Bishop Schneider releases essay ‘on the question of the true Pope’

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnR77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bishop Schneider is a wonderful bishop and follower of Christ.

He affirmed that the Holy Father is the true pope.

He also affirmed that the Holy Father is not guilty of heresy, and had not lost the papal office.

I admire both our Holy Father and Bishop Schneider.
 
Irishmom2 said:
the current unprecedented crisis of the papacy.
Click to expand...
Some possibilities of what is meant that come to my mind -
  • The uncommon occurrence of having two living “Popes” - Francis holding the papal office and BXVI being emeritus.
  • Various things Pope Francis has said or done that the MSM has reported on inaccurately/out of context/not with the Catholic understanding - which causes confusion and doubt in the faithful.
  • And these same things e.g. Pachamama incidence - we all know the effect this had on the world and the Catholic world in particular.
It hasn’t always been clear what Pope Francis meaning or his intention has been behind these various things, and ambiguity causes doubt and confusion. We’ve seen this on past thread here on CAF.

just my opinion/guess/stab in the dark.
 
40.png
Interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider Feb.28 '20 Traditional Catholicism
A recent interview with His Excellency, Bishop Schneider. As a true good shepherd, he speaks with clarity, courage, conviction, and leaves little room for ambiguity. The video is a bit lengthy, but inspirational enough to warrant the time. Such devout servants of Christ are exactly what the church needs today… in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...
Some points in the article presented with a little more clarity.
 
CilladeRoma said:
Bishop Schneider and and a small group of others have spent the past five years sowing seeds of discord and doubt.
Click to expand...
I’m curious as to what you think of the situation in Germany, and what the bishops there are sowing? Now that’s some real discord and doubt!
 
Last edited:
He just did an in depth interview with Taylor Marshall the other day, and delineates well why Pope Francis IS the pope, and BXVI is not, and puts the foolishness of those who say otherwise to rest
 
This was the interview I referred to. Excellent, well thought out with no knee jerk emotional reactions highly recommend
 
MNathaniel said:
With respect, brother, did you even read the letter? This essay is a defence of Pope Francis. In it, Bishop Schneider addresses speculation that Pope Francis may be an illegitimate pope (which is useful for him to address since such speculation is on the minds of many faithful, in this unusual circumstance of a pope emeritus still living), and he concludes that such speculation is unjustified.

Bishop Schneider explicitly concludes that Pope Francis is the true pope. Perhaps in future, you might try actually reading a news article before jumping to assumptions and getting angry and judgemental based on a mere headline
Click to expand...
This. Bishop Schneider makes it clear, very clear Francis is the Pope. Period.
 
Funny, it looks like you’re the only one so far. Nobody else has any problem or finds anything wrong or distasteful about the essay or Bishop Schneider.
 
Come on, people, this letter is absolutely an attack on the Pope. It assumes as a given that Pope Francis is a heretic, and goes on to discuss how Catholics must oppose heretical Popes, even if they are not formally deposed. I am stunned that Catholic Answers allows things like this to be posted here.
 
It is not right to accuse people of not reading the essay just because they don’t end up with the same opinion that you have. Sometimes things can be written or comments can be made that are not as clear as one thinks they are. It happens all the time.
 
Thank you.
The whole premise of the article is a subtle attack of Pope Francis and I truly believe some don’t see that because they agree with the author more than they agree with the Church.
 
I have read it. I think you want it to say what you want it to say, for some reason. Tell me this, what is the " current crisis in the Church under Pope Francis" referred to in the article? Why does the author repeatedly refer to Pope Francis’ “heresies.” Why would he be giving guidance at this particular time about how to react to “evil teachings” from a Pope?

I don’t know if you are simply being disingenuous, or if something else is going on, but the only fair reading of the article is that it is an attack on the Pope.
 
Last edited:
Oh I’m not being disingenuous. Why don’t YOU tell ME what the current crisis in the Church under Pope Francis is?
Where—and you can give me the exact quotes, does Bishop Schneider refer repeatedly to Pope Francis’ heresies? Does a bishop when speaking of evil teachings, and those have occurred throughout Christian history from the get-go, have never gone away, and are here today in an age which is far more ‘information heavy’ than any other, necessarily be speaking ‘only’ of the current Pope when he speaks? That would be news to the various priests, bishops, and popes through history. Why is it only Bishop Schneider who is presumed to have an agenda? Not only that, why are people allowed to libel him without being ‘called to book?” I suppose that calling his work distasteful and accusing him of sowing seeds of dissension and discord is considered just an opinion, ‘as good as any other’, but when people ask for examples, nobody has anything concrete to say, just more, “he’s bad”.

Again, please show me exactly where Bishop Schneider says or does what you ‘claim’. You say he attacks the Pope. SHOW US.
 
Anyone can read the article and see the attacks for themselves. I won’t go back and give them more clicks just to get quotes you are already well aware of.
 
So you make a claim but you don’t have to prove it. Well, that’s a very, um, telling argument you’re attempting.

Why should we believe your interpretation when out of some 36 posts on the thread, only you and one other person are yelling, “It’s an attack” and all the others are, “great article’, “the bishop went to great lengths to lay people’s fears to rest’. “Far from attacking Pope Francis, the bishop is calling on us to stand by the Church and not to let those calling people heretics worry us or confuse us”.

I swear, Bishop Schneider could stand up there and start reading the telephone listings and there are a select few posters here who would immediately start screaming that he was sowing discord and disrespecting Pope Francis and should be ashamed of himself.

Land sakes .
 
I remember the 89s quite well. There was much criticism of JP II from clerics. It was before the internet, so the typical Catholic may not have seen it. At things like diocesan training for CCD teaches, the undercurrent was quite string. JP II had to effectively circumvent the American hierarchy to have his World Youth Day in Denver.

Anecdotally, I remember vividly my uncle, a deacon ordained in the late 70s, talking about how JP II was do out if touch with the Church having come from Poland, behind the iron curtain.
It’s revisionist history that there was no criticism if St John Paul II.

Having said that: I hare your distaste for much if the criticism of Francis, even if I am not as debited to him as you.
 
TMC said:
Tell me this, what is the " current crisis in the Church under Pope Francis" referred to in the article?
Click to expand...
The question has already been answered with just a few
examples…
CRV said:
Some possibilities of what is meant that come to my mind -
  • The uncommon occurrence of having two living “Popes” - Francis holding the papal office and BXVI being emeritus.
  • Various things Pope Francis has said or done that the MSM has reported on inaccurately/out of context/not with the Catholic understanding - which causes confusion and doubt in the faithful.
  • And these same things e.g. Pachamama incidence - we all know the effect this had on the world and the Catholic world in particular.
It hasn’t always been clear what Pope Francis meaning or his intention has been behind these various things, and ambiguity causes doubt and confusion. We’ve seen this on past thread here on CAF.

just my opinion/guess/stab in the dark.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Which just goes to my point. The article builds on attacks on 1) the very fact that Francis is Pope, 2) Francis’ statements and actions as Pope, and 3) Francis reactions to the acts of others. So other than his existence, his statements, his actions, and his relationship to others, the authors have no problems with the Pope, I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top