Church has approved.

[/QUOTE]

 

[otjm]

70% don’t believe in the Eucharist, most don’t go to Mass. Most of all, nearly no one wants to believe or follow the teachings regarding one particular area of morality.

Well over 80% of practicing Catholics do not accept Humanae Vitae; with that we agree.

As to your other assertion, that has been diwssassembled more than once, including, I believe, by members of CAtholic Answers.

What the polls showed was that Catholics, for those starting to be catechized in the early 1970’s forward for several decades, did not recognize the theological language of the Eucharist; which is more than just a bit different from not believing in the Eucharist.

Had members of the Early Church been polled with later theological terms, they would have flunked also. Yet they believed.

Undoubtedly there are people who self-identify as Catholic, who do not believe in the Real
Presence. However, to make a broad sweep as you do is to confuse matters further.

 

[otjm]

I have stated many times that I always comply with such changes. One of my favorite quotes is, “Those who will defend authority against rebellion must not themselves rebel.”

Now if someone can recognize the source of this quote without searching, I will give mega-nerd-kudos.

J.R.R. Tolkien, in The Silmarillion.

Mine is slightly different: There is no one so reactionary as a revolutionary who has achieved their objective.

 

[otjm]

As the good Bishop Scheider reported, and I have reason to doubt him, it was a grave mistake to allow the faithful to receive Holy Eucharist in their own Hands. This was not the original idea of the Vatican Council, nor of Pope Paul VI. It was a disobedience by certain bishops in Germany and some other regions. It was introduced to the USA by deceit as reported by the good bishop.

As noted at least once if not more often by Bro. JR, that is not correct. do a bit of research in the forums.

Other things to take into consideration is it is less reverent to receive Holy Communion in the Hand, and there are more chances to the host to drop or for tiny crumbs to fall on the floor and clothes.

Reverence is in the person, not in the mode of reception. As it was followed in the Early Church, which received it from Christ, you might want to slow down a bit.

Do we truly believe that the Consecrated Host is the Body, Blood, soul and Divinity of Christ? Or do some thing it only Symbolizes the Lords supper. If you believe the Host only Symbolizes the Last Supper, than you should not receive Holy Communion at ALL.

Yes, just like the early Christians did.

You seem to have an unusual parish.

Our parish receives predominately in the hand. We also have had Perpetual Adoration 23/7/363 for better than 15 years, and still they persist!

It is not the form of reception; it is the attitude of the individual; if they are reverent, then the form of reception is entirely a personal choice having nothing whatsoever to do with the form.

Having served as an altar boy when everyone knelt at the rail and receive on the tongue, I can tell you that some of them then did not appear to be “keyed in”, or “reverent”. I can’t speak to their souls, but I can speak to their actions. It is pure hogwash that receiving only on the tongue is going to “make” anyone more reverent. Reverence, like respect, is something that needs to be taught; and some who are taught never get it.

 

[otjm]

(What does it say when an Archbishop tells his peers that the Church has abdicated her teaching role?) .

Perhaps the best person to answer that would be Benedict 16, since he tried so hard to reconcile certain bishops who took the same position…

 

[ProVobis]

And with most Hosts, there are no recognizable particles as the host does not break apart.

That statement insults the intelligence of many. Under the right conditions one would see particles in the air and in the hands. Ask one who is allergic to ragweed if he sees recognizable particles in the air, yet he’ll sneeze all day from a few grains of it.

Coin dealers can see a rub on a coin while people continue to believe nothing comes off when one holds hard bread in his hands?

I would just stick to communion in the hands being legal without resorting to explain the reasoning behind it. To a particle physicist the explanation seems foolish.

 

[drolla]

I bet that catholics like to receive communion in the hand are more likely use contraception. and support gay marriage:shrug:

 

[10gr8kids]

The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector

 

[FreciaMarie]

I bet that catholics like to receive communion in the hand are more likely use contraception. and support gay marriage:shrug:

I find that to be a rather uncharitable remark. I receive in hand and do not contracept, nor do I support gay marriage.

I think receiving on the tongue is lovely and, to me, does feel a little different, although my degree of reverence for the Body remains the same. I feel slightly more humbled in receiving on the tongue, but it’s only due to my own personal perception of being “fed”, as opposed to in the hand. I dare say that isn’t the same for many others. One of my dearest friends in my parish is a woman in her 80’s who finds receiving in the hand to be more humbling and it is absolutely her preference. And guess what? She does not condone contracepting nor does she approve or support gay marriage.

