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

[larsont7]

THIS

                              Writing in the Week, Michael Brendan Doherty forecasts that the synod will become an exercise in hypocrisy: “My prediction is that the synod will issue a document strenuously claiming to affirm the indissolubility of marriage, while instituting a practice that contradicts it.”

                             Is what I fear.

I can see this happening as well. I see no good that can come from this synod, only more confusion.

 

[Seraphignatius]

I can see this happening as well. I see no good that can come from this synod, only more confusion.

I trust the Holy Spirit. Even if the worst case scenario comes out of this synod, God’s church will not fail, and our marching orders to pray, do penance, and preach the gospel to those in our lives will not change. Besides, great glory comes from great battles.

 

[frobert]

I trust the Holy Spirit. Even if the worst case scenario comes out of this synod, God’s church will not fail, and our marching orders to pray, do penance, and preach the gospel to those in our lives will not change. Besides, great glory comes from great battles.

I am not as sanguine about it as you appear to be. We have have two Catholic churches, Roman Catholics and Orthodox each claiming the other’s tradition is wrong. A 3rd and possibly fourth are a possiblity.

 

[NextElement]

I am not as sanguine about it as you appear to be. We have have two Catholic churches, Roman Catholics and Orthodox each claiming the other’s tradition is wrong. A 3rd and possibly fourth are a possiblity.

So we’d have a split in the Western church, making two, and a stable Orthodox Church? Making a total of three Catholic churches? I may have to go back and reevaluate the Orthodox stances if the worst scenario comes out of this synod. But nothing has happened yet and I think it’s all hooplah…

 

[FollowChrist34]

THIS

                              Writing in the Week, Michael Brendan Doherty forecasts that the synod will become an exercise in hypocrisy: “My prediction is that the synod will issue a document strenuously claiming to affirm the indissolubility of marriage, while instituting a practice that contradicts it.”

                             Is what I fear.

Yes, me too. And while I don’t believe this in itself will lead to schism, my fear is that it will open doors to other concessions in other documents strenuously claiming to affirm this or that teaching, as the concessions institute a variety of further practices to contradict said this or that teaching. THIS is what will lead to schism. It will be an accumulation of concessions. And I don’t think anyone is taking this lightly. We all want to follow God’s true Church. Not much point in doing anything else. Let’s hope it does never come to this, but it’s silly not to see how it could happen. But I don’t think we should be too anxious. The Pope could well stand his ground. I guess I just don’t see the value of worrying too much about it. It’s God’s will. You’ll know what to do when the time comes or it will never be a problem.

 

[Seraphignatius]

I am not as sanguine about it as you appear to be. We have have two Catholic churches, Roman Catholics and Orthodox each claiming the other’s tradition is wrong. A 3rd and possibly fourth are a possiblity.

I.There are multiple communions of non florentine apostolic churches, and still more non apostolic churches claiming to be the one Jesus founded.

II. There is only one church which is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

III. You can tell which house belongs to Jesus, because it is built on the same foundation: Peter. Remember that Christ appointed Peter the teacher of the world, so those who will not hear him and his successors will not hear Christ.

 

[Seamus_L]

I remind those who think some of us are needlessly worrying over nothing, that Cardinal Baldiserri, the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops has already made frightening comments on the matter ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/sec.-general-of-synod-wants-change-in-churchs-teaching-on-marriage

 

[McCall1981]

I remind those who think some of us are needlessly worrying over nothing, that Cardinal Baldiserri, the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops has already made frightening comments on the matter ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/sec.-general-of-synod-wants-change-in-churchs-teaching-on-marriage

That is true, and it does worry me, but to be fair he pretty quickly clarified/backtracked:

“Regarding the possibility for the synod of bishops of changing the doctrine of the Church,” Cardinal Baldisseri said, “I underscore that the First Vatican Council’s document ‘Dei Filius’ affirmed that ‘understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.’”

The cardinal then continued: “And I also remind you that John XXIII said in the inaugural speech of the Second Vatican Council that ‘authentic doctrine … should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.’”

ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=9996

 

[Yause]

So we’d have a split in the Western church, making two, and a stable Orthodox Church? Making a total of three Catholic churches?

