Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the SSPX: “no weighty reasons to deny…..canonical recognition” August 10, 2015
Posted by Tantumblogo in episcopate, General Catholic, Latin Mass, manhood, Papa, persecution, religious, scandals, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, unity, Virtue.trackback
Rorate Caeli has an excerpt of an interview of Bishop Athanasius Schneider gave with a Spanish site on the status of the SSPX. +Schneider has been assigned a formal role by the Vatican in visiting two SSPX seminaries. Some highly relevant and interesting statements below, I add comments, emphasis from Rorate:
Mons. Schneider: The Holy See asked me to visit the two [seminaries] of the SSPX in order to conduct a discussion on a specific theological topic with a group of theologians of the SSPX and with His Excellency Bishop Fellay. For me this fact shows that for the Holy See the SSSPX is not a negligible ecclesiastical reality and that it has to be taken seriously. I am keeping a good impression of my visits. I could observe a sound theological, spiritual and human reality in the two [seminaries]. The “sentire cum ecclesia” of the SSPX is shown by the fact that I was received as an envoy of the Holy See with true respect and with cordiality. Furthermore, I was glad to see in both places in the entrance area a photo of Pope Francis, the reigning Pontiff. In the sacristies there were plates with the name of Pope Francis and the local diocesan bishop. I was moved to assist the traditional chant for the Pope (“Oremus pro pontifice nostro Francisco…”) during the solemn exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.To my knowledge there are no weighty reasons in order to deny the clergy and faithful of the SSPX the official canonical recognition, meanwhile they should be accepted as they are. This was indeed Archbishop Lefebvre’s petition to the Holy See: “Accept us as we are”. [Interesting. There have always been prelates favorably disposed to the SSPX. Cardinal Stickler was one particularly notable example. There have been, and are, others. Their viewpoint, however, is not shared by many other bishops, some of which view the Society as more alien, and with more hostility, than the most extreme sect or foreign religion. My own personal viewpoint aligns, in a hopeful sense, with that of Bishop Schneider.]I think the issue of Vatican II should not be taken as the “conditio sine qua non”, since it was an assembly with primarily [or was it entirely?] pastoral aims and characteristics. A part of the conciliar statements reflects only its time and possesses a temporary value, as disciplinary and pastoral documents do. [Brilliant. And very important] When we look in a two millennia old perspective of the Church, we can state, that there is on both sides (Holy See and the SSPX) an over-evaluation and over-estimation of a pastoral reality in the Church, which is Vatican II. [Bishop Schneider is saying both the Vatican and SSPX have blown VII out of proportion. I both agree and disagree. I think eventually, the only way to “move beyond” VII is to basically ignore all its novel parts and get back to the traditional practice of the Faith. But those novel parts have been so damaging and have affected the understanding and practice of the Faith in such a severe, revolutionary way, that doing so will prove extremely difficult. That’s because for a sizable portion of those who claim the name Catholic, including the large majority of bishops and priests, VII created in their minds a “new church” very different from, and hostile towards, the “old” one. Yes this cohort is dying off very gradually, but not fast enough, and there are not nearly enough of those with a proper, or at least better, understanding of the reality of the Church to replace them/turn the tide. But incorporating the SSPX back into the regular life of the Church would help enormously to that end – while also being a high risk move.]
When the SSPX believes, worship and conducts a moral [life] as it was demanded and recognized by the Supreme Magisterium and was observed universally in the Church during a centuries long period [one might say “always”] and when the SSPX recognizes the legitimacy of the Pope and the diocesan bishops and prays for them publicly and recognizes also the validity of the sacraments according to the editio typica of the new liturgical books, this should suffice for a canonical recognition of the SSPX on behalf of the Holy See. Otherwise the often repeated pastoral and ecumenical openness in the Church of our days will manifestly lose its credibility and the history will one day reproach to the ecclesiastical authorities of our days that they have “laid on the brothers greater burden than required” (cf. Acts 15:28), which is contrary to the pastoral method of the Apostles.
Well now……..that’s quite a conclusion. Do you agree, that the current status of the SSPX suffices for recognition of full canonical regularity without a requirement to sign any “preambles” or any other changes or actions on the part of the SSPX?
