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

[tafan2]

Why does the author repeatedly refer to Pope Francis’ “heresies.”

I went back and read it again, I see one reference to “his heresies”. That one reference is referring to people who are declaring Francis to be an invalid poor, and cannot be interpretted as the Arch Bishop’s thoughts. Every other reference us “a pope”.

Tell me this, what is the " current crisis in the Church under Pope Francis" referred to in the article?

Both supporters and those in opposition to Pope Francis must admit we have a current crisis: people are calling into question, on a significant scale The Holy Father’s legitimacy. And while there are reasonable criticisms of Francis, the questioning if he is pope is a crisis.

Do I think it is an “unorecedent crisis if the papacy”? No, that one phrase was overstated.

One cannot help but chuckle at LifeSiteNews publishing this letter. They likely thought, as you do, it is a subtle attack on Francis. A careful reading of it makes it clear that it us an admonition aimed at many of the Holy Father’s critics, telling them they have gone too far. The fact that this is written by a bishop who has been a critic of the Holy Father lends it much credence in my mind.

One cannot read the following paragraph and interpret as anything but a rebuke to some of Francis’s critics:

“Declaring Pope Francis to be an invalid pope, either because of his heresies or because of an invalid election (for reasons of alleged violations of the Conclave norms or for the reason that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope because of his invalid renunciation) are desperate and subjectively taken actions aimed at remedying the current unprecedented crisis of the papacy. They are purely human and betray a spiritual myopia. All such endeavors are ultimately a dead end, a cul-de-sac. Such solutions reveal an implicit Pelagian approach to resolving a problem with human means; a problem, indeed, which cannot be resolved by human efforts, but which requires a divine intervention.”

 

[ThomasMT]

As I already mentioned to another CAF member, the Church is not a dictatorship and members are allowed to voice concerns. Thank goodness… who knows where we would be if not for such active participation. Despite given concerns, members and leaders of the church still recognize the authority of the pope, and as obedient children we submit to his authority. Not sure which part of this offends you.

 

[TMC]

Both supporters and those in opposition to Pope Francis must admit we have a current crisis: people are calling into question, on a significant scale The Holy Father’s legitimacy.

Yes, people are criticizing the Pope and questioning his actions, and then claiming that a “crisis” exists because the Pope is being criticized.

 

[TMC]

Despite given concerns, members and leaders of the church still recognize the authority of the pope, and as obedient children we submit to his authority.

The article calls on Catholics to “morally (but not canonically) distance” themselves from the Pope’s “evil teachings and acts,” and advises that Catholics should “resist his errors.” An odd form of obedience.

 

[tafan2]

That is simply not true. You are taking the words out of context and misrepresenting them. The complete sentence is :

"Faithful Catholics can morally (but not canonically) distance themselves from erroneous or evil teachings and acts of a pope. "

 

[TMC]

My quote was not out of context. I quoted him exactly. You are the one ignoring context. That statement was made in the context of what Catholics should think of the current Pope. Unless one willfully ignores that context, the meaning is obvious.

 

[tafan2]

You iefy out the word “can” and " a" which are ultimately important to the context. Why do that, if you are not trying to misreoresent the Bishop’s meaning?

As for further context, up until that point, Pope Francis was only mentioned once:

“Even if one supports the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy, in the case of Pope Francis, the College of Cardinals or of a representative group of bishops has not issued a declaration regarding the automatic loss of papal office, specifying the concrete heretical pronouncements and the date when they happened.”

 

[TMC]

I will certainly give the defenders of this article points for persistence and inventiveness.

 

[tafan2]

I am defending it. It was written as a rebuke to thise who have taken their criticisms if the Holy Father too far. Telling them that any question of Francis’s legitimate status as pope are desperate actions which betray a spiritual myopia.

 

[ThomasMT]

The article stands just fine on it’s own merits and does not need defending. It seems to me that TMC rejects the idea that a pope can be legitimately recognized and obeyed as long as disagreements are entertained and issues presented.

 

[stpurl]

Inventiveness? I believe you were the one who creatively left out the words “can” and ‘a” in a blatant attempt to make it look as if the Bishop was only referring to Pope Francis and was actively encouraging people to ‘stand in judgment on him’. Although ‘inventive’ wasn’t exactly the first word that came to mind.

 

[Feanor2]

Another poster described this letter as “passive aggressive,” and I feel that is apt.

Schneider refers to a “crisis” of the papacy and to “heresies” of the Pope. He answers the question of whether the Pope is validly reining.

Even bringing these issues up is aggressive. Those far fringe asking these questions, which frankly, don’t deserve the time of consideration.

These aren’t reputable people asking these questions- best to ignore them.

 

[ThomasMT]

Even bringing these issues up is aggressive. Those far fringe asking these questions, which frankly, don’t deserve the time of consideration.

These aren’t reputable people asking these questions- best to ignore them.