Schisms were happening long before the East-West split, despite the rosy narrative you might hear about 1000 years of unity. Most notably, the Council of Chalcedon divided the Eastern church into two parts, with the “heretical” portion (which centered around Alexandria and was once an influential Christian hub alongside Rome and Constantinople) existing today as the Oriental Orthodox.

As for modern day Orthodoxy, there are several schismatic, non-canonical churches. Then we have the power struggles between leaders (well, the conflict is mainly between Constantinople and Moscow), with one patriarch recognizing a church as canonical and another refusing to do the same. The lack of trust and cooperation between churches is why it took eight centuries to commit to the next ecumenical council.

Make no mistake. Christian unity is shaky everywhere, whether the conflicts are over doctrine, moral law, or politics.

may have to go back and reevaluate the Orthodox stances if the worst scenario comes out of this synod. But nothing has happened yet and I think it’s all hooplah…

What’s the worst scenario? Is it the threat of schism, or the adoption of new policy?

If contraception or communion after divorce/remarriage are problems, then the Orthodox position might not sit well with you. They allow both, and it’s actually the EO rationale that some Catholic bishops are exploring to justify a change in Church rules.

 

[pnewton]

As far as the laiety, we have more than half of Catholics not just dissenting on homosexual “marriage”, abortion, contraception, etc, they are proudly dissenting and openly working to change teaching. I would be floored if anyone could honestly consider this not a severe crisis.

As for the clergy/hierarchy, I would agree that there has been some improvement compared to the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, but its relative improvement, things aren’t quite as bad as they were, but I’d say we are still in a very serious crisis.

As the question was about the teaching of the Church and the direction of the church, I would say that the latter point is more indicative of both the teaching of the Church and the direction of the Church. The former point is more indicative of society, especially when one eliminates the Catholic Church variable by examining the Church world wide. Culture seems the greater impact on dissent.

 

[pnewton]

This is an oft-repeated statement but the problem with that, given the push toward communion, is that many will judge themselves into thinking any sin must be venial if everyone is receiving. I can understand why Orthodox and other groups are calling communion without confession a decadent practice.

Understand if I will accept the Catholic Church on this as opposed to let’s say, a competitor. While my own experience is in a parish with crowded confession lines and confessing venial sins is still a desirable practice, I would be remiss if I did not point out that mortal sin does require full knowledge. Therefore, one cannot accidentally or mistakenly be in mortal sin. Perhaps this is another area the Catholic Church has a better understanding than the Orthodox.

 

[glendab]

Hello Yause.

Schisms were happening long before the East-West split, despite the rosy narrative you might hear about 1000 years of unity. Most notably, the Council of Chalcedon divided the Eastern church into two parts, with the “heretical” portion (which centered around Alexandria and was once an influential Christian hub alongside Rome and Constantinople) existing today as the Oriental Orthodox.

As for modern day Orthodoxy, there are several schismatic, non-canonical churches. Then we have the power struggles between leaders (well, the conflict is mainly between Constantinople and Moscow), with one patriarch recognizing a church as canonical and another refusing to do the same. The lack of trust and cooperation between churches is why it took eight centuries to commit to the next ecumenical council.

Make no mistake. Christian unity is shaky everywhere, whether the conflicts are over doctrine, moral law, or politics.

What’s the worst scenario? Is it the threat of schism, or the adoption of new policy?

If contraception or communion after divorce/remarriage are problems, then the Orthodox position might not sit well with you. They allow both, and it’s actually the EO rationale that some Catholic bishops are exploring to justify a change in Church rules.

Bravo! :clapping: You really are on target with your understanding and comprehension of the currents that are breaking in waves on the prow of the bark of Peter. Good job. Keep it up!!!

Glenda

P.S. Belated welcome to CAF.

 

[ProVobis]

… I would be remiss if I did not point out that mortal sin does require full knowledge. Therefore, one cannot accidentally or mistakenly be in mortal sin. Perhaps this is another area the Catholic Church has a better understanding than the Orthodox.

pn, we’ve gone over these arguments before and all they seem to reinforce are the notions that ignorance is bliss and/or rationalization (that they didn’t have “full” knowledge, there are mitigating circumstances, their actions aren’t that bad, etc.) brings on its own rewards as far as communion is concerned. They certainly don’t encourage people to take responsibility of their own actions. When people can’t admit to stealing, lying, cheating, etc., and think that communion will make everything okay, that is the real crisis to me.

