Bishop Schneider: Catholics are not called to blind obedience to the Pope

[DS12]

The problem is that so many of us are guilty of a blind DISOBEDIENCE against the Holy Father simply because our favorite commentator disagrees with him.

I’m curious: why is it that this particular Bishop seems to consistently be used by those who seem to have some sort of an axe to grind against this present Papacy?

 

[ChurchSoldier]

No, we have not had heretic Popes. That is a lie made up by the enemies of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The Church of Rome has never erred, and never will err.

As admirable as that thought is, it doesn’t help people trusting the Church. It is just this sort of thinking that got the Legion of Christ in trouble.

Just as Paul questioned Peter, it is ok for the Clergy or laity to question the Pope when his words, actions or inaction raises questions needing clarity.

Thanks for your faithfulness.

 

[Stat_Crux]

No, we have not had heretic Popes. That is a lie made up by the enemies of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The Church of Rome has never erred, and never will err.

What about Pope Honorius I? Pope John XXII? The Church itself accepts that they erred.

And those are just the two who taught theological errors, and does not include the longer list of Popes who kept mistresses, fathered children, oppressed peasants and lived and dined in opulent palaces whilst people outside died for want of bread.

Agreed, the Church of Rome has never erred and never will in matters of faith and morals, but we apparently have different notions of what “The Church of Rome” is. For you it’s the very person and every action of the Pope which must be followed without question, but according to the Church’s own explanation of itself, it is the Body of Christ, the accumulated Magesterium of 2,000 years, it is the Barque of Peter, the Churches Militant, Penitent and Triumphant. It is made up of mortal, imperfect instruments who strive to live lives of holiness that they could not do by themselves but for the Grace of God.

Your devotion is admirable, but various people are exploiting your unquestioning attitude to try to create a change in the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, the Eucharist, Confession, the proper use of conscience and objective moral norms.

Paul “resisted Peter to his face” not as an attack on his office, but to exhort him to use his office to teach the faith and end his scandalous treatment of the gentiles, whom he refused to sit with following the Jewish tradition that gentiles were “ritually unclean”.

In the same way the four Cardinals have asked the Pope to defend Catholic teaching and exercise his authority by answering the five dubia to affirm the Church’s constant teaching that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin and that objectively sinful actions do exist.

 

[PluniaZ]

I didn’t say anything about the primacy of Rome, which certainly has always existed. I’m talking about devotion to the person of the Pope. I stand by my earlier comments. Most Catholics in most of Church history wouldn’t have had a clue what the Pope in distant Rome was saying or doing… the hyper-devotion you’re advocating is novel.
St. Peter was obviously a special case…the Church was also very small at that point. I’m not arguing against devotion to the person of the Pope…but it needs to have its limits. Popes can and do make mistakes. Our local bishop is our primary shepherd as far as we as individual Christians are concerned.

Is the following statement from the Council of Ephesus not devotion to the Pope?

“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that*** the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. ***The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place.”

newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

Is the following letter from the Council of Chalcedon not devotion to the Pope?

“Accordingly vouchsafe most holy and blessed father to accept as your own wish, and as conducing to good government the things which we have resolved on for the removal of all confusion and the confirmation of church order. For your holiness’ delegates, the most pious bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and with them the right Godly presbyter Boniface, attempted vehemently to resist these decisions, from a strong desire that this good work also should start from your foresight, in order that the establishment of good order as well as of the Faith should be put to your account. For we duly regarding our most devout and Christ loving Emperors, who delight therein, and the illustrious senate and, so to say, the whole imperial city, considered it opportune to use the meeting of this ecumenical Synod for the ratification of your honour, and confidently corroborated this decision as if it were initiated by you with your customary fostering zeal, knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parent’s glory. Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting.”

newadvent.org/fathers/3604098.htm

I’m seeing lots of statements by you, in response to statements made by saints and councils from the first millennium. I am not seeing any statements from saints or councils arguing against the Pope in any way whatsoever. Please show us some primary sources to back up your claims.

 

[Seamus_L]

Bishop Schneider has said even more lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-schneider-to-priests-you-have-to-refuse-order-to-give-communion-to-a

 

[PluniaZ]

As admirable as that thought is, it doesn’t help people trusting the Church. It is just this sort of thinking that got the Legion of Christ in trouble.

Just as Paul questioned Peter, it is ok for the Clergy or laity to question the Pope when his words, actions or inaction raises questions needing clarity.

Thanks for your faithfulness.

On the contrary, Paul’s rebuke of Peter increases our confidence in the Pope. For it shows that God surrounds the Pope with trusted advisors who will help His Holiness fulfill his ministry to the flock.

 

[Stat_Crux]

A terrible accusation to make against the Holy Father. I will never read anything that comes from that website.

