Bishop Schneider Says Traditional Catholics Are Not “Extremest”, But Rather The Hope For The Future

Traditional Catholic Priest ^ | August 29, 2014 | Fr. Peter Carota

[ebb tide]

Traditional Catholic Priest

by Fr. Peter Carota

Search

Main menu

Skip to primary content

• Home
• Sample Page

Post navigation

← Previous Next →

Bishop Schneider Says Traditional Catholics Are Not “Extremest”, But Rather The Hope For The Future

Posted on August 29, 2014 by fc

Bishop Schneider had an interview published in the June 6th 2014 CatholicHerald.co.uk, “We Are In The Fourth Great Crisis Of The Church“.  If you have the time please read the whole great article.  Here I have attempted to only highlight the main points in the article.

In his interview he said we are in the fourth great crisis of the Church.  This is spearheaded by the liberals in the Church who are collaborating with, what he calls, the “new paganism” and this is actually driving the Catholic Church towards a split.  In this collaboration, we see something like what happened with the fourth-century Arian heresy in which “a large part of the Church hierarchy was implicated”.

The root and cause of this crisis he says is “the “banal” and casual treatment of the Blessed Sacrament by clergy, including some of those in positions of authority, and the laity, who are going along with secular society.  

“The Eucharist is at the heart of the Church,” he said. “When the heart is weak, the whole body is weak.”  He strongly believes that receiving Holy Communion in hand contributes gradually to the loss of the belief in the Real Presence and in transubstantiation.  

“It seems that the majority of the clergy and the bishops are content with this modern use of Communion in hand… For me this is incredible. How is this possible, when Jesus is present in the little Hosts?  There is the grievous fact of the loss of the Eucharistic fragments. And the fragments of the consecrated Host are crushed by feet. This is horrible! Our God, in our churches, is trampled by feet!  It is time that the bishops (should) raise their voices for the Eucharistic Jesus who has no voice to defend himself.  Here is an attack on the Most Holy, an attack on the Eucharistic faith.”

He acknowledges that we have been in this crisis for the last 50 years, (Since Vatican II), with great confusion over doctrine and liturgy.  An example of this “confusion” is clear in the preparation of the Extraordinary Synod coming up this October in Rome:

“I think this issue of the reception of Holy Communion by the remarried will blow up and show the real crisis in the Church. The real crisis of the Church is anthropocentrism and the forgetting of Christo-centrism….  This is the deepest evil: 1) man, or the clergy, putting themselves in the centre when they are celebrating liturgy, (in some churches God, in the tabernacle, is put in a corner, while the priest takes centre stage), and 2) when clergy change the revealed truth of God, for instance, concerning the Sixth Commandment and human sexuality.”  (In this he is referring to homosexuals and divorced people living together or in a second marriage.)

He is very critical of trying to change Catholic pastoral practices, (like giving communion to people living in sin and then calling it mercy).  “This is a kind of sophism.  It is comparable to a doctor who gives a diabetic patient sugar, although he knows it will kill him.”

He says: “Unfortunately there were … members of the clergy and even bishops who put grains of incense in front of the statue of the emperor or of a pagan idol or who delivered the books of the Holy Scripture to be burned. Such collaborationist Christians and clerics were called in those times thurificati or traitors.  We also have those who collaborate, or are traitors of the Faith today”. St Lawrence’s Martyrdom

As a consequence of liberal clergy and laity, he see a split coming eventually.  “I can presume that such a separation will affect each level of Catholics: lay people and even not excluding the high clergy.”

He hopes that this split will eventually lead to a renewal of the Church in a traditional way.   The present “anthropocentric” [man-centred] clerical system will collapse. “This liberal clerical edifice will crash down because they have no roots and no fruits.”   There are hardly any vocations in any of the ordinary dioceses or religious orders.

Bishop Schneider warns that “traditional Catholics may, for a time, be persecuted or discriminated against, even at the behest of those who have “power in the exterior structures of the Church”.  All of us traditional Catholics are already badly persecuted by the people in power in the Church.  Each one of us can tell our own story.

