NEW: Bishop Athanasius Schneider video interview – the hot button issues discussed
Comments invited…
16Feb
Related Posts
11Dec
11/12 – Happy 50th Birthday Summa!
Our Blogger, Summa, Scots-born resident of sunny Australia, celebrates his 50th... read more
16Mar
Cardinal O’Brien Scandal: Update…
Report into Cardinal O'Brien is with the Pope and 'hot enough... read more
08Oct
Should Catholics Keep Heads in Sand?
Pope Francis (Remnant) Editor’s Note: As this article went to press, the... read more
04Dec
Archdiocese of Glasgow RIP ?
Catholic parishes in Glasgow could face closure or amalgamation as part... read more
01May
Pope Grateful To Heretic Kung…
The following extract is from a report in the National Catholic... read more
10Jan
Political Correctness: Mission Impossible?
"There was one performance this year that stunned me," [said Meryl... read more
20May
18th Century Warnings Of The Crisis To Come In The Catholic Church
One hundred years before the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima,... read more
09Feb
John Cornwell Savages Pope St Pius X…
At my Catholic boarding school in the late 1950s there was... read more
16Mar
RCA Victor: Belated Happy Birthday!
RCA Victor, our resident blogger from the USA, celebrated his 65th... read more
01Apr
Family Court System Sinister?
A woman suspected of abducting her two young sons poses "a... read more
Comments (49)
First mistake, about 2:00: “There are not differences in Catholic Faith” (between the SSPX and Rome). Sorry, that reveals a complete lack of understanding on the part of Bishop Schneider of the gaping difference between the Catholic Faith and the pseudo-religion established at Vatican II, which the Society has been trying to point out to Rome for lo these past 50 years….
Anyway, just venting while I’m watching….
Exasperating to listen to. Very unprofessional for any interviewer to conduct an interview with such background noise. Sounds like a pavement cafe. Also Bishop Schneider has been pushing the Regularisation and he shows such a lack of understanding? The rest is just waffle.
St Miguel,
Bishop Schneider is very close to Bishop Fellay, from my reading of the situation – they seem to be good friends, so I doubt if you can accuse him of “lack of understanding”. Maybe you’re the one who doesn’t understand, LOL!
RCA Victor,
I think the Bishop is trying to be diplomatic – I get the feeling he’s really keen for the regularisation. He’s desperate to see things being put right, God love him, and he feels the SSPX will make a big difference. I’m not so sure about that, frankly, as the Society priests are not exactly on the front line, are they, writing letters to the Catholic press, or engaging in other apostolic activities, but my best guess is that is what is in Bishop Schneider’s mind.
> the Society priests are not exactly on the front line, are they, writing letters to the Catholic press, or engaging in other apostolic activities…
The Society bishops and priests are very much on the front lines, preaching the word in season and out of season, encouraging the faithful, admonishing sinners, comforting the waverers with all the patience of a teacher, providing the Sacraments, marrying, baptizing, and burying, preaching retreats, leading pilgrimages, giving sermons, writing essays and books, setting holy and edifying examples, and otherwise engaging in apostolic activities by generally serving as Catholic signs of contradiction.
Wurdesmythe,
What you describe is right enough but it amounts to preaching to the already converted. I think it’s a bit different in the USA but in the UK, you won’t see Society priests on pro-life picket lines or seeking out souls outwith their congregations. It’s a strange paradox but some of the diocesan priests are more zealous in that way. Part of the reason is probably that the SSPX clergy have to travel more to take the sacraments, but even so, I can think of occasions when they could have been reaching out to people beyond their congregations and didn’t do so. There is a very insular attitude in the British chapels, and I don’t think I’m saying anything earth-shattering on this blog as it’s been recognised here more than once that the problem of clericalism which existed pre-Vatican II does still exist in the Society, which is a great pity.
All that said, please don’t think that I am an enemy of the SSPX, far from it, I don’t agree with that Society priest who said they might not be the lifeboat, God may send another – no, I think they are the lifeboat, and will be used by God to help restore the faith.
Of course the priests preach to the converted, that’s one of their chief jobs. And it’s the role of the faithful to assist the priest through the various channels of Catholic Action to bring individuals from outside the fold to the fold so that they can meet the priest.