Then don’t read the article on Lifesitenews: watch the interview with Bishop Schneider on youtube without commentary and make up your own mind:

youtube.com/watch?v=MjKrDMZOb_k

 

[PluniaZ]

What about Pope Honorius I? Pope John XXII? The Church itself accepts that they erred.

And those are just the two who taught theological errors, and does not include the longer list of Popes who kept mistresses, fathered children, oppressed peasants and lived and dined in opulent palaces whilst people outside died for want of bread.

Agreed, the Church of Rome has never erred and never will in matters of faith and morals, but we apparently have different notions of what “The Church of Rome” is. For you it’s the very person and every action of the Pope which must be followed without question, but according to the Church’s own explanation of itself, it is the Body of Christ, the accumulated Magesterium of 2,000 years, it is the Barque of Peter, the Churches Militant, Penitent and Triumphant. It is made up of mortal, imperfect instruments who strive to live lives of holiness that they could not do by themselves but for the Grace of God.

Your devotion is admirable, but various people are exploiting your unquestioning attitude to try to create a change in the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, the Eucharist, Confession, the proper use of conscience and objective moral norms.

Paul “resisted Peter to his face” not as an attack on his office, but to exhort him to use his office to teach the faith and end his scandalous treatment of the gentiles, whom he refused to sit with following the Jewish tradition that gentiles were “ritually unclean”.

In the same way the four Cardinals have asked the Pope to defend Catholic teaching and exercise his authority by answering the five dubia to affirm the Church’s constant teaching that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin and that objectively sinful actions do exist.

Pope Honorius I did not err, as is attested by each of his successors. Pope Leo II condemned Honorius not for heresy, but for neglecting to stamp out the heresy of monothelitism when it was first brought to Honorius’ attention.

books.google.com/books?id=N95DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA182&dq=Pope+honorius+letter+to+sergius&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j00ZUdDyHobs9AS8yYE4&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Pope%20honorius%20letter%20to%20sergius&f=false

As for John XXII:

In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope’s view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.

newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm

 

[DS12]

Just as Paul questioned Peter, it is ok for the Clergy or laity to question the Pope when his words, actions or inaction raises questions needing clarity.

Again, the problem is that much of the laity has precisely zero business pretending to be a St. Paul, but yet they imprudently insist upon judging the Pope regardless of their personal background, education, or authority.

 

[twf]

The problem is that so many of us are guilty of a blind DISOBEDIENCE against the Holy Father simply because our favorite commentator disagrees with him.

I’m curious: why is it that this particular Bishop seems to consistently be used by those who seem to have some sort of an axe to grind against this present Papacy?

If you’re referring to issues of say social justice…I agree whole heatedly. The Pope and bishops are of one mind, as far as I can tell, on such issues…but many American Catholics on this forum are not as the Church’s message doesn’t align with their political ideology.
If you’re referring to the current controversy over communion for the divorced and remarried, I don’t believe the Pope has bound the Church to a particular position. Yes, his personal opinion seems quite clear…yet he hasn’t stopped the bishops, and even cardinals, from expressing (and binding their local dioceses) to very distinct interpretations.

 

[Randolph]

What about Pope Honorius I? Pope John XXII? The Church itself accepts that they erred.

And those are just the two who taught theological errors, and does not include the longer list of Popes who kept mistresses, fathered children, oppressed peasants and lived and dined in opulent palaces whilst people outside died for want of bread.

Agreed, the Church of Rome has never erred and never will in matters of faith and morals, but we apparently have different notions of what “The Church of Rome” is. For you it’s the very person and every action of the Pope which must be followed without question, but according to the Church’s own explanation of itself, it is the Body of Christ, the accumulated Magesterium of 2,000 years, it is the Barque of Peter, the Churches Militant, Penitent and Triumphant. It is made up of mortal, imperfect instruments who strive to live lives of holiness that they could not do by themselves but for the Grace of God.

Your devotion is admirable, but various people are exploiting your unquestioning attitude to try to create a change in the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, the Eucharist, Confession, the proper use of conscience and objective moral norms.

Paul “resisted Peter to his face” not as an attack on his office, but to exhort him to use his office to teach the faith and end his scandalous treatment of the gentiles, whom he refused to sit with following the Jewish tradition that gentiles were “ritually unclean”.

In the same way the four Cardinals have asked the Pope to defend Catholic teaching and exercise his authority by answering the five dubia to affirm the Church’s constant teaching that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin and that objectively sinful actions do exist.

Thank you. We are indeed living in a very turbulent time in the Church. Either Pope Francis himself has to reign in on these crazy ideas, or his successors will eventually have to. This just can’t be allowed to go on…

 

[DS12]

Or be prepared to fall into darkness and stand with your hands on hips with a crooked look on the face asking “Huh? How did THAT happen?”.

If God has left it up to me to prevent His Church from falling into darkness, I’m quite certain I would have known about it by now.

 

[twf]

Is the following statement from the Council of Ephesus not devotion to the Pope?

