jump to navigation

Must see interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider July 15, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue, Voris.
trackback

Even with the change in the papacy, which I am certain means Bishop Schneider finds a less congenial view of his efforts from the top, this is an important man with many important things to say. I have no doubt this is a bishop who suffers.

We need far more like him.  Key quote: “Vatican II must be clarified.”  I agree.  But I fear such clarification in the present circumstances of the Church. It could be “clarified” in a way Bishop Schneider does not intend.

Great, great interview by Michael Voris:

As Bishop Schneider notes, both John XXIII who convened the Council, and Paul VI who saw it through to its conclusion, repeatedly stated that Vatican II was not a doctrinal council, at all. Vatican II defined no new doctrines – according to these popes.  They both explained its intent was merely to provide a means to explain the constantly held beliefs of the Church in a manner more suited to modern times – a completely pastoral council.  So, if a pastoral council, why do so many modernists demand it be treated as absolutely dogmatic?  In fact, it is, where it confirms constantly held dogmas, but where it ventured into new territory – like Dignitatis Humanae, the decree on “religious liberty” – just how authoritative those statements are is a matter of great, great debate.  Even curial cardinals disagree on how authoritative such documents are.

If the Council were eminently reconcilable with Tradition, the clarification Schneider calls for would not be needed. But the fact of the matter is, he is correct, there are very key articles of the Council which are, on the surface, quite difficult to reconcile with the constant Magisterial beliefs of the Church. Progressives used those ambiguities to conduct their revolution in the Chuch. Traditionalists have pointed them out for decades.  It was because VII was produced, or written, in a manner utterly unlike any preceding Council, and addressed certain topics in ways never seen before, that all this ambiguity exists.  According to Cardinal Kaspar, ambiguity may have been the intent. Which all the  more points to a need for clarification.

But I fear whether the current leadership of the Church would truly clarify the Council, or produce even more ambiguities. I apologize for my lack of faith.

Boniface has a good post on the highlights of the interview here.  A few quotes:

Like Cardinal Kasper, Schneider notes that it is not simply a problem with interpretation of the Council, what Benedict XVI called the “council of the media”, but with the some of the documents themselves. He states that “majority of the texts of the Council are very rich and traditional”, but some are “controversial or ambiguous” and suffer from a “lack of precision.” Some of these documents are “open to different interpretations” (what Kasper called “compromise formulas”). Thus, following Kasper, he admits an ambiguity in the documents.

During the interview he is asked about Kasper’s comments, and far from denying or contradicting them, he states that Kasper’s comments are correct and need to be officially stated by the Magisterium. He calls for an official clarification of the documents of Vatican II, a sort of authoritative interpretative key to ensure that the documents are understood in continuity with Tradition. He states that the Church needs to offer “some clarifications or some indications of the misinterpretations…because we have to be very, very concrete” and suggests perhaps an explanatory note, as Paul VI offered for Lumen Gentium.
So, what ambiguities does the Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider find problematic?

 
His first example is the doctrine of collegiality found in Lumen Gentium. Without citing any passages in particular, he opines that the document teaches the headship of the Pope in an “insufficient” way and that the document can be read to mean that the Pope is a first among equals who has only a of primacy of honor, ignoring or downplaying his actual jurisdiction and role as episcopus episcoporum. [Many histories of VII attribute this “insufficient” definition of the Primacy of Peter to have been due to the presence of representatives from the Orthodox Churches.  There was much politicking to get them to attend, and one of the carrots that was offered to obtain their presence at the Council was the watering down of papal supremacy. The same applied to the failure to condemn communism at the Council, even though a huge number of bishops had that as their number 1 priority for the Council – but John XXIII really really wanted bishops from communist Eastern Bloc countries in attendance at the Council, and so a private deal was negotiated to not condemn communism at all, in order to obtain their attendance.  The communist authorities of Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, etc., would not have permitted the bishops of those countries to attend, otherwise.  The shadow of progressivism/leftism fell heavily over many preparations for the Council]  Schneider does not cite a text directly so I will not comment any further except to say that the view of collegiality that Schneider finds “insufficient” is very common manner.
 
Staying in Lumen Gentium, he spends quite a bit of time with Lumen Gentium 16, which he forcefully says  “needs and explanation.” The problematic passage he cites is the sentence which states that “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God.” His specific problem is which the last sentence, which states that Muslims and Catholics together adore the one God. Schneider says that this statement is extremely clumsy and admits of  “two substantial different levels” of interpretation. He goes on to make a phenomenally important distinction between belief in one God according to natural reason and the supernatural virtue of faith, which alone is pleasing to God:
We adore God always as a Trinity…our adoration is an adoration of supernatural faith. To worship God as Creator only or one God only, there is no need of faith. The use of your reason is sufficient. This is a dogma of the First Vatican Council, that every human person is able only by his reason, natural light of reason, without the light of faith, to recognize the existence of one God as Creator. Consequently, to worship Him according to his knowledge of natural reason. These are the Muslims – they have no supernatural faith and therefore they have no supernatural act of worship. Even the Jews who rejected Jesus as God, as Trinity, they rejected Him they have no faith. Therefore their worship is also natural, not supernatural.”
The Muslim worship of Allah is not the same as the supernatural worship of the Trinity, which alone is pleasing to God. Thus, even if they claim to worship the same God based on a certain historic pedigree, their worship is fundamentally different from Catholic worship and cannot be pleasing to God because they lack the supernatural virtue of faith. When Voris mentions that Cardinal Timothy Dolan recently encouraged Muslims to keep their faith and said that we worship the same God, Schneider dryly says, “The Cardinal was referring to this expression of the council. Now you observe why it is necessary to strengthen this essential distinction.”
—————————End Quote———————-
Watch the whole video!  It is key!  And it is plain that Bishop Schneider’s call for clarification is from a very traditional point of view!  He hits many of the documents that most trouble traditionalists, and it is clear when he calls for “clarification” he is not limiting himself to one or two small items here or there – whole documents are problematic from the bishop’s standpoint, it would seem, like the document on “ecumenism” Unitatis Redintegratio. He even talks about Guadium et Spes 12, which I have also questioned on this blog.

 

Comments

1. Michael P. Mc Crory. - July 15, 2013

The good Bishop was much too ‘charitable’ when commenting on Cardinal Dolan’s daft statement: ” Christians and Moslems worship the same God.”
Wonderful interview as it was both Cardinal Dolan and the Bishop know how damaging that kind of talk can be.
Michael Voris let him off the hook, I think.
Every Bishop has a moral obligation to warn us about their fellow bishops who mislead us. To heck with hurting their feelings. I can’t imagine Christ being that wishy-washy about it.

2. Some key Magisterial pronouncements on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus…and a question | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics - July 16, 2013

[…] in marked contrast to several statements of the most recent Council, some of which were pointed out in this post from yesterday.  These statements, and dozens of others from various Popes, Saints, Fathers, etc., have led me to […]


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: