Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Mr G on July 24, 2017, 08:04:10 AM
-
http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/ (http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/)
Between liberals they lean. The "Adelante la Fe" site, which is moderately liberal, today publishes a blandengue text by Bishop Schneider - one of the world's most moderate liberal bishops - on the Second Vatican Council and the SSPX. His thinking coincides in large measure with the ideas that Fellay has expressed on various occasions in recent years about the fateful council, the greatest and most effective deception, the most deadly trap, and the worst disaster in human history after Of original sin and deicide.
Do we judge too harshly Bishop Schneider and "forward the Faith"? Let us respond to Monsignor Lefebvre: Perhaps someone says to me: "You exaggerate! There are more and more good bishops who pray, who have faith, who are edifying ... [like Monsignor Schneider or the four cardinals of the dubia] . " Although they were saints, from the moment they accepted false religious freedom, and consequently the secular state, false ecuмenism (and thus the existence of various avenues of salvation), liturgical reform (and thus the practical negation of sacrifice Of the Mass), the new catechisms with all their errors and heresies; Officially contribute to the revolution in the Church and its destruction ("Spiritual Itinerary", Prologue).
Some notable quotations from Monsignor Schneider's article:
With regard to our attitude towards the Second Vatican Council, we must avoid two extremes: to reject it totally, as do sedevacantistas and a sector of the SSPX, or to attribute an infallible character to everything the Council said.
... a large section of the theological and administrative nomenclature of the Church has been promoting half a century of doctrinal, pastoral and liturgical questions, thus distorting the original intention of the Council or abusing ambiguous or unclear doctrinal statements with a view to creating a church Different, relativistic or Protestant type. Today we are witnessing the culmination of this process.
It is necessary to see and accept the Second Vatican Council as it was intended to be and as it was in reality: a council first and foremost pastoral. That is to say, that the intention of this council was not to propose new doctrines nor to do it of definitive form. Most of his statements confirmed the traditional and perennial doctrine of the Church.
A canonical FSSPX and fully integrated into the life of the Church could make a very valuable contribution to this debate, as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre also wanted. The full canonical presence of the SSPX in the life of the present Church would also contribute to a general climate of constructive debate so that what all Catholics have always believed everywhere for two thousand years is more clearly and Secure also in our times, thus realizing the true pastoral intention of the fathers of the Second Vatican Council.
-
Remember, this is the Bishop that lives in Astana, Khazakastan ( sp) where the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr of Churches is to be established. Is there a reason he was sent there?
-
My comments, in red, if you care...
With regard to our attitude towards the Second Vatican Council, we must avoid two extremes: to reject it totally, as do sedevacantistas and a sector of the SSPX, or to attribute an infallible character to everything the Council said.
V2 was absolutely not infallible. It's nice to hear this admitted again, after Paul VI said so. Secondly, we must reject V2 for the simple reason that it distorts the normal, human understanding of language (a common communistic tactic) - because its docuмents aren't clear, nor are they concise, even when they try to discuss orthodox topics. The Truth is simple because God is simple. V2 did not explain the truth simply, thus it causes confusion, thus we reject it as a proximate danger to one's Faith.
... a large section of the theological and administrative nomenclature of the Church has been promoting half a century of doctrinal, pastoral and liturgical questions, thus distorting the original intention of the Council or abusing ambiguous or unclear doctrinal statements with a view to creating a church Different, relativistic or Protestant type. Today we are witnessing the culmination of this process.
Who's fault is that? Maybe all the popes since V2? Maybe yourself, Mons Schneider?
And what, pray tell, is the original intention of the council? If we can't read the council's own docuмents and find the answer, what good is it? What kind of docuмent isn't clear enough to articulate its own purpose? Answer: The kind of docuмent that plays legalistic mind-games and has a subversive agenda, which 'good catholic sheeple' are supposed to ignore.
It is necessary to see and accept the Second Vatican Council as it was intended to be and as it was in reality: a council first and foremost pastoral. That is to say, that the intention of this council was not to propose new doctrines nor to do it of definitive form. Most of his statements confirmed the traditional and perennial doctrine of the Church.
Again, what was its intention?!! You've had 50 years to tell us and you still can't make it clear. Then you admit that "most" of the statements confirmed the traditional doctrine of the Church. What about the "small" amount that were "novel"? Were these just accidental mistakes? Of course not.
When will Rome authoritatively denounce these errors as heretical so that catholics will know truth from error? Mons Schneider, if you really want to redeem the reputation of V2, then such errors need to be renounced, in the strongest terms, so that the rest of the council, which you argue is orthodox, can be accepted and promoted as the wonderful thing you argue it is.
