Bp. Athanasius Schneider's reflections on "Amoris Laetitia"

[RPRPsych]

I’m not sure if this is the right forum for it, but this is a good follow-up to the interview which a fellow forum member posted. It’s thought-provoking stuff, to say the least.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/official-response-of-bishop-athanasius.html#more

 

[Polyphony]

I don’t mean to start a fight with this, but I do have a question. My apologies for this being off topic.

Why is that some traditionalists (and I don’t mean you, OP) seem to treat Bp. Schneider as if he’s a sort of quasi-pope? So many times, when an aspect of the “traditionalist perspective” is desired to be communicated, folks inevitably go to His Excellency.

Is Bp. Schneider a particularly vocal proponent of the traditionalist perspective, or is he simply more of a loan episcopal voice in Magisterium-obeying traditionalism?

The reason I ask is that I’m a bit tired of people taking what the Holy Father says and choosing to pooh-pooh it by appealing to some other authority, such as Bp. Schneider or (worse) certain laypersons whose specialty is civil law.

Blogs like RC especially could do better by listening rather than once again sowing discord against the Pope.

 

[pnewton]

Blogs like RC especially could do better by listening rather than once again sowing discord against the Pope.

Where would be the fun in that? I did not see anything really surprising or thought provoking in it, as it will appeal to those who already agree with him. Perhaps it is a good presentation of a balanced view of the traditionalist understanding of this issue. Regardless of what one believes though, the people of Kazakistan should heed their bishop.

Oh, and for the record, he could be seen as confusing just as easily. Blessed Laura does not represent one doctrinal or pastoral interpretation, but she did represent one case, and anecdote, not a universality. As the one closest to her mother, she may have well know that she was in mortal sin and in real danger of Hell. This is not the case of all, as the Holy Father pointed out, nor is judgment given to man for such a determination. Family is different. They are the closest one can have to fully understanding the nature of the heart of another.

 

[LittleFlower378]

I hate the term traditionalist. All Catholics should be traditionalists. We follow the tradition of the Church.

 

[1neophyte]

I hate the term traditionalist. All Catholics should be traditionalists. We follow the tradition of the Church.

First you hate the term, then you want all Catholics to be the term? What?

 

[RPRPsych]

I don’t mean to start a fight with this, but I do have a question. My apologies for this being off topic.

Why is that some traditionalists (and I don’t mean you, OP) seem to treat Bp. Schneider as if he’s a sort of quasi-pope? So many times, when an aspect of the “traditionalist perspective” is desired to be communicated, folks inevitably go to His Excellency.

Is Bp. Schneider a particularly vocal proponent of the traditionalist perspective, or is he simply more of a loan episcopal voice in Magisterium-obeying traditionalism?

The reason I ask is that I’m a bit tired of people taking what the Holy Father says and choosing to pooh-pooh it by appealing to some other authority, such as Bp. Schneider or (worse) certain laypersons whose specialty is civil law.

Blogs like RC especially could do better by listening rather than once again sowing discord against the Pope.

I think this happens because said “Traditionalists” are already close to Sedevacantism, but are unable (thank God) to take the plunge. So they seize upon someone who fits their ideal (Schneider, Sarah, even Benedict in his pre-papacy days), project their fears and desires onto him, and then fantasise “oh, if only he were Pope instead of that awful Wojtyla / Ratzinger / Bergoglio, everything would be all right!” It’s sad and betrays a lack of hope, bit it’s way better than Sedevacantism or conspiracism, and besides, who am I to judge?

I like Bp. Schneider’s viewpoint, but I like Pope Francis’ original document too. Coming from a discipline where uncertainty is rampant and theories are legion, I suppose I just appreciate having a variety of thoughtful viewpoints.

 

[Brendan_64]

I don’t mean to start a fight with this, but I do have a question. My apologies for this being off topic.

Why is that some traditionalists (and I don’t mean you, OP) seem to treat Bp. Schneider as if he’s a sort of quasi-pope? So many times, when an aspect of the “traditionalist perspective” is desired to be communicated, folks inevitably go to His Excellency.

Is Bp. Schneider a particularly vocal proponent of the traditionalist perspective, or is he simply more of a loan episcopal voice in Magisterium-obeying traditionalism?

The reason I ask is that I’m a bit tired of people taking what the Holy Father says and choosing to pooh-pooh it by appealing to some other authority, such as Bp. Schneider or (worse) certain laypersons whose specialty is civil law.

‘Traditionalists’ do not treat Bishop Schneider as a ‘quasi-pope’, nor do ‘traditionalists’ treat Cardinal Burke as a ‘quasi-pope’, or Cardinal Arinze, or Cardinal Sarah, or any of the other cardinals and bishops as a ‘quasi-pope’.

Why do I like Bishop Schneider? Because he gets straight to the heart of the matter without any ‘nuanced’ waffle or equivocation, because he has a very clear and uncompromising devotion to the Eucharist, because he cares deeply about those he describes as the ‘little ones’, and because he speaks with clarity. I don’t view him as a ‘quasi-pope’ in any way, but I do believe he is a very special bishop. I’ve also been lucky enough to have sat with him at lunch once, and he struck me as one of the (if not the) kindest, gentlest, humblest, and holiest person I have ever met.