I’ll defer to His Excellency, regarding judgment of what issues deserve consideration. “Cancel culture” dog whistles calling for the slandering, marginalization, and silencing of significantly represented and faithful Catholics are what deserve to be ignored. The article offers broad appeal and addresses also those who wouldn’t think to question the legitimacy of a pope, but seek clarity in the face of ambiguity and uncertainty. I wouldn’t consider that aggressive.

 

[stpurl]

So wait, bringing up issues is aggressive? Answering people is aggressive? From the essay, the Pope is validly reigning, he isn’t in heresy, and people who HEARD questions even if they didn’t question things themselves were reassured by hearing from a bishop that while crises (a perfectly normal word, even if overused in the secular sphere) may come and go in any papacy, we are not to fear.

That’s aggressive?

In that case, I think we need a little more aggressiveness in the Church today.

Maybe we have become so accustomed to weenie-speak among Christians, carefully couched to be ‘unassuming’ and ‘sensitive’, that when we hear plain straight talking it just ‘sounds’ aggressive to our tender sensibilities.

Today’s Catholic Christians, remember, are so ‘guilty’ of crimes against the secular world, we should never speak ‘truth’ without hedging that ‘this might be true for ME but not necessarily for YOU”, or that things which Christianity itself taught as, let’s use the word HERESY, aren’t just ‘heresy THEN but not NOW” or ‘heresy only for Catholics” etc., but a plain simple heresy, which the Church then, now, and ever is to PROCLAIM as heresy.

Nobody is accusing Pope Francis of being a heretic. But heretics, those who espouse heresy, are in fact doing wrong, and heresy, as a concept and teaching, is wrong. Not just ‘wrong in the 15th century’ etc.

 

[pnewton]

Both supporters and those in opposition to Pope Francis must admit we have a current crisis: people are calling into question, on a significant scale The Holy Father’s legitimacy.

I will defer admitting to a crisis, and whether this is being done on a significant scale. As I see it, the only crisis is one of information, most of which is opinion, and a lot of which is false. The only solution I see is to teach the next generation a little more humility, that they do not have to weigh in on everything, or have the strongest opinions about that which they are most ignorant.

If there was no internet, and all this overload of opinions, I would be perfectly happy with all Bishop Schneider says, but only as long as he was my bishop. I would likewise be just as happy with one of the more progressive ones. It is this whole “bishop at large” cult of the personality which best agrees with me, that constitutes the only problem I see, and if this is a crisis, then that word has no meaning to me.

 

[stpurl]

First, I have two words: Fulton Sheen. He wasn’t my bishop in the 1950s and 1960s. Should I have just disregarded his talks on TV since his ‘opinion’ wouldn’t have mattered to me, at least according to your perception?

Second: Opinion is one thing. A bishop can have an opinion, for example, on whether he prefers light or dark meat. He can have an opinion on whether he prefers the OF or the EF, personally. BUT if he is speaking on the Catholic faith and makes a statement from the catechism, or answers a question with an answer from the catechism or the ordinary magisterium, he is no longer simply ‘giving an opinion’.

Neither was Bishop Fulton Sheen, when giving his talks on TV, simply stating ‘his” opinion on the Catholic faith.

 

[pnewton]

Neither was Bishop Fulton Sheen, when giving his talks on TV, simply stating ‘his” opinion on the Catholic faith.

Catholicism was most decidedly not the subject any bishop is most ignorant of. Likewise, there are people here whose expert opinion in certain fields is quite valuable. Any bishop is an expert on the faith. Bishop Sheen, on his program, was presenting homilies, in a manner, that is preaching. I am sure Bishops Schneider give very good homilies on the Scripture and Catholic teaching. I have only heard one bishop that is poor in this area, and that seems to be due to advanced age. The opinions I see are as problematic are from those who reach to areas that they do not know, like “pro-lifers” outside the Church weighing in to attack the Church, or people here having an opinion one whether the Pope is the pope.

Bishop Sheen was an amazing communicator. We have the same today who can communicate the message of the Gospel in a powerful manner. Different people are drawn to different types. The Venerable Sheen was widely popular, if not universal. The only possible parallel I can see with him would be if people were drawn into camps between him and Cardinal Spellman. I was not Catholic then, so I do not know if that was an issue. Then the cult of personality might have been a problem. But of all Bishop Sheen did, he is not known for his controversy, but his communication - a true Son of the Church.

 

[tafan2]

The opinions I see are as problematic are …or people here having an opinion one whether the Pope is the pope.

This is exactly the problem Bishop Schneider was addressing in the letter.

 

[pnewton]

I will accept your evaluation of it until I can read it. Does anyone have a direct link to the letter.

 

[tafan2]

As much as I do not like LifrSiteNews, the link in the OP is the letter itself. Seeing how LifeSiteNews was a site questioning The Holy Father’s legitimacy a couple if months ago, it is ironic that they published a letter chastising those who have done so. I doubt they considered the letter closely, but just published it thinking it was confirmation. IMO, they are not the sharpest kids on the block.