O
OldYoungGuy
Guest
Has anyone read the latest interview of Bishop Schneider? I think he will be a saint. He fits his namesake well.
- Status
O
OldYoungGuy
Guest
C
corsair
Guest
Yes, I’ve seen the article and read the interview. I agree he is one of the best we’ve got.
Totally traditional and loyal to the Magisterium.
Totally traditional and loyal to the Magisterium.
J
johnnyc176
Guest
Cardinal Burke, the Africans, Bishop Schneider…the Holy Spirit is providing these strong voices to help us.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
An excellent interview.
Bishop Schneider is a true and faithful bishop.
Bishop Schneider is a true and faithful bishop.
H
HB11
Guest
can someone explain the Russia comment to me, I am confused. Yes, I do thank God for the them African s and Cardinal Burke. We lived long enough to see the fruit of sending change to the Missions when we were kids. Thanks for the link.
R
RodH
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecration_of_Russia
Regarding the interview, I believe it is one to note, as it may signal a beginning of a “crack” in the deafening silence from our Bishops in the face of the ever more bold advance of progressivism by Pope Francis. ArchB Schneider was pointed and direct. He was not using innuendo and nuance. He was very clear…how much clearer could he be?..in stating the limitations of the Pope’s office.
It is about time we are reminded of the facts.
Q
quantum_star22
Guest
Yes I did read it and he hits on several important facts. One thing he said:
*The very crisis of the Church in our days consists in the ever growing phenomenon that those who don’t fully believe and profess the integrity of the Catholic faith frequently occupy strategic positions in the life of the Church, such as professors of theology, educators in seminaries, religious superiors, parish priests and even bishops and cardinals. And these people with their defective faith profess themselves as being submitted to the Pope. *
This, I believe, is a bigger problem than most people think. Many folks in today’s world don’t believe that Christ’s Church IS the Catholic Church. And he’s certainly right with regard to how many, even those appointed as religious educators, don’t even believe in the Catholic Church as the external teaching authority appointed by God.
R
RodH
Guest
It is hard to argue this point. You are right. Obviously so is ArchB Schneider!
The change in emphasis {some argue wholesale change in doctrine…} on “extra Ecclesiam nula salus” since V2 has brought much cause for confusion in the Church. That and the totally heretical views on the general validity of “other religions” we hear constantly.
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t know how he can be described as “loyal” and “faithful” given the criticisms he makes of the Pope and the Church in the interview. He describes the Pope’s actions as “improper and even indecent.” He says that recent Popes have been “negligent in their sacred duty.” He harshly criticizes the Church’s liturgy, and its current approved, licit practices. He claims the Church is “bound in cords” by “high clergy,” suggesting they are “collaborating” with “the enemies of the Church,” which is clearly a reference to the stance the last three Popes have taken on Fatima.
One can agree or disagree with the esteemed bishop, but its hard to describe his comments as “loyal.”
One can agree or disagree with the esteemed bishop, but its hard to describe his comments as “loyal.”
V
Valdemar
Guest
Men kneeling down and washing the bare feet of women is indecent in many cultures as he says and it is simply a fact, not something that has bearing on “loyalty”. In fact, one might say it is a stupid decision and still not jeopardize “loyalty”. Good grief my father was a METHODIST minister and there is no way he would do such a thing based purely and simply on the propriety and…decency of it.
Loyalty to the Pope does not go to the extend of praising every single decision he makes. Period.
By your definition of loyalty, we should condemn St Paul for resisting St Peter to the face, a far harsher action done for issues that many would argue pale to what this Pope has done.
I personally think ArchB Schneider was extremely restrained, careful respectful and…loyal.
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t think its restrained or respectful to say that the Pope is indecent. I also don’t think it is restrained or respectful to say that he is in league with the enemies of the Church. If I posted his comments here I would be suspended.
Again, one can agree or disagree, but its both odd and disingenuous to refer to the comments as loyal, restrained or respectful.
N
Nightwolf
Guest
It is very easy to describe the bishop’s comments as loyal; that is because ‘‘loyal’’ is vague (just as ‘‘rigid,’’ ‘‘free,’’ etc are vague), and so it is something that each existential person interprets. Asking whether the bishop or his comments are loyal or not is nonsense, because there is no standard a person can point to and say ‘‘that, in all its parts, is loyality. Therefore, that man, and that kid, and that person over there who looks like a monkey, are loyal.’’ When someone takes an idea like ‘‘loyal’’ and forgets that it is they themselves who are interpreting what ‘‘loyal’’ means, we run into problems. ‘‘Loyalty’’ is just one of those things which is valid, only if it is supported by a logical system underneath it.
Take you, for example. By the tenor of your post, you would interpret loyalty as public approval, or at least a lack of public disapproval - or, quite possibly, outsourcing the intellect to the Pope. That, I’m sure, is based on the idea of the respect due the Pope as the Vicar of Christ combined with the dogma of papal infallibility, but you interpret it to mean that the decisions of the Pope are unassailable. Under that system, right you are; the bishop is disloyal to the Pope.
Now, consider his idea of loyalty. The bishop holds that loyalty to the Deposit of Faith is not Cinderella, but a tyrant who is incessantly demanding and cares not a wit whether you’re a medieval peasant, a Hollywood glamour, or the Pope. The Pope ows his loyalty to that Deposit. One is not automatically in approval of the Pope’s decisions, as though every of his decisions were good and holy. If the Pope were morally, even doctrinally wrong, then the loyal thing to do would be to oppose it, because it is the Pope’s duty to be loyal to the Deposit of Faith as much as it is the peasant’s. Hence, since the bishop is convinced that the Pope has been disloyal to some aspects of the Deposit of Faith, and he is opposing those which he considers deviations, he cannot be considered disloyal for the fact that he opposes them.
One more example for the arbitrariness of calling something or someone disloyal: In Charles Dickens’ Hard Times, one character robs a bank and is being pursued by the police. He hides until his father, a sympathetic character, is told of this. The father has absolutely no scruples or pangs of conscience; he simply knows that he has to help the kid get out of the county. That is the ‘‘loyal’’ thing to do - so the Victorians would say. Now, dost thou, oh modern man, think ye so much better then they that you can say that you know they were wrong, and your idea of loyalty is right?
T
TMC
Guest
I would not define loyalty using public approval or “outsourcing intellect” (and I can’t imagine how you would think I was.) I am using the standard definition of loyal, which is “giving or showing firm and constant support or allegiance to a person or institution.” So by that definition he is certainly not showing loyalty to the current Pope. I also think that his comments are objectively not loyal to the Church as an institution. You may be correct that in his own mind he is being loyal to his own perception of what the Church should be, or to his perception of what the Church once was. Of course, almost any statement or action can be called “loyal” by that standard.
Care to try to defend his statements as “restrained” or “respectful”? That may be a more difficult task.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Loyalty or not, he might have a point here.
N
Nightwolf
Guest
All of that is under your interpretation of what it means to be loyal. Say that you looked up the word in the dictionary to give me the definition you just did. What of it? A dictionary gives the current colloquial practice of words, but never a concept’s ‘‘standard definition,’’ as if the use of a word makes subjective things objective. More on that below.
Hooray! You understand, even if you don’t see it yet. You are correct that ‘‘any statement or action can be called ‘loyal.’’’ Where you go wrong is by calling it a ‘‘standard.’’ You’ll have to exorcize that word from your treatment of ‘‘loyal,’’ because there is no stardard for it. It is an interpretation that each person makes, and, relative to their own ideas, calls persons and things around them loyal or disloyal. If you want to shake my confidence in this, don’t ignore my Dickens reference, but screw your courage and answer me: Was the father acting loyally to his son in helping him to effect a miscarriage of justice? Does that fit your definition that you stole from the dictionary and crowned the standard?
Another problem is that you say that his comments are ‘‘objectively not loyal’’ to the Church. But that too is nonsense, because loyalty is a subjective, not an objective thing. Maybe you think me a relativist? Nay, my good one; I am as firm a defender of objective truth as one can find, but there are many things which, absolutely, are subjective things.
Implying that the loyalty of the bishop’s remarks is more secure after all?
Why not? For example: ‘‘Restrained’’ compared to what? ‘‘Respectful’’ by what standard? Once again, oh 21st century denison of the Western world, are you so certain that you know that your currently popular models of pompous civility are the standard for what respect is? Must one, in order to be respectful, be colorless and speak in perfectly measured, passionless tones? If I gave you thirty letters from various people, would you be certain you could tell me which are respectful, and which not - and which have more respect compared to the others?
If I had to take a guess, you don’t agree with the bishop’s assessment of the situation. Does it not, then, seem somewhat convenient to you that you think that his interview is disrespectful, rude, and even disloyal (although you don’t seem so confident in that, this time), while those who agree think it measured, respectful, and loyal? We are all storytellers - it’s the way our brains work - and we often trick ourselves in our own attempt to classify things.
C
commenter
Guest
Paul didn’t grant interviews to a newspaper hostile to the Magisterium.
This newspaper has undermined the authority of all the popes since Pope Pius XII died, (years before the paper began) as well as teaching ministry of bishops during and after V2. One could say Bishop Schneider has the option of communicating his information to Pope Francis and the appropriate department heads in the Curia. What benefit is there to “go public”? Does the Holy Spirit guide media-based pressure? Or does the Holy Spirit guide the Pope and bishops?
In fairness to the bishop, the interview was not open ended, they were leading him on with questions designed to promote a certain viewpoint. The interviewer was not trying to learn anything. In effect, Rorate Coeli had already decided what they wanted the interview to say, and they got their message out over the bishop’s name. If the bishop had written an essay, in his native language, it might have been different.
Ironically this bishop has shown some good insights over the years into abuses that are real. But interviews like this mean his good ideas will likely not be heard by or benefit the Church in general, just the tiny group that already agreed with this. There are many other bishops who have worked constructively to reduce or eliminate abuses, but none of them would grant an interview to Rorate Coeli.
P
ProVobis
Guest
For the record Bishop Schneider has given interviews to those other than the folks at Rorate Coeli, including ewtn.
search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrBTzxrlbFWaQIA9tdXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA21jYWZlZQRncHJpZANWaVl6N0pUZlNnYVkudU5mQjFVNDVBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMxBG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzM1BHF1ZXJ5A3lvdXR1YmUgYmlzaG9wIGF0aGFuYXNpdXMgc2NobmVpZGVyBHRfc3RtcAMxNDU0NDc4NzU4?p=youtube+bishop+athanasius+schneider&fr2=sb-top-search&fr=mcafee&type=C211US662D20131017
Seems like he could have easily spoken directly to youtube or used some other personal venue.
I wouldn’t attack the messenger on this one.
- Status