Each SSPX priest I know is already doing the work that half a dozen priests would have teamed together to do before the 1960s: sermons, instructions, convert classes, sick calls, processions, running schools, covering missions, and the like. They also are the first targets of the most venomous attacks.
To this man in the pew, it seems that it’s the faithful who are more inclined than the priests to be comfortable and content to keep their heads down. The harvest is plentiful, and the workers are few indeed!
The individuals who are the easy and obvious targets for anti-Catholic and anti-clerical sentiment, with their uniform-like cassocks and white collars, are the parish priests. At least the priests have the fortitude to dress for battle.
If he is happy – he is a nuisance.
If he is grave and austere – he is bad tempered.
If he is handsome – why didn’t he marry?
If he is ugly – nobody loved him.
If he is fat – he eats too much.
If he is thin – he is stingy.
If he is tall – he looks down on people.
If he is short – he looks like an altar boy.
If he owns a car – he likes material things.
If he walks – he is old fashioned.
If he goes to the cafe – he is a drunkard.
If he stays in the rectory – he is an introvert.
If he visits the faithful – he meddles in other peoples business.
If he stays in the Church – he doesn’t care about the faithful.
If he visits the poor – he is a revolutionary.
If he delegates duty – he is lazy.
If he controls the activities – he is a tyrant.
If he teaches catechism – he is obsessed with hell.
If he doesn’t teach – he doesn’t like children.
If he preaches long sermons – he’s boring.
If he preaches short sermons – he doesn’t want to get tired.
If he makes comparisons with the life in the world – he blasphemes.
If he raises his voice – he screams.
If he speaks normally – you cannot understand what he says.
If he talks about Heaven – he is a modernist.
If he talks about hell – he is a Jansenist.
If he talks about the cross – he is an integrist.
If he asks for donations – he is greedy.
If he doesn’t ask for donations – his bank account should be checked.
If he doesn’t organize a party – the parish is dead.
If he speaks to the parishioners after Mass – he is not pious.
If he stays to pray after Mass – he is not interested in his parishioners.
If he keeps people in the confessional too long – he gets people tired and causes scandal.
If he hears confessions quickly – he does away with the Sacrament.
If he starts Mass on time – his watch is ahead.
If he fixes up the Chapel – he wastes people’s money.
If he doesn’t fix up the Chapel – he doesn’t care about the Chapel.
If he looks after the youth – he wants them in the convent.
If he looks after the married couples – he does not care about vocations.
If he is young – he lacks experience.If he is old – he should retire.
If he is in between – he is in a critical age.
Do as he may – or even if he does nothing – he will never be right!
But if he leaves who will take his place?
Wurdesmythe
Dear me. What an extraordinary list. There are some very strange people in congregations, I know, (not just SSPX ones either) but I think you exaggerate the nuttiness of the few.
Rather, the chief action of the parish priest is to honor God by forming a congregation of saints. There’s a place for marches and letters to the editor, which fall into line further down; the chief goal accounts for the bulk of his time and effort.
I didn’t read that the same way you did – I think the Bishop means that the SSPX holds to all the Faith, and he probably said that because of the false allegations of “schism”. He knows about (and objects to) Amoris Laetitia, for starters, so I honestly think you’ve misinterpreted that bit of the interview.
Observation #2: anyone else notice all the background noise of people talking loudly in the church? Is this the diocesan Cathedral? Not the kind of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament you might expect from the subjects of this Bishop, is it?
(He does make the same point this blog has made: if the Pope, or a Pope, violates the terms of the Personal Prelature, then it is up to the Society to resist, and even reject the Prelature and return to our state before the Prelature.)
RCA Victor,
Thank you for those alerts – I’ve not had time to watch the interview myself, but hope to do so very soon.
Instead of doing interviews, anyway, I wish the “clued up” bishops and cardinals would get on with their public correction of Papa Francis – that would be more helpful!
A Church is an unsuitable place for an interview or Press Conference. It is entirely disrespectful to a sacred building whether The Blessed Sacrament is reserved or not.
St Martin,
Agreed.
RCA Victor,
I’m glad he made that point about the Prelature – it’s common sense. If you can improve your situation and have influence, go for it. If they renege, return to the previous situation. It’s not rocket science, LOL!
I can’t hear properly when there’s background noise so I’ll give that video a miss.