 

[pnewton]

I hate the term traditionalist. All Catholics should be traditionalists. We follow the tradition of the Church.

All are traditionalists, in a since. However, traditions are not doctrine and should not be treated as such. They should be modified or even discarded when prudent. Hanging to traditions for the sake of traditions is fine, unless they become burdensome.

Surely you see that not all Catholics have the same level of attachment to non-doctrinal traditions, anymore than they do to Marian spirituality, or affinity for certain saints. I mean not insult by the use of the term and have long supported those here with greater affinity for traditional spirituality than I, though by comparison, I am seen as a traditionalist in my own parish (it was the Latin Mass).

The point is, we have but one pope. Bishops have authority in their own parish. The Curia will speak on behalf of the pope. All bishops and all theologians are worthy of listening to them, both Bishop Schneider and Bishop Kaspar. One who is open will heed both, or neither, lest we become as polarized as American politics where each side feeds themselves with the food of easy agreement. We are by and large a nation of “ditto-heads”. We do not need to also be a Church of ditto-heads.

Theology is deep because God is complex beyond understanding. His judgments extend beyond our understanding. Absolute truths, that are true absolute, must apply as much to the Mosaic Law, the time of the patriarchs, the time of the prophets, the early Church and today, or else they are not absolute. If one does not like these complexities, God is also simply. All one needs do is listen only to one’s own authority and one’s own well-formed conscience and abandon the attempt to proof-text the Church into one’s own notions.

Bishop Schneider is a courageous and strong bishop, as was Ab, Lefebvre before him. But like him, he is not perfect. More to the point, he has not been given the authority to lead the universal Church. We were given Amoris Laetitia, that contains also the importance of doctrinal truth,not Veritatis Laetitia containing the importance of God’s infinite mercy. It is my own opinion that no amount of “nuance” is as harmful to the faithful as critics of the Holy Father saying in public what should only be said in private, dividing the faithful into political camps.

 

[LittleFlower378]

All are traditionalists, in a since. However, traditions are not doctrine and should not be treated as such. They should be modified or even discarded when prudent. Hanging to traditions for the sake of traditions is fine, unless they become burdensome.

Surely you see that not all Catholics have the same level of attachment to non-doctrinal traditions, anymore than they do to Marian spirituality, or affinity for certain saints. I mean not insult by the use of the term and have long supported those here with greater affinity for traditional spirituality than I, though by comparison, I am seen as a traditionalist in my own parish (it was the Latin Mass).

The point is, we have but one pope. Bishops have authority in their own parish. The Curia will speak on behalf of the pope. All bishops and all theologians are worthy of listening to them, both Bishop Schneider and Bishop Kaspar. One who is open will heed both, or neither, lest we become as polarized as American politics where each side feeds themselves with the food of easy agreement. We are by and large a nation of “ditto-heads”. We do not need to also be a Church of ditto-heads.

We may have a different idea of what traditionalist means. Marian spirituality is an option of spirituality not a tradition. Tradition in what I am saying is taking the whole tradition of the Church when looking at an article of faith. There is a continuity of faith. Our faith didst just start with Vatican II, we also look back and take Scripture of course, but also past encyclicals, writings of the saints, etc, etc, to form our conscience and have faith. There is also a way of teaching that Fr.Hardon calls a historical approach, which uses the Tradition of our Catholic faith to teach.

We dont want to become polarized but Cardinal Kasper’s proposal to give communion to the divorced goes against the tradition of the Church. I heed on the side of caution.

 

[Brendan_64]

Tradition in what I am saying is taking the whole tradition of the Church when looking at an article of faith. There is a continuity of faith. Our faith didst just start with Vatican II, we also look back and take Scripture of course, but also past encyclicals, writings of the saints, etc, etc, to form our conscience and have faith. There is also a way of teaching that Fr.Hardon calls a historical approach, which uses the Tradition of our Catholic faith to teach.

 

[Churchman25]

“, It is no secret that divorced and remarried couples are admitted to holy communion in a number of churches without their being required to practice continence. It must be admitted that certain statements in AL could be used to justify an abusive practice that has already been going on for some time in various places and circumstances in the life of the Church”(“Official response of Bishop Athanasius Schneider to Amoris Laetitia”).

How is “It is no secret, however, that divorced and remarried couples are admitted to Holy Communion in a number of churches with out their being requiered practice of continence.” Being allowed, in some parishes. Shouldnt the Vatican be totally cracking down on something like this. Dont all churches have to follow the rules set up by the Vatican.

 

[1neophyte]

Shouldnt the Vatican be totally cracking down on something like this. Dont all churches have to follow the rules set up by the Vatican.

How would you propose this be done?

 

[pnewton]

We dont want to become polarized but Cardinal Kasper’s proposal to give communion to the divorced goes against the tradition of the Church. I heed on the side of caution.