If that were to be the case, it would have enormous precedent, essentially “cementing” +Schneider’s belief regarding VII into formal policy; that that Council was a pastoral one whose day is largely past, requiring no particular “assent” to its proscriptions and claims apart from normal assent of Faith given to all the already established Doctrine of the Faith (since VII settled no new Dogma). It is an approach to Vatican II I would most certainly welcome, but I don’t think it has a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace of being instituted at any point in the foreseeable future, because the progressives would lose their minds and many would likely leap into open schism (which, frankly, already exists, but the Vatican has proven for 50+ years horrified of allowing that schism to be formalized by concrete departure from the Church – to the total detriment of souls).
We have been told by some of the more militant opponents of the SSPX that they are so far outside the realm of the Church that any one who indicates otherwise is at best suspect, if not fallen into grievous error themselves. Will all mention of Bishop Schneider now disappear from certain websites, as have others who hold “wrong” opinions on the Society?
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics 
” [Bishop Schneider is saying both the Vatican and SSPX have blown VII out of proportion. I both agree and disagree. I think eventually, the only way to “move beyond” VII is to basically ignore all its novel parts and get back to the traditional practice of the Faith. But those novel parts have been so damaging and have affected the understanding and practice of the Faith in such a severe, revolutionary way, that doing so will prove extremely difficult. That’s because for a sizable portion of those who claim the name Catholic, including the large majority of bishops and priests, VII created in their minds a “new church” very different from, and hostile towards, the “old” one. Yes this cohort is dying off very gradually, but not fast enough, and there are not nearly enough of those with a proper, or at least better, understanding of the reality of the Church to replace them/turn the tide. But incorporating the SSPX back into the regular life of the Church would help enormously to that end – while also being a high risk move.]”
Here are the parts of V2 one must be careful of:
http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican2.htm
Tim, yes, it’s funny that even a really knowledgable, devoted bishop like Bishop Schneider seems way too hopeful – as you point out, there are actual clangers in the VII documents. I certainly can’t swallow the camel and pretend it’s a gnat, and the Society sure as heck won’t. Just wishing that someone in the Vatican would make it all go away is that hope that is misplaced.
“We have been told by some of the more militant opponents of the SSPX that they are so far outside the realm of the Church that any one who indicates otherwise is at best suspect, if not fallen into grievous error themselves. Will all mention of Bishop Schneider now disappear from certain websites, as have others who hold “wrong” opinions on the Society?”
I wonder what Mr. Voris, Mr. Carroll and Mrs. Niles will do with this. Mr. Voris recently interviewed Bishop Schnieder, but His Excellency’s comments don’t fit the CMTV narrative of the SSPX being the spawn of Satan. What “grievous errors” does the SSPX or its “supporters” cling to? Was the “Gaia Mass” in Toronto and SSPX Mass? These so called militant opponents of the SSPX….can they tell us ONE dogma or doctrine of the Church that the SSPX denies??
Now before all the SSPX haters wig out, yes I support the SSPX, and I also support the FSSP and ICK. I have found all three helpful to my family’s growth in Faith and I also have found that all three are made up of flawed human beings and they each have their strengths and weaknesses. All of this boils down to “By their fruits you shall know them.” So, for example, compare the SSPX, or FSSP or ICK parishes to the parishes similiar to the “gaia Mass” or not even that extreme……I believe the objective mind will conclude correctly and objectively where the good fruit is and will conclude….”case closed.”
Thought the exact same thing about CMTV when I read this at Rorate.
CMTV is so wrapped in pressing their narrative via ridicule and erroneous simplistic information, they’re still declaring definitive schism on the forums relating to the Bishop Morlino letter. All this while His Excellency, Bishop Morlino states that it would be incorrect to say the Society is in schism in the same letter.
Ms. Niles has vowed, rather hotly, however, in personal correspondence that we all can wait for CMTV to prove their claims this summer. I’m still waiting. It should be interesting, however, since the extended interview with Bishop Schneider would indicate an ongoing accord with CMTV. And yet CMTV still regularly calumniates the Society on their website and across the web.
I wonder when it all plays out in the wash if there will be a public apology on CMTV by all parties involved. Or will CMTV call out Bishop Schneider now as promoting the horror of schism, ecclesiastical porn, etc. Never can tell cause the ‘spin’ never stops.
CMTV constant attacks Fr. Barron for his heretical views on Hell…..now that he is a Bishop-elect, the silence is deafening.