I do agree that the hierarchy who are supposedly so concerned about Francis would be better off using their time to speak directly to the Pope and correcting him, as promised by the four cardinals some weeks ago. That correction is a long time coming.
My understanding the comment made about the agreement and the Catholic Faith was that you cannot come to any “agreement” on the Faith as the Faith is non-negotiable. Maybe I am wrong.
I just received an email from John Vennari (thank God he is well enough to keep up to date), highlighting Bishop Schneider’s remarks in this video about a new document from the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity which states that Luther was a witness to the Gospel, and equating him with Saint Ignatius of Loyola and Saint Francis of Borgia. http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/6f6fd5d3ab04ecafb472e3c09b8ea550-664.html
His Excellency puts Luther in the proper perspective – but, just to add a note, the “rehabilitation” of Luther is certainly proceeding right on schedule.
RCA Victor,
Many thanks for posting that link to Catholic Family News. This sentence is a gem: when I reject the substance of the entire Apostolic and immutable constant tradition of the Church (in the case of Luther, 1500 years) I am rejecting the Gospel.
Well said. How sick am I of hearing blether about “the Gospel message” and “Gospel values” blah blah, which, when in essence means those passages about the corporal works of mercy.
So, well done, Bishop Schneider for that outspoken condemnation of the very idea that Luther could possibly be “a witness to the Gospel.”
I was wondering earlier about what possible immediate effect an SSPX regularization would have on the Church. My guess is that it would result in a sharp increase in vocations from diocesan priests who have had enough living under Francis’ Reign of Terror – if said reign was being enforced by their bishop, that is. But I assume these priests would have to undergo considerable remedial seminary work before they are (conditionally?) re-ordained.
RCA Victor,
I think the idea that there are many diocesan priests who are agonising over the situation today is mistaken. Certainly, here in Scotland, the vast majority couldn’t care less – they are quite happy with their new easy-going religion, so I think we can safely look forward to, more or less, business as usual in the event of regularisation. There are some practical difficulties that would be removed (the numpties who think it’s a crime to be outwith the grasp of their modernist bishop, for example) but beyond that, I don’t see much difference. I do not, however, believe for a second that there would be a queue of diocesan priests asking to join the Society. No way, Jose!
Editor,
I’ve heard quite a bit of grumbling on this side of the pond, though, including among the seminarians in our own diocese. Whether that would result in a queue is, as you say, debatable. I do typically have an increase in optimism whilst working out at the gym – must be all that blood rushing to my head…
Recalling back to the lifting of the excommunications in 2007, if I remember correctly, there was a large increase in diocesan inquiries with the SSPX, but I don’t know what became of all those inquiries.
Speaking of a queue, does anyone know what happened to all those Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, whose Order was eviscerated by Francis? Are they languishing in limbo? Have any of them knocked on the Society’s door?
Good point RCA Victor, where did they go when they could easily have stepped up to the plate and found refuge in the Society and carry on seamlessly doing their works?
I think if you surveyed the situation in Malta at the moment, you might find a quite different story. But I also think the most likely manifestation of the “lifeboat effect” of the SSPX and other traditional societies will come after the schism.
Deacon Augustine,
I agree with your conclusion – it is, no doubt, for prudential reasons that the Society Bishops are keeping out of the limelight right now, but once there is a formal schism (we’ve been in de facto schism for over 50 years now) then the God-given role of the “lifeboat” will become clearer.
Some amazing responses here, grouching about this holy Bishop and the fact that the interview was conducted in an offset alcove from what is obviously a large church or Cathedral. The sound quality was fine (when the interviewer remembered to hold his microphone to his lips).
The good Bishop in this interview:
a) Rejects Vatican II in the same sense as does the SSPX;
b) Ditto Communion in the hand;
c) Ditto the heresies of Pope Francis
d) Clearly states that the Church desperately needs the regularisation of the SSPX and
e) Asks us to leave the rest up to God, Who is faithful to His own word.
Well why not set an example and the Good Bishop join the SSPX, as he seems to think they are wonderful.And why NOT “seriously” throw his weight behind the Dubia and take some of the heat off of Cardinal Burke? Finally why not the Society give their full measure to a man and stand up against this nonsense coming from Rome, or is a rubber stamp from this Pontiff worth more than any of that?
