Bishop Schneider backs the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter smead2942
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
otjm said:
The bishops are not excommunicated, and no official excommunication “went down a level” to the priests.

According to New Advent, Catholic Encyclopedia: “Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.”

And further: “Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy.”

The article is worth a read.
Click to expand...
But the SSPX have not embraced heresy AFAIK, so they cannot be in schism according to:" its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it."
 
BISHOP ATHANSIUS SCHNEIDER SAYS THAT A SYLLABUS OF ERRORS NEEDS TO BE PRODUCED, TO CLARIFY MISINTERPRETATIONS. THE GENERAL PERCEPTION IS THAT OF RUPTURE OR BREAK WITH THE PAST. THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF THE COUNCIL.

IT WAS THE INTENT OF THE LIBERAL WANTS.

I admit that the Bishop’s command of English is not 100% and is accent is hard to catch if only he’d use more Latin.
 
The gist of the video is that there is no new doctrine, just a deeper explanation of Catholic truths, to protect and deepen as per Pope John xxiii. The key to interpretation is the magisterium, the supreme is the Pope. Not theologians or bishops. Bishop Schneider stated that back in 2005 Pope Benedict xvi addressed the Roman Curia to accept and interpret the council in light of all tradition.

Bishop Schneider says we have been in a time of much confusion. Isn’t that the title to Bishop Lefebvre’s book, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, because of new doctrine imposed since the council? Traditional Catholics have had to deal with this confusion from lay people, priests, religious and even bishops own agendas. Traddies have stayed and suffered ridicule, they have left and suffered ridicule, they have attempted reconciliation and suffered ridicule. They have been excommunicated and still suffer ridicule. Lord, have mercy.
 
Tomdstone said:
But the SSPX have not embraced heresy AFAIK, so they cannot be in schism according to:" its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it."
Click to expand...
One can use fancy language to arrive at the same conclusion as blunt language.

I would recommend reading the article in New Advent.

It is also a point that they are in more than just “disagreement” as to how the documents of V2 are written; when they publicly charge that the documents “change” or “do not follow” previous Church teaching, that is a polite way of saying that the documents of V2 are heretical.

I am not going to debate the point with you; Rome has already spoken, and has been doing so for 40 years. The SSPX are far, far from saying that the documents are “ambiguous”, and they have had forty years, off and on, of conversations with the dicastery that can, and will explain anything they “don’t’ get”. They persist in “not getting it”, and it is far, far beyond a mild disagreement as to how the documents are written. It goes to the heart of the documents.

Anyone who chooses to play intellectual mind games can play games with the documents, and both ends of the spectrum have done so. The far left has moved well beyond tying anything to the documents themselves, and a bunch of them are floating in LaLa Land. But this isn’t about how far off the rails the far left have run.
 
otjm said:
The far left has moved well beyond tying anything to the documents themselves, and a bunch of them are floating in LaLa Land. But this isn’t about how far off the rails the far left have run.
Click to expand...
But now that you have brought it up, why don’t we hear about the bishops who have been excommunicated for ordaining women as priests? They were supposed to have been some 200 such ordinations. Do you have any stats on them?
 
Denise1957 said:
I think that the pertinent question may be this: are the Vll documents simply ambiguous, which is a big problem in itself, or do they really lend themselves to be interpreted in a way which goes against the prior teachings of the Church? Bp. Athansius Schneider believes the former is the case, and the SSPX believes the latter is the case. It’s two separate concerns, and it’s a bit difficult for us laypersons to know which view is the correct one. It’s confusing! And some will believe that neither scenario is the case, and that the Vll documents are perfectly in line with previous Church teaching.

You mention above that no clarification will end the misuse of Vll. But what, in your opinion, has been misused? Maybe that’s a really difficult question to answer.
Click to expand...
In 3 words I could sum the most relevant aspect pertaining to us, of the 1970s:

“They are over”.

In 2015, most dissenters now base their arguments on Huffington Post, the NY Times, etc, less and less on Vatican II. In my diocese, most of the generation that misquoted or manipulated Vatican II has died, and moved to a warm climate. Most young adult Catholics couldn’t tell you what decade Vatican II was in, let alone anything about it. Most attacks on the Church today are efforts to impose the secular media’s agenda on the Church.

In my diocese, the challenge now is not so much dissenters, of which there are fewer, but 2 generations of Catholics who got little doctrinal content, and a media climate that is hostile specifically to Catholic authority. Laity, especially children, exposed to the SSPX are made more vulnerable to that 2015 vice. It’s the 2015 issues we should be focusing on.

Again, the Schneider interview counsels compassion and understanding for people in a certain situation, and how in the 1970s they got there. But nothing he says tells individuals and families to stay in the SSPX, if they feel ready to leave now. Whether Vatican II was misused in one way, or in another way, is kind of important, but much less important than reaching out now to individuals and families, and making them feel welcome.
 
commenter said:
I
In my diocese, the challenge now is not so much dissenters, of which there are fewer, but 2 generations of Catholics who got little doctrinal content, and a media climate that is hostile specifically to Catholic authority. Laity, especially children, exposed to the SSPX are made more vulnerable to that 2015 vice. It’s the 2015 issues we should be focusing on.
Click to expand...
Right.
 