You demonstrate here the need for nuance. The truth of your statement depends on the definition and understanding of several terms. Simplistic statements may sound more solid, but they too can add to confusion.

If one wishes to dismiss Cardinal Kasper, then one should be understanding to those who dismiss Bishop Schneider.

 

[pnewton]

. Shouldnt the Vatican be totally cracking down on something like this. Dont all churches have to follow the rules set up by the Vatican.

Not necessarily. Not all people fit neatly (or at all) into a set of rules. As Pope Francis pointed out, it is people who need ministry, not situations. Why should Catholics concern themselves with “crackdowns”? Isn’t that past the pay grade of a lay man? The spiritual situation of an individual is a matter between him, his priest and God.

 

[Churchman25]

This is completely my opinion but the Vatican could start implementing somesort of Penalty for churches that dont nessesarily follow their rules that they set up. For example they could implement some sort of merit system and if a paticular parish gooes over a set number of points for what ever rules they are breaking then the Vatican could implement a fine to that particular parish. I know people will probably think well. How will they moniter all churches with this kind of system. This is ware awareness will come in with the priests of surrounding parishes so they can say hey so in so parish is not following set rules by the Vatican.

Again this is my personal opinion and would probably be refuted by a Vatican official but hey Its an idea.

 

[1neophyte]

This is completely my opinion but the Vatican could start implementing somesort of Penalty for churches that dont nessesarily follow their rules that they set up. For example they could implement some sort of merit system and if a paticular parish gooes over a set number of points for what ever rules they are breaking then the Vatican could implement a fine to that particular parish. I know people will probably think well. How will they moniter all churches with this kind of system. This is ware awareness will come in with the priests of surrounding parishes so they can say hey so in so parish is not following set rules by the Vatican.

Again this is my personal opinion and would probably be refuted by a Vatican official but hey Its an idea.

You sound like you would be a lot of fun at parties.

 

[LittleFlower378]

This is completely my opinion but the Vatican could start implementing somesort of Penalty for churches that dont nessesarily follow their rules that they set up. For example they could implement some sort of merit system and if a paticular parish gooes over a set number of points for what ever rules they are breaking then the Vatican could implement a fine to that particular parish. I know people will probably think well. How will they moniter all churches with this kind of system. This is ware awareness will come in with the priests of surrounding parishes so they can say hey so in so parish is not following set rules by the Vatican.

Again this is my personal opinion and would probably be refuted by a Vatican official but hey Its an idea.

Don’t listen to Neo, you bring up some good points. Something has to be done. In Germany there is a good amount of this.

 

[1neophyte]

. Something has to be done.

Can you please be more specific about what has to be done?

 

[Polyphony]

Coming from a discipline where uncertainty is rampant and theories are legion, I suppose I just appreciate having a variety of thoughtful viewpoints.

I was going to joke that you must be a psychologist, and then I again noticed your user name.

Incidentally, I quite agree with you with regard to your analysis and your response to my questions.

 

[commenter]

‘Traditionalists’ do not treat Bishop Schneider as a ‘quasi-pope’, nor do ‘traditionalists’ treat Cardinal Burke as a ‘quasi-pope’, or Cardinal Arinze, or Cardinal Sarah, or any of the other cardinals and bishops as a ‘quasi-pope’.

Why do I like Bishop Schneider? Because he gets straight to the heart of the matter without any ‘nuanced’ waffle or equivocation, because he has a very clear and uncompromising devotion to the Eucharist, because he cares deeply about those he describes as the ‘little ones’, and because he speaks with clarity. I don’t view him as a ‘quasi-pope’ in any way, but I do believe he is a very special bishop. I’ve also been lucky enough to have sat with him at lunch once, and he struck me as one of the (if not the) kindest, gentlest, humblest, and holiest person I have ever met.

I have not met this bishop. I share his concerns on some things. But he seems unaware that the most dangerous trend today is the attack on religious authority. We live in the era when every layman on the Left and the Right considers himself his own priest, bishop, and pope. A whole industry has developed of people who find quotes from the past to undermine the pope of the present. When you support this industry regarding Pope Francis, keep in mind your support builds them up so they can attack Pope Benedict 16, and also, a projected Benedict 17th in 3 years. Do you think the anti-papal authority industry will disappear when a pope you fully agree with appears?

Every time Pope Francis (and other popes before him) tries to move people towards a deeper conversion, to adapt to changed circumstances, someone will supply a quote from the* past to prove no, you don’t have to change at all. It’s hard to think of a bigger obstacle to conversion than this quote-finding industry. For the Left and the Right, the only good popes are those who are safely dead. We forget that every pope who ever lived was once a current pope. Francis himself is part of Catholic Tradition.

The most important pope is always the man who is pope right now. When Regina Coeli intentionally rips the current pope, this sends the message that everything all the earlier popes taught is less important; and everything future popes is unimportant, too. I am not saying this is at all what Bishop Schneider intends, just pointing out there is a party who will gladly quote him for their purposes.