Benedict Carter
I absolutely agree with you. Bishop Schneider is a good Catholic Bishop eager to see the Traditional Catholic Faith restored. He may not be perfectly correct in everything, who is these days, but he knows what is required if the Church is to regain her health.
We have quite enough on our plate dealing with an almost entirely heterodox hierarchy without finding fault with those who are doing their best to put things right. Only a very devout and genuine bishop could have written in defence of the Blessed Sacrament, as Bishop Schneider did. His book against Communion in the hand was/is a great weapon against the sacrilegious.
Agree with every word of that Athanasius.
I agree with you, Benedict, about this interview with this good and holy bishop. I genuinely do not understand why more bishops are not speaking out. They will have to answer for their silence at their Judgement Day and that’s for sure. I know they might be afraid of losing their positions but, at the end of the day, can they not join the SSPX? Perhaps they worry about schism but we are already in defecto schism so why not face up to the reality. The poor undefended sheep have been deserted.
Crofterlady,
I have a vague memory of seeing a video of Bishop Schneider pushing ecumenism, so I doubt if he’d fit in with the SSPX. He may prevaricate between “ecumenism” and “false ecumenism” but I don’t think that’s on. It’s ecumenism that is wrong – only missionary zeal to go out and seek converts that is allowed, or that used to be the case pre-Vatican II. Taking part in “ecumenical” activities was forbidden.
No salvation outside the church, it is that simple. If Bishop Schneider was REALLY serious he would join the SSPX NOW!
Why does he need to? He is an auxiliary bishop in a diocese which has a thoroughly orthodox bishop and another othodox auxiliary bishop.
How about leading by example and being a trailblazer or pioneer and also how long will there be orthodox bishops in Kazakhstan and not if but when AL is enforced what will HE do? I simply believe that not just him, but Cardinal Burke and a few others should ‘defect’ to the SSPX and show the world that they mean business. No one is facing martyrdom here it is a simple litmus test.
St Miguel,
With respect, we know the names of Cardinal Burke and Bishop Scneider et al because they ARE “trailblazing” – I don’t hear any Society bishops speaking out about anything, frankly, albeit for prudential reasons which I understand, and so I wouldn’t encourage anyone who is currently active in the battle against modernism to join the SSPX. We need more, not less, bishops exercising leadership in the “mainstream” Church.
The SSPX has its own role at the moment. They see themselves primarily as providing emergency services, so to speak; that is, to administer the sacraments and they do travel miles in order to fulfil that mission. So, let’s support the members of the hierarchy who are holding the Pope’s feet to the fire, and pray that the Society is regularised, sooner rather than later, so that they can, perhaps, be more visible in the fight to restore the Faith.
Well said, editor – totally agree. The more fronts on which modernism is being attacked the better.
If you attend an SSPX chapel in the UK then perhaps it appears that you live in the midst of a spiritual wasteland and that the only Catholic thing happening is going on within the communities served by the society. However, things are not so bleak as they seem on the surface and even in these islands there is a Catholic resistance movement outwith the SSPX. There are a handful of good reasons why the Catholic Bishops Conference of England & Wales has not come out with an unqualified endorsement of Amoris laetitia for instance.
But if you travel to the continent you will find that Catholic societies and organizations are far more out-in-the-open, prevalent and growing. If you ever get the chance to visit the Basilica Santa Balbina in Rome where the Lepanto institute is based, I highly recommend it. That is becoming a centre of the Catholic intellectual renaissance and resistance to the Bologna School which for so long has affected the direction of the Church with the errors of Dossetti, Alberigo et al. It is significant that +Schneider and Cardinal Burke recently held their conference on AL there and the place was packed with young priests and seminarians from Rome.
If you can get yourself across for the International March for Life in Rome in May, you will meet hundreds of Catholic organizations from across the globe and tens of thousands of people who are more than a little familiar with the TLM. There are many young vibrant orders with a thoroughly Catholic spirituality, suppressed orders who are still Catholic despite the persecution of ecclesiastical authorities. You only have to be in that atmosphere for 5 minutes to understand why this Vatican hates it.
If all the Catholics in the world jumped into the SSPX lifeboat it would sink. Bishop Fellay is more than delighted that the SSPX do not feel that they are alone in this fight anymore. We need Catholics everywhere – not just in the SSPX. The only ones who would benefit from all the remaining Catholics being coralled into the auspices of the SSPX would be the modernists in Rome.