“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that*** the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. ***The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place.”

newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

Is the following letter from the Council of Chalcedon not devotion to the Pope?

“Accordingly vouchsafe most holy and blessed father to accept as your own wish, and as conducing to good government the things which we have resolved on for the removal of all confusion and the confirmation of church order. For your holiness’ delegates, the most pious bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and with them the right Godly presbyter Boniface, attempted vehemently to resist these decisions, from a strong desire that this good work also should start from your foresight, in order that the establishment of good order as well as of the Faith should be put to your account. For we duly regarding our most devout and Christ loving Emperors, who delight therein, and the illustrious senate and, so to say, the whole imperial city, considered it opportune to use the meeting of this ecumenical Synod for the ratification of your honour, and confidently corroborated this decision as if it were initiated by you with your customary fostering zeal, knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parent’s glory. Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting.”

newadvent.org/fathers/3604098.htm

I’m seeing lots of statements by you, in response to statements made by saints and councils from the first millennium. I am not seeing any statements from saints or councils arguing against the Pope in any way whatsoever. Please show us some primary sources to back up your claims.

Those are great examples of the bishops as a body showing devotion to their head.

I’m not sure how I am arguing against the Pope. My points have basically boiled down to:

1. While the Pope is infallible under extremely limited circumstances, he can make mistakes. Some popes have. Pope Honorius was condemned by a later pope for just this.
2. While devotion to the person of the Pope can be laudable, it should have its limits. For most of Church history, the average Catholic wouldn’t have had much idea of what the Pope was doing in distant Rome. There wouldn’t have been much devotion to him as a person. There were no newspapers, no radios, no TV. They depended on their local bishop.
   The bishops assembled in Council, who knew the Pope of Rome, would be a different matter.

 

[DS12]

If you’re referring to…

For the sake of clarity, I’m referring to the inability of many to understand that they have not been called to analyze and judge this Papacy, or the direction the Church is going in, or to gossip about it, or to scandalize others, or to do any number of things that Catholics do because they have an internet connection.

 

[Seamus_L]

Here’s what Bishop Schneider had to say in his most recent interview.

                                   February 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Kazakhstan Bishop Athanasius Schneider says bishops who order their priests to give Holy Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics are “committing a grave abuse of his power.”

“He’s ordering (the priest) to sin and when a bishop even or a Pope commands me to sin I have to refuse,” Bishop Schneider explained in a recent interview with Rorate Caeli and Adelante la Fe. “I have to obey God and therefore in this case the priest has to say to the bishop, ‘Your Excellency you order me to commit a sin and I cannot do this, I have to obey God and I cannot obey you.’”

 

[PluniaZ]

Those are great examples of the bishops as a body showing devotion to their head.

I’m not sure how I am arguing against the Pope. My points have basically boiled down to:

1. While the Pope is infallible under extremely limited circumstances, he can make mistakes. Some popes have. Pope Honorius was condemned by a later pope for just this.
2. While devotion to the person of the Pope can be laudable, it should have its limits. For most of Church history, the average Catholic wouldn’t have had much idea of what the Pope was doing in distant Rome. There wouldn’t have been much devotion to him as a person. There were no newspapers, no radios, no TV. They depended on their local bishop.
   The bishops assembled in Council, who knew the Pope of Rome, would be a different matter.

Please cite a saint or church document that backs up your views.

And Pope Honorius I did not err, as I showed in my earlier post.

 

[PluniaZ]

For the sake of clarity, I’m referring to the inability of many to understand that they have not been called to analyze and judge this Papacy, or the direction the Church is going in, or to gossip about it, or to scandalize others, or to do any number of things that Catholics do because they have an internet connection.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Wandile]

No, we have not had heretic Popes. That is a lie made up by the enemies of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The Church of Rome has never erred, and never will err.

Pope John XXII was a heretic… and that was after the schism of the Eastern Orthodox. He recanted his errors just before died after he was issued with a formal correction by cardinals.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

For the sake of clarity, I’m referring to the inability of many to understand that they have not been called to analyze and judge this Papacy, or the direction the Church is going in, or to gossip about it, or to scandalize others, or to do any number of things that Catholics do because they have an internet connection.

Yes, far better to bury our heads in the sand and accept that you’re better off being divorced and remarried in Malta than you are in Scranton. Your assumption that people who seek clarity amidst obvious confusion do so because they feel the self-righteous need to criticize the Holy Father is as wrong as the assumed need itself.

There are times when perhaps criticism of ambiguity is not warranted; the kerfluffle over AL is not one of them, especially when our Sacraments are no longer universal…

 

[Wandile]

Lastly dont forget the example of St Peter being resisted to the face by St Paul for teaching error. The issue of popes teaching error is as old as the church. And so is the practice of fraternally correcting a pope.

The charism of infallibility only apllies in **rare, rare ** circumstances laid out I’m Vatican I and pope Francis has not invoked the infallibility.