 

[otjm]

That statement insults the intelligence of many. Under the right conditions one would see particles in the air and in the hands. Ask one who is allergic to ragweed if he sees recognizable particles in the air, yet he’ll sneeze all day from a few grains of it.

Coin dealers can see a rub on a coin while people continue to believe nothing comes off when one holds hard bread in his hands?

I would just stick to communion in the hands being legal without resorting to explain the reasoning behind it. To a particle physicist the explanation seems foolish.

But to the Church it does not - and the Church is not a particle physicist.

About the only way you are going to get a recognizable particle is to break the host; and the vast majority of hosts are not broken. If it is not a recognizable particle, then the

Church - not me, the Church - holds that the Real Presence no longer is there.

If you don’t like that theology, take it up with someone who can change it. You might start with Rome…

 

[ProVobis]

Church - not me, the Church - holds that the Real Presence no longer is there.

If you don’t like that theology, take it up with someone who can change it. You might start with Rome…

I’m not arguing Real Presence. That wasn’t the statement I objected to.

And what is this with five straight posts attacking posts made over six months ago?

 

[Pulvis]

I’m not arguing Real Presence. That wasn’t the statement I objected to.

And what is this with five straight posts attacking posts made over six months ago?

Damage control, me thinks. Have to keep putting fingers in the Dike.

 

[Tigg]

I have been looking to convert to Catholicism for a few years, but the crisis that Bishop Athanasius points out (although people have been discussing the crisis for over 50 years) is one that really stops me, and has at times put serious doubts into mind as to whether or not Catholicism is true. I go back on forth over this problem daily. The Bishop, and others, and the most of the people in this thread all seem to hit on the problem. Since Vatican 2 the Church has altered radically. Not many people in the Church really believe anymore, they aren’t educated in the faith and have no interest in adhering to teachings that they see as being irrelevant, and they are willful and seek to change the Church to conform to their views rather than being conformed by the Church.

Please do not be discouraged. We are in a time of tribulation, not unlike many other times in history. I happen to go to a good parish and have a faithful pastor but am still amazed at the egregious offenses I often hear about and witness. It is helpful to remember that the church institution is both human and divine. The human element will always be prone to sin, but the Divine is unchanging. I completely understand your concerns but also remember that prophecy has spoken of a time when man will turn from God, embrace the world and deify himself. Bshp Athanasius has identified this quite accurately as being this present day.

This is also not a problem just with the laity as it seems to be a regular occurrence for a Cardinal or a Bishop or even the Pope to do or say something that seems completely at odds with the faith (only for someone to come along later and laboriously try to explain it away, or worse, embrace it and be thankful the mean old Church is finally doing a U-turn).

Do not be alarmed. You have been warned about false prophets and there is nothing new under the sun. Keep in mind that a Catholic cleric embraced heresy to the point that it changed the religious world and created man-made religion. But the Church is still here teaching truth.

The Church itself doesn’t seem to be interested in fixing the problem. It’s been 50 years since V2, surely everyone is well aware of the problems now. Bishop Athanasius, in his wonderfully charitable and meek manner, outlines the problems in the documents (youtu.be/z8iBeaGeuxw) in another interview and he also called for a new Syllabus of Errors to make Church teaching crystal clear and to stop any interpretations of a ‘hermeneutic of rupture’. But this shows absolutely no sign of coming to fruition.

I believe there are many signs of hope, although they are subtle and quiet. That which is most clamorous is what is heard. We make petitions to the “silent” God and the fruits of a return to orthodoxy are seen with those who have eyes to see and hearts that understand.

There is no clear teaching in the Church anymore, it seems,

Oh but there is! It is proven by your distress. If clear teaching were not there, you would not be concerned about the false, but taken in with it. You would be embracing those very things you are protesting.

and to hit on another point made by Cardinal Burke recently, the Church has been radically feminised to the point where discipline and orthodoxy are seen as evils of the past.

And scripture warns us not to be dismayed when it appears that evil is flourishing. It will have its day but just as the Lord has promised, the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph at the appointed time. Fight the spiritual battle against that which is wrong but do not lose your peace. We are prayer warriors after all and to focus on our job should be the main concern. The Lord will take care of the rest! Blessings!

 

[otjm]

And what is this with five straight posts attacking posts made over six months ago?

Pavlov. I didn’t look at the dating of the OP when I started reading, and simply responded to various posts.

That, and I didn’t dig up the thread. Just responded to it.