A canonical FSSPX and fully integrated into the life of the Church could make a very valuable contribution to this debate, as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre also wanted. The full canonical presence of the SSPX in the life of the present Church would also contribute to a general climate of constructive debate so that what all Catholics have always believed everywhere for two thousand years is more clearly and Secure also in our times, thus realizing the true pastoral intention of the fathers of the Second Vatican Council.
The SSPX is already part of the V2 debate, and has been for 30 years, and doesn't need to be 'accepted' by new-rome in order to contribute to the discussion. Their rejection of the council speaks volumes and is the ONLY reason new-rome has opened the door to a partially-tarnished the image of their golden calf of V2, which is the modernists' 'french revolution in the church' and their gameplan for their hoped-for one world religion, by which they want to please their master, who is satan.
-
Sounds more like the "but it was only a little bit of poison" defense. Would you eat a cake with a grain of strychnine in it? V2 was poison to the faith.
-
Louie Verricchio responds: https://akacatholic.com/bishop-schneider-resurrecting-a-dead-hermeneutic/ (https://akacatholic.com/bishop-schneider-resurrecting-a-dead-hermeneutic/)
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has authored yet another essay (published at Rorate Caeli (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/07/guest-op-ed-bishop-schneider.html)) on Vatican II, the issues stemming therefrom, and what he considers to be the way forward.
Once again, His Excellency is being hailed for his efforts; one of the “money quotes” being:
Some of the new statements of Vatican II (e.g. collegiality, religious liberty, ecuмenical and inter-religious dialogue, the attitude towards the world) have not a definitive character, and being apparently or truly non-concordant with the traditional and constant statements of the Magisterium, they must be complemented by more exact explications and by more precise supplements of a doctrinal character.
Let’s give His Excellency credit where credit is due; at least he recognizes that the Council and its deleterious effects are a serious problem – even if he stops well short of identifying it for what it truly is – the problem, and identifying the only way to truly address it. (More on that later.)
As such, the path that Bishop Schneider has laid out, while winning the support of many thanks to its traditional-sounding guideposts, will only further guarantee that the conciliar crisis continues.
In order to make sense, such as one is able, of Bishop Schneider’s thoughts, it may be useful to begin by considering his “orientation” with regard to the Council. He states:
Vatican II was a legitimate assembly presided by the Popes and we must maintain towards this council a respectful attitude.
A respectful attitude…
This is a problem.
Yes, but the Council was legitimate!
It must be said that in spite of being convoked by the popes, having been presided over by him, and its decrees having receiving papal confirmation (presumably the benchmark for legitimacy that Bishop Schneider has in mind), the Council – being devoid of any intent to define and bind and therefore its utter lack of infallible character – is of questionable validity with regard to its status as an “ecuмenical council.”
In any case, while it is commonplace in our day for prelates to urge respect for things that are evil (e.g., false religions), due reverence for the Truth should preclude as much.
As for the way forward, Bishop Schneider states:
New statements of the Magisterium must, in principle, be more exact and clearer, but should never be ambiguous and apparently contrast with previous magisterial statements. Those statements of Vatican II which are ambiguous must be read and interpreted according to the statements of the entire Tradition and of the constant Magisterium of the Church.
I’ve little doubt that every reader of this space knows very well what this is:
It is nothing more than the failed conciliar implementation program that Benedict XVI famously articulated during his Christmas Address to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005; best known as the “hermeneutic of continuity.”
Bishop Schneider, for some reason, seems to believe that it is different, stating:
A blind application of the principle of the “hermeneutics of continuity” does not help either, since thereby are created forced interpretations, which are not convincing and which are not helpful to arrive at a clearer understanding of the immutable truths of the Catholic faith and of its concrete application.
It isn’t immediately clear to me why His Excellency believes that a distinction is to be made between his proposal and that of Pope Benedict. Perhaps it is with respect to a “blind application.”
In any case, he goes on to say:
As to the attitude towards the Second Vatican Council, we must avoid two extremes: a complete rejection (as do the sedevacantists and a part of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) or a “infallibilization” of everything the council spoke.
As for why one mustn’t reject the Council completely, Bishop Schneider suggests that doing so would be like throwing the treasure out with the trash.
At this one must ask, but where’s the treasure?
In other words, what of value did the Council provide to the Church and her faithful that was lacking before 1960? What contribution did the Council make to the mission at hand – the salvation of souls?
According to Bishop Schneider, strewn amid the conciliar garbage are four – count them, four – pearls of a great price to be found.