In the end, he says “The Supreme Magisterium” will restate clear doctrinal statement, and no longer will go along with neo-pagan world and ideas.  The lack of clarity in the documents of Vatican II has led to this confusion.

When asked if, as a bishop, it is difficult to speak out against what is happening in the Church, he said; “It is quite insignificant to be popular or unpopular. For every member of the clergy, their first interest should be to be popular in the eyes of God and not in the eyes of today or of the powerful. Jesus said a warning: ‘Woe to you when people speak well of you.’”  

He went on: “Popularity is false… Great saints of the Church, such as Thomas More and John Fisher, rejected popularity… those today who are worried about the popularity of the mass media and public opinion… will be remembered as cowards and not as heroes of the Faith.”

Many “Catholics” who go along with the pagan world, are considered “good” Catholics, while “those who are faithful to the Catholic faith or those who are promoting the glory of Christ in the liturgy, are labelled extremists”.

He also brought up the issue of the poor, which for the liberals seems to trump over morals or sacred liturgy.    We see this when so many Catholics voted for a president who is for murdering of the unborn babies.  They justified this because he is “supposedly” for the poor.  Bishop Schneider contradicts this idea: “This is erroneous. The first commandment which Christ gave us was to adore God alone. Liturgy is not a meeting of friends. It is our first task to adore and glorify God in the liturgy and also in our manner of life. From a true adoration and love of God grows love for the poor and our neighbour. It is a consequence.”

He ends by saying that the traditional Catholics “have kept the purity of their faith and they represent the true power of the Church in the eyes of God and not those who are in administration.”

He ends on a positive note: “I am not worried about the future. The Church is Christ’s Church and He is the real head of the Church, the Pope is only the vicar of Christ. The soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit and He is powerful.”  

So all of you traditional Catholic bishops, priests, religious and people reading this, you are the ones that Bishop Schneider has said will keep the Catholic faith pure and continuing.  After most of the other bishops, religious, priests, and other “Catholics” continuously put you down, know that God is listening and at least there is one bishop who acknowledges the precious value you have for God’s Catholic Church.  Thank you for your heroic virtues of standing strong while everything seems to be collapsing around us and no one in the Church seems to care.  God and Mary do.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by fc. Bookmark the permalink.

[ebb tide]

You don’t know who I’m a fan of. But I’ll tell you who I’m not a fan of:

Unlike me, you appear to be a fanboy/girl of dead Karol, the Koran-Kissing, Invoker of Catholic saints’ protection of Islam.

Do you also pray to St. John the Baptist to protect that evil cult?

[narses]

In the Religion forum, on a thread titled Bishop Schneider Says Traditional Catholics Are Not “Extremest”, But Rather The Hope For The Future, BlackElk wrote:
Goodness, a fanboy/girl of dead, excommunicated Marcel favorably quoting Pope Francis!

Pssst, BlackElk - speaking ill of the dead is bad form.

And - Nota Bene the alleged “excommunication” which was never a juridical act, was acknowledged by the Vatican as either never in force, or lifted. And in an ambiguous, modern way.

But then, you knew that before you posted your nasty comments about the dead, right?

[BlackElk]

"Traditional Catholics" Are not 'Extremist'..." Well, of course TRADITIONAL Catholics are not extremist. Of course, there is absolutely NOTHING traditional about defying and disobeying legitimate papal authority.

"Speaking ill of the dead is bad form." Really??? Then, like SSPX bishop Richard Williamson, we should refrain from criticizing all those now dead Nazis whom Williamson tries to protect by claiming they killed "only" 200,000 to 300,000 Jews. Likewise, we should refrain from criticism of Josef Stalin (nee Djugashvili), Karl Marx, Mao Tse Tung, Margaret Sanger, Lothrop Stoddard, dead excommunicated Marcel and others of their ilk. Bad form, don't you know??? No, I don't know and, if websites like Free Republic are going to survive, we ought not to accept such a standard because we will have little to freely discuss.