CMTV blasted Fr. Barron just recently: http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-vortexfr.-barron-and-the-planned-parenthood-videos. And I agree with other posters, CMTV must be in knots over +Schnieder’s interview. I hope they have the courage to apologize. God bless~
Will Mr. Voris, et al mention the fact that the Pope is who elevated this heresy spewer to Bishop-elect?
Tim –
Did my reply make sense on your query below?
They also just called the SSPX Sedevecantist on one of their forums. A blatantly false charge and pretty hypocritical considering CMTV for all of their acknowledging of the Pope, pretend there is none.
Tantum,
I think so to some degree, although I know the basics of Campos, I don’t know the “nitty gritty”. I am quite familiar with Ecclesia Dei communities as my family(my kids essentially grew up there) at an FSSP apostolate in Indianapolis from 2000-2014. The FSSP lost 2 priests there(one went independent and the other joined the Diocese) It was a “mixed rite” parish and still is(actually it is now “tri-rite with the “Anglican Mass”), minus the FSSP. The FSSP pulled out after a third priest left them from this parish. He has since returned to the FSSP……Thanks be to God! In 2010 the SSPX took over an independent chapel in the area and has flourished over time. With all of the confusion in the mixed rite parish and quite frankly, the notable loss of the FSSP influence there we started attending Mass at the SSPX chapel on occasion…..over 4 years we noticed that it is not enough just to have the Traditional Mass, but we needed the culture that came along with it….the SSPX provided that. We did have it to a satisfactory degree when the FSSP was in town, but now with them gone, it just doesn’t exist at the parish we went to for 14 years. For a small example, this weekend the Mass for Assumption for the Latin Mass folks is Friday night the14th and the Novus Ordo Assumption Mass is on Saturday morning the 15th. That is upside down…the Novus Ordo folks are used to “anticipation” Masses, but it is not part of the Traditional practice….this is a small example of the kind of “housebreaking” I think needs to be remedied in the “mainstream” Church.
I am along the line of Michael Matt, I think the SSPX, FSSP and ICK all have their roles in restoring sanity in the Church, which as Bishop Fellay has said ultimately must come from Rome itself. I think the petty politics in the “trad circles” are counter productive to our cause(Mr Matt’s “circular firing squad”). Our real enemies are the modernists.
As far as accommodating the counciliar Church….yes that will happen to some degree but we have to be careful, because of the slippery slope and the modernists are experts at that game. I think Bishop Fellay has done well in talking with and “accommodating” Rome thus far….I do not see the so called “sell out” that the SSPX “resistence” speaks of, he has made no “deal”. I do think with the SSPX bishops aging and Rome regressing in this pontificate that Bishop Fellay will be faced with the same difficult decision as Archbishop Lefebvre…..the consecration of more SSPX bishops….time will tell.
I think that the SSPX and other traditional groups must hold fast to dogma, doctrine and tradition and resist Roman authority when it is not in line with the 1960 years of consistent teaching that got jettisoned in the past 55 years.
However, we should not “sweat the small stuff” in dealing with leaders who are infected with modernism. I know some in the SSPX, FSSP and ICK that don’t get that concept. I defend the SSPX based on facts and not “personal preference” as I also support the FSSP and ICK and diocean efforts as well.
I better stop now….I will close with….I dream of the day when the SSPX, FSSP and the ICK are no longer necessary. I doubt I will live to see it. God Bless…keep up the good work on the blog and at the “gentlemens clubs”.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I think we’re on the same page – I am not one who thinks the SSPX-SO is correct in their claims of SSPX “sellout” – but I do think there are dangers to almost any path to regularization. Not that I don’t want that to happen, I very much do, but there will almost certainly be “costs,” if you will, associated with that.
There are many modernist elements in the Church who see Ecclesia Dei and the SSPX as just a temporary phenomenon, a holdover from the “bad old days” that just need time to die off, or the right opportunity to squash. It is those elements who would seek to work any regularization to their advantage and reduce the not just the Society but the Ecclesia Dei communities to the post-conciliar paradigm. But I firmly believe that it is God’s Will that the Church be restored (unless this be the end times), and that regularization will ultimately help to do that, by bringing in a large number of firmly orthodox/traditional priests, hopefully in