 

[Tigg]

I remind those who think some of us are needlessly worrying over nothing, that Cardinal Baldiserri, the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops has already made frightening comments on the matter ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/sec.-general-of-synod-wants-change-in-churchs-teaching-on-marriage

Cardinal Baldiserri says this: “The Church is not timeless, she lives amidst the vicissitudes of history and the Gospel must be known and experienced by people today,”

and Cardinal Walter Brandmuller says…(please read my signature line) which he stated during the Consistory.

 

[Tigg]

And while I don’t believe this in itself will lead to schism, my fear is that it will open doors to other concessions in other documents strenuously claiming to affirm this or that teaching, as the concessions institute a variety of further practices to contradict said this or that teaching. THIS is what will lead to schism. It will be an accumulation of concessions.

I believe this to be true. Savvy Catholics who read the Winnipeg Statement, for instance, already know this possibility can happen again!

Ponder this (regarding a crisis)

The optimism with which some people regard declining faith, social apostasy, abandonment of worship and deprivation of morals, is born of a false philosophy of religion. The Pelagian denial of evil is implicit in these assertions.

~ Iota Unum ~

 

[Tigg]

pn, we’ve gone over these arguments before and all they seem to reinforce are the notions that ignorance is bliss and/or rationalization (that they didn’t have “full” knowledge, there are mitigating circumstances, their actions aren’t that bad, etc.) brings on its own rewards as far as communion is concerned. They certainly don’t encourage people to take responsibility of their own actions. When people can’t admit to stealing, lying, cheating, etc., and think that communion will make everything okay, that is the real crisis to me.

I couldn’t agree more and while the church teaches “Venial sin does not make us unworthy of receiving Holy Communion; but it does prevent us from receiving the more abundant graces and blessings which we would otherwise receive from Holy Communion,” much is diminished, imho, without repentance of even venial sins prior to Communion.

 

[McCall1981]

Here is a transcript of the full interview:

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/06/bishop-athanasius-schneider-in-england.html?m=1

 

[Thorns]

I trust the Holy Spirit. Even if the worst case scenario comes out of this synod, God’s church will not fail, and our marching orders to pray, do penance, and preach the gospel to those in our lives will not change. Besides, great glory comes from great battles.

If the worst case came out of this synod, that would be the Church failing wouldn’t it? How do you reconcile this?

 

[MacBP]

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. 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.
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) The proper body position in front of God Almighty is kneeling, and not standing. Standing is the position between equals. We are not equal to God. But modernity has gone even further. Man is above God.
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.
As you can see, even receiving in the hand required quite a bit of reverence, if not more reverence then on the tongue. But only if done properly. God bless!

While I receive communion on the tongue while kneeling, I don’t think the crumb argument is valid. While I was still receiving on the hand, I never experienced macroscopic particles detaching themselves from host. Consequently,the only particles that could be detaching themselves are microscopic particles. If that’s your concern, I would point out that in transition from ciborium to the your mouth the host his still shedding plenty of microscopic particles. Furthermore, while receiving on the tongue I’m often concerned that host could fall off my tongue.That’s never a concern that I’ve had when I received on the hand.

Your comment about standing being between equals largely depend son your cultural context, although I will concede in our cultural context most people would say that kneeling is more respectful than standing.

I think, overall, we should be careful about giving people motives where there are none. Seeing one person receives on the tongue versus the hand tell you absolutely nothing about the internal disposition of the people that are receiving. I know that many people who receive on the hand are more deeply in love with Jesus than I, and that’s I’ve always thought that was what matters.

 

[Seraphignatius]

If the worst case came out of this synod, that would be the Church failing wouldn’t it? How do you reconcile this?

Well, as a Catholic I don’t consider that the worst case scenario, because I don’t acknowledge even the theoretical possibility. Gods church is here and she will be till the consummation of the world.