Nota Bene: Unless you have some papal act or ruling by Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis, "the Vatican" has had no authority to reverse the papal judgment of Saint John Paul II imposed upon Marcel LeFebvre, Bernard Fellay, Richard Williamson, Bernard Tisserant de Malerais and Alfonso de Gallarata on July 2, 1988, in his Ecclesia Dei. Also signing off on associated orders and paperwork as directed by Saint John Paul II were then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Bernardin Cardinal Gantin, then Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. The same penalties were later applied to Antonio Castro de Mayer who assisted at the illicit consecrations at Econe. Excommunication was imposed latae sententiae on each miscreant by operation of Canon Law (no "juridical" process necessary or customary) for disobedience to direct papal orders and additionally, excommunication latae sententiae of each miscreant was also imposed by operation of Canon Law for a schismatic act. The second category of excommunication for schism remains in force, according to Gerhard Cardinal Muller who stated that fact late last year.

The foregoing is the short story. Dead excommunicated Marcel was in grave difficulty at least as early as 1976 when he tangled with Paul VI. Clue: If your first name is "Pope" and your reign lasts longer than John Paul I, then you can count on the love slaves of dead etc. Marcel to tangle with you and come up with utterly ridiculous arguments as to what they CLAIM happened when they are 180 degrees wrong on the facts.

As often as there are people her who insist on falsely (whether they realize it or not) CLAIMING that the likes of dead excommunicated Marcel and his hallucinatory followers are somehow "Traditional Catholics" it will be my privilege to say otherwise.

You do a lot of good here with most things you post. You should know better than to post the nonsense to which I am replying.

[BlackElk]

I will trust the Roman Catholic Church and its duly constituted authorities to determine which of the deceased ought to be regarded as saints. The process is known as canonization. I never imagined that you were a fan of Saint John Paul II. And I was right. If I were to say prayers involving St. John the Baptist, as a Catholic, I would be praying THROUGH him and not TO him.

[dsc]

“It’s very unpleasant to see a Christian insult someone or be aggressive. It’s not nice. Don’t insult. Insulting isn’t Christian. Understood? Insulting is not Christian.”

When the truth is insulting, what then?

“No, Johnny, I think you should get into the van with that nice man. Surely he wouldn’t do anything to hurt you.”

That’s a brand of nicey-nice Christianity that ignores God’s commands to (a) tell the truth, (b) denounce evil, and (3) rebuke sinners.

I hope it doesn’t make anyone’s head explode to see a Catholic disagreeing with the Pope. (Some people think we’re not allowed to do that.)

[ebb tide]

If I were to say prayers involving St. John the Baptist, as a Catholic, I would be praying THROUGH him and not TO him.

Do any of your prayers include a plea to God, the Almighty, for the protection of Islam, as was JP II's?

As far as JP II's "Saint Factory", check this out:

Doubt and Confusion: The New "Canonizations"

[BlackElk]

I confess that I have causes far dearer to my heart than Islam for which to pray. That hardly defines Saint John Paul II's papacy. As you well know, that's a diversion. For the SSPX crowd, Saint John Paul II's papacy was defined by his sensible recognition and judgment and declaration that SSPX is in schism and his judgment excommunicating the ring leaders of the schism. To mention the very name of Saint John Paul II to the schismatics or their faithful followers is like soaking banshees in holy water.

So you figure that the second conclave of 1978 really missed the boat and elected Saint John Paul II when it could have elected grumpy Marcel. Marcel would have told that rotten world off---all grump all the time! By the end of a Marcel papacy of thirteen years, we might have had ten or twelve Catholics left. First Marcel would have banished the Novus Ordo types and those who would refuse to take an oath that each and every word of each and every document of Vatican II was vile and abominable heresy. Since Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum betrayed a certain sympathy for labor unions, Pope Marcel, child of a manufacturer, would have made the damnable peasants scurry back to their low paid places lest they risk of excommunication.

I could go on but you get the idea. Eventually as dementia proceeded and his outsized sense of self-importance assumed ever more titanic proportions, Marcel would have found suspect passages in Pascendi Domenici Gregis or Lamentabile Sane and retroactively excommunicated Saint Pius X himself. Whereupon, an even Higher Authority might well have reached down and physically excommunicated Marcel, removing him from the Church Militant on Earth, never to be admitted to the Church Suffering much less the Church Triumphant, and making him yet another proof of what St. John Chrysostom said about the paving of the floor of hell. Perhaps, though, God would have been merciful to Marcel in his sad state of irrationality.

As to John Vennari's Catholic Family News and, for good measure, the dissident wing of the Matt family's The Remnant, I am sorry that they are persistent malcontents but the Roman Catholic Church is the Roman Catholic Church. If they have all these problems with the Roman Catholic Church, they should find another or found another more to their liking. Marcel did.

[ebb tide]

Neither John Vennari nor the SSPX has anything to do with a Pope who invoked a Saint to protect Islam.

[ebb tide]

That hardly defines Saint John Paul II's papacy.

What does define JP II' s papacy? Was it it his material heresy? If you had bothered to read the article, you would have read this:

“Hear our prayers for the intention of the Jewish people, which you continue to cherish according to the Patriarchs.…Be mindful of the new generation, the young and the children: may they persevere in fidelity to You, in what is the exceptional mystery of their vocation.” JP II

[BlackElk]

Since you obviously do not care for Catholicism, why are you sooooo reluctant to find or found another religion more to your liking?

May I suggest the Old or Utrecht "Catholics" who are a 19th Century schism still active today which keeps most of the outward appearances of Catholicism including Tridentine everything, rejects papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals (under the usual conditions) as you seem to, recognizes IIRC no pope elected after Pius IX (which does present a problem for you as to Pope Saint Pius X although I have confidence that you can get over that one) and, of course, names and consecrates its own bishops beginning with their rebellion against the First Vatican Council's definition of the doctrine of infallibility.

Of course, John Vennari of "Catholic" Family News has nothing to do with Saint John Paul II who excommunicated his schismatic heroes. Ditto SSPX which IS the schism in question. Of course, Vennari has never been pope. Nor has anyone associated with the SSPX schism ever been pope or ever will be without renouncing the schism and, as they say, all of its works and all of its pomps, etc.

Finally, "a pope who invoked a saint." That would apparently be a pope who has been canonized as a saint. Dogma is dogma. Doctrine is doctrine. The Church, however, is more than a mere museum.

[BlackElk]

Do you suppose that God's Covenant with Abraham and the Jewish people had an expiration date? I don't remember expiration dates as part of that story.

Does it irk you that Jesus and His Blessed Mother were Jews? Will Jews not be marching in the armies of the Lord at Armageddon? When St. Ignatius Loyola was confidentially informed by a "helpful" friend that Fr. Diego Lainez (who was to become Ignatius Loyola's immediate successor as General of the Society of Jesus) was a Jew, Loyola replied: "How very fortunate he must be to be so closely related to Our Savior and His Blessed Mother."

If you believe that Saint John Paul II, as pope, was guilty of "material heresy" whether or not John Vennari or any other mere dissident human being thinks so, then you confess schism. See, it was this sort of thing that got dead excommunicated Marcel in so much trouble under Paul VI and Saint John Paul II.

As to what defined his papacy, the high points are too numerous to be exhaustively listed here. Thomas Jefferson wanted three achievements to adorn his tombstone. Using three as a guideline: 1) God saw fit to give Saint John Paul the Great two weeks short of 37 years as pope; 2) He was an outstanding exemplar of the Catholic pro-life position in all venues, Catholic and otherwise; 3) He became an indispensable partner of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in wielding the Polish Labor Union Solidarnosc and providing active leadership in bringing down the USSR and the Iron Curtain.

Saint John Paul the Great was simply the most magnificent leader the Catholic Church has known in a verrrrrry long time and perhaps the single outstanding person of the 20th Century in his positive effect on mankind in service to God. The SSPX disagrees. You disagree. That explains our differences which are not likely to be resolved by agreement.

[ebb tide]

Canonizations are not dogma. And I used to think you were a Catholic.

[ebb tide]

Will Jews not be marching in the armies of the Lord at Armageddon?

It appears you don't believe in the dogma, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Those who deny Church dogma are heretics. Welcome to the club.