He tells us that “the original and valuable contribution of the Vatican II consists in” the following:
- The universal call to holiness of all members of the Church (LG, Chapter 5)
Not to be flippant, but anyone who has ever read the epistles of St. Paul alone realize that the Church has been calling all of her members to holiness from day one. I find it particularly irksome when it is suggested that the Council invented the idea, and frankly, I am surprised that Bishop Schneider is buying into this nonsense.
- The central role of Our Lady in the life of the Church (LG Chapter 8)
Let’s be honest – the eighth chapter of Lumen Gentium came about because plans for a docuмent on Mary was attacked by the ecuмenists who feared upsetting the precious protestants.
If pressed to specify precisely what the Council provided in the way of “original and valuable” teaching on Our Lady, I doubt that His Excellency would be able to deliver much.
Perhaps I can help.
The Council refers to Mary as she “who occupies a place in the Church which is the highest after Christ and yet very close to us.”
Really? Mary – the Immaculate Conception, the Queen of Heaven and Earth – is very close to us?
This tells us all we need to know about the Council’s contribution to Mariology.
Oh, and guess who the Council Fathers were quoting here?
Pope Paul the Pathetic.
- The importance of the lay faithful in maintaining, defending and promoting the Catholic faith and in their duty to evangelize and sanctify the temporal realities according to the perennial sense of the Church (LG Chapter 4)
In this, one may say that the Council perhaps stressed the role of the laity as participants in the mission of the Church in a particular way (while failing, in my opinion, to stress nearly enough the laity’s dependence upon the clergy), but let’s not forget that Confirmation has long been understood to make one a “soldier for Christ.”
In other words, it simply is not the case that the laity had never before been called to maintain, defend and promote the faith.
- In the primacy of the adoration of God in the life of the Church and in the celebration of the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 2; 5-10)
Seriously? The first demand of justice (to offer unto God the adoration that He is due) just dawned on the Church at Vatican II and in such a way that this can be considered an “original” contribution of the Council?
All of this having been said, if, just for the sake of argument, we grant that Vatican II really did gift the Church with these “original and valuable contributions,” the question remains:
What are we to do about the garbage?
Recall Bishop Schneider’s answer:
New statements should never be ambiguous or contrast. Those that are must be read and interpreted according to tradition.
We’ve been down this road before folks. Benedict launched the Church on this path in 2005 and pressed for its application for nearly eight years, and what have we to show for it?
Bergoglio.
Clearly, the only truly Catholic response to those things that should “never be;” in this case, statements that risk leading souls not to salvation but away from tradition is very simple: they must be rejected and condemned.
-
As the Bible says "there's nothing new under the sun." This also applies to catholicism, since it has been the same since 33 AD. Therefore, if a council doesn't define anything and if it isn't clear, and ABSOLUTELY if it's erroneous, then the council is unnecessary (and dangerous). There's nothing in V2 that hasn't been said before by the saints and previous councils (and said much better and much clearer). Get rid of it!
-
Bishop Schneider is a the "good cop" shill for the SSPX/newChuch theater.
Instead of worrying about the poor SSPX, it is our Catholic duty to ask this "Descendent of the Apostles" what happened to his own Diocese?
As it now stands as the symbolic center of world Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
Astana (https://youtu.be/Jv64nB40CKg)
-
Yes, we all know how staunchly Catholic Kazakhastan is, which is a testament to the wisdom and effectiveness of Bp. Schneider. :facepalm:
-
The best thing to do with Vat.II is to draw a line through it.
.
We still have the original schemas that were deep-sixed at the start, of which ABL was a co-author.
.
Vatican I was never concluded, so it could be re-convened and just forget about Vat.II, the bad dream.
.
-
Vatican II the bad dream.........hmmmmmm
Welcome to our nightmare
I do not think you will like it
It will make you seethe at Newrome
Vatican II is the nightmare
Woe and more woe...... ;)
V2 was the doctrinal/liturgical cobalt salted thermonuclear/fusion/hydrogen weapon of Mass destruction whose fallout still poisons more than half a century later. :-X
-
So,where Bishop Schneider is from is not Catholic but is going full blast nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr? I wonder what their new Churches look like?
The honest truth is the only reason why any Latin mass within Novus Ordo exists is because of Archbishop Lefebvre. And now as we speak, many dioceses are getting rid of the Latin Mass. (And maybe priests..
We can't trust anyone anymore especially "conservative" bishops and cardinals. They could be plants from Rome to appease many trad Catholics.
Plus, they make money with trips, Conferences, books, news etc.
Messages from Fatima tells us to make reparations for our sins. And don't expect much from Catholic hierarchy be cause they are leading many to Hell.