Because of the current position of the SSPX and ongoing negotiations, they are likely to be relatively quiet at this moment of crisis and turmoil. It is time for others now to step up to the plate and do their duty.
Deacon Augustine,
EXCELLENT! I agree with every word. Well said.
At this rate, I’m going to have to raise your Easter Bonus! Just don’t tell the others. RCA Victor, for one, is forever angling for a raise…
Editor,
I am perfectly content with my colored Easter Egg for now….but if this pattern keeps up I will definitely demand more eggs for my basket!
At any rate, here is the SSPX analysis of Bishop Schneider’s interview, a/o Feb. 27. I thought it was excellent:
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bp-schneider-sspx-vatican-relations
Deacon Augustine
I agree. I see no need for Bishop Schneider to join the SSPX. In fact, I think any such move on his part right now would be counter-productive both for the SSPX and for him. The SSPX needs friends in high places in the Church, and it presently has more than people realise.
Lily,
I also remember some previous discussion on this blog about Bishop Schneider’s practices regarding the Conciliar ecumania. etc.. Here are a couple of articles about his inconsistencies from the “Tradition in Action” website:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B812_Schneider.html
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/177bev04_27_2015.htm
Curiously, this interview treats his request of Bishop Fellay as if it were something new, when, however, Bishop Fellay affirmed in his latest interview with Father Lorans that he received Bishop Schneider’s letter over a year ago, and had heard nothing new since then.
Tres interessant. As I said previously, will Bishop Schneider now defect and join the ranks of the SSPX and set an example to other like minded prelates?
I hope not, St Miguel. See responses to this (with respect, short-sighted) suggestion of yours above.
Some are asking why the rest of the Hierarchy aren’t more clearly behind the four Cardinals, and more generally behind tradition etc. It’s of course a question we’ve all asked many times over the years.
There was a very interesting article on a false concept of authority that down the centuries has become very widespread in the Church. It flows from the Jesuits and comes from a corrupted version of St. Ignatius’ writings on the duty to obey a superior. Not sure where I read it: 1P5 maybe.
Benedict,
As I think I’ve opined before, the explanation for EVERYTHING to do with this crisis in the Church, is spiritual blindness. The majority of the Bishops honestly do not SEE the problem(s). They will genuinely believe that Cardinal Burke and the other supportive cardinals are being arrogant, disobedient. They don’t actually understand true papal authority (its extent and its limits) nor do they understand the importance of Catholic Tradition any more because they have become blind to the truth of it – even if, prior to the Council, they held it and knew it in their hearts. If we continually sin, commit the same sin and do not truly repent or seek to overcome it, gradually we don’t see it as a sin at all. We become blind to it. That’s what has happened in respect of the Catholic hierarchy.
In fact, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Cardinal Ratzinger noted that the same professor who before the Council would be praised for his defence of the faith would later, after Vatican II, be denounced for the same. Now, I’m not sure of the exact words, but what he said was along those lines – i.e. of highlighting the underlying blindness which is afflicting clergy and hierarchy – at the highest level – today.
Look at the age profile of the group of 9 and also the curia, look at Bertone, Sodano and so on. Also Ratzinger/Bendedict…how did they discern their vocation, what did they believe in the beginning or DID they believe any of it and just wanted a career and now no longer have to continue the pretence of believing that which they never actually believed in the beginning anyway. Reading some other stuff on other blogs it seems there is a growing resentment to Summorum Pontificum and a kite is being flown to “properly” ABROGATE the Latin Mass and if that is true then what? Given the animosity towards the Latin Mass anyway by so many people these days, nothing would surprise
Yes, indeed: but the origins of this present spiritual blindness lie in many developments over time and is made up of many elements.
The article was written by John Lamont and published on Rorate Caeli here:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/02/article-on-formal-correction-of-pope.html
I agree, it was a very interesting article and I think Lamont has really put his finger on the root causes of this false obedience: Jesuits>Sulspicians>Seminary formation. The bottom line is that obedience to God and His Law has been seen as being fulfilled or superseded by obedience to one’s superior.
No confidence.
When I think of the way we are trying to rear our bairns, no confidence!! What a betrayal. Our reasons? The destruction of the Catholic Faith, pure and simple.
Comments are closed.