[BlackElk]

Ummmm, Americans of Japanese ancestry are Japanese Americans. Similarly, Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. Jews regard anyone born of a Jewish mother as a Jew. A Jew who becomes a Catholic may be viewed as Jewish (ethnically) Catholics like Saints Peter, :Paul, Andrew, Thomas, Jude Thaddeus, etc. See how that works.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus was a particular favorite of Leonard Feeney, SJ, when he was suspended from the priesthood for disobeying the authority of Richard Cardinal Cushing. Feeney also indulged Donatism in the 1950s by suggesting that it was a good idea to be baptized on multiple occasions to cut down the possibility that one had been only apparently baptized by an unworthy minister of the sacrament or by the use of a defective formula. Had Father Feeney lived just a bit longer (he died in 1972) he might have been tempted to be an SSPXer. Like Bishop Williamson, Feeney was also known for anti-Semitism. Feeney was excommunicated for (what else?) defiance of and disobedience to papal authority. During his excommunication, Feeney made obvious his belief that he was more Catholic than the pope (Pope Pius XII among others from 1953 to his reconciliation in 1972.

Is Moses in hell? Is Mary in hell? Will the Lord be marching in the armies of the Lord at Armageddon? Is John the Baptist in hell? When was Dismas (the good thief) baptized? Was Our Lord lying when He promised Dismas salvation on the very day of their crucifixions?

Do you suppose that each and EVERY member of each and EVERY Native American tribe, who died before, let's say, before 1000 AD went to hell despite the manifest impossibility of each such person to be exposed to Baptism, the Teaching Magisterium, Scriptures, etc.? If so, John Calvin would be proud of you but none dare call it Catholicism. Unless the Teaching Magisterium has somehow come to embrace pre-destination.

[BlackElk]

Nice try at suggesting that dead excommunicated Marcel is a saint and therefore in heaven but Saint John Paul II is neither. Nice try, no cigar!

[ebb tide]

You argument is ridiculous. EENS obviously cannot precede the foundation of the Holy Catholic Church, the one and only Church founded by Jesus Christ. By your silly logic Adam and Eve aren’t saints because they weren’t Jews or Catholics.

As far as the Jews “covenant” being eternal:
If you ever paid one iota of attention to the Word’s of the Consecration, at every Catholic Mass, you would have heard, “ For this is the Chalice of My Blood of the New and Eternal Testament...”

Operative words in this argument being “New” and “Eternal”; as opposed to your false supposition that “old” covenants are somehow automatically “eternal”.

P.S. Upon Christ’s death on the Cross, the curtain in the Jewish temple was rent in two, from top to bottom, the sky darkened and the earth quaked. Despite that, you appear be convinced that no covenant(s) with the Jews was/were ever broken?

Finally, here is quote from St. Cypian; he defeats your argument quite quickly and succinctly:
“If any one outside Noah’s ark could find safety, then also will one outside the Church find salvation.”

EENS is dogma. He who denies dogma is a heretic. This obviously applies to all Catholics and you, if you are indeed one.

You and Pope Francis can continue to don yamakas and light menorahs in Jewish temples but neither of you is doing them any help in attaining eternal salvation.

Your feeble distractions of bringing up Fr. Feeney, Bishop Williamson, SSPX, etc, which have nothing to do with the posted article, are quite laughable. I have no attachment to any of the above.

If they are your daytime terrors, I doubt you get much sleep.

[ebb tide]

Who claimed anybody was a saint? I only said canonizations are not infallible. Care to rebut that fact? If so, I’m ready.

[BlackElk]

You are out there (waaaaay out there) joining or creating some other “church,” believe as you please.

[BlackElk]

The question before the house is not whether Jesus Christ’s New Covenant with Catholicism is eternal. It obviously is. The question was as to supercessionist theory that the New and Eternal Covenant replaced the Covenant with Abraham. It did not. The Covenant with Abraham applies only to Jews but is always available to the Jews. As much as that may disturb the equilibrium of those who resent Jews while claiming to worship a Jew. Of course, Jews may convert and be baptized and be covered by the New and Eternal Covenant.

[BlackElk]

At the consecration in Masses I generally attend, the priest says something to the effect of: “Hic est enim calix Sanguinis Meam...” etc.