Denise1957 said:
You’ll have to watch the video. Sorry. It’s far easier to disagree with me than it is to disagree with a Bishop of the Church.
Click to expand...
It is impossible to agree with every bishop, as they are not all in agreement on everything. In this we can see that there is actually room for disagreement without error.

The whole interview is suspect. It is the worst type of journalism. An English-speaking interview gives incredibly lop-sided and loaded questions to someone who seems to be struggling with English. Why a Bishop from Kazakhastan? Why put so much personal view in every question? Why fill in the blanks with your own words?

I do not see how any conclusions can be reached, except for the ones one wants, from what was said. I could just as easily make the point that he supported Cardinal Dolan in his view of the Muslims, as any other. One could also say that Vatican II has already been clarified (St. John Paul on religious liberty) I know if I was the interview I could make it look many ways. I have to say that I was not very impressed. It was too “yellow” for my liking.

Yet I did pull out the a couple of answers. Some of the areas that he said needed clarifying where the nature of collegiality, the difference between supernatural worship and natural worship as it applies to non-Christians, that ecumenism is where non-Catholics take good things from the Church and use them.
 
Denise1957 said:
Can you point to an official Church document which clearly shows how Vll is to be understood in the light of clear previous Church teaching?
Click to expand...
The Catechism relies heavily on the documents of Vatican II and provides a good synthesis of the new formulations with traditional doctrinal formulas.
 
otjm said:
One can use fancy language to arrive at the same conclusion as blunt language.

I would recommend reading the article in New Advent.

It is also a point that they are in more than just “disagreement” as to how the documents of V2 are written; when they publicly charge that the documents “change” or “do not follow” previous Church teaching, that is a polite way of saying that the documents of V2 are heretical.

I am not going to debate the point with you; Rome has already spoken, and has been doing so for 40 years. The SSPX are far, far from saying that the documents are “ambiguous”, and they have had forty years, off and on, of conversations with the dicastery that can, and will explain anything they “don’t’ get”. They persist in “not getting it”, and it is far, far beyond a mild disagreement as to how the documents are written. It goes to the heart of the documents.

Anyone who chooses to play intellectual mind games can play games with the documents, and both ends of the spectrum have done so. The far left has moved well beyond tying anything to the documents themselves, and a bunch of them are floating in LaLa Land. But this isn’t about how far off the rails the far left have run.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the specific heresy that is taught by SSPX.
 
pnewton said:
It is impossible to agree with every bishop, as they are not all in agreement on everything.
Click to expand...
If Catholic bishops do not agree, then how can you expect Eastern Orthodox bishops to agree with Catholic bishops?
 
pnewton said:
An English-speaking interview gives incredibly lop-sided and loaded questions to someone who seems to be struggling with English.
Click to expand...
Might as well get used to it. Most of the English speakers in the world speak it as a second or third language. That means they probably think in another language. Just sayin…
.
But not to worry, there are probably a lot of bishops who are heavily opposed to welcoming the SSPX priests “as they are.” :rolleyes:
 
Tomdstone said:
If Catholic bishops do not agree, then how can you expect Eastern Orthodox bishops to agree with Catholic bishops?
Click to expand...
I expect Eastern Orthodox bishops often don’t agree with each other about everything, either.

Heck, St. Peter and St. Paul didn’t always agree about everything.
 
Xantippe said:
I expect Eastern Orthodox bishops often don’t agree with each other about everything, either.

Heck, St. Peter and St. Paul didn’t always agree about everything.
Click to expand...
Since disagreement is common, why does the Roman Catholic Church say that the Eastern Orthodox bishops are not part of the Church?
 
pnewton said:
The whole interview is suspect. It is the worst type of journalism. An English-speaking interview gives incredibly lop-sided and loaded questions to someone who seems to be struggling with English. Why a Bishop from Kazakhastan? Why put so much personal view in every question? Why fill in the blanks with your own words?

I do not see how any conclusions can be reached, except for the ones one wants, from what was said. I could just as easily make the point that he supported Cardinal Dolan in his view of the Muslims, as any other. One could also say that Vatican II has already been clarified (St. John Paul on religious liberty) I know if I was the interview I could make it look many ways. I have to say that I was not very impressed. It was too “yellow” for my liking.
Click to expand...
The purpose of the interview was not to gather new information. Rorate Coeli already had the information about Vatican II they regard as important. The purpose of the interview was to “keep the pot boiling”. Given there are over 2000 bishops, they can always find new quotes to keep people on the edge of their pews. They are using “news” to try to maintain SSPX supporters and members, who might be inclined to drift away; and also to appeal to potential SSPX donors.

You won’t see an article in Rorate Coeli like this: “Nothing much happening lately”. Instead, they have to show **new ** threats to the SSPX, and new information that the Vatican is finally realizing that the SSPX was partly right, and may be open now to working with the SSPX. So better stay put, now’s not the time to move.
 
Tomdstone said:
Since disagreement is common, why does the Roman Catholic Church say that the Eastern Orthodox bishops are not part of the Church?
Click to expand...
The short answer is that disagreement is possible about many things. However, opposing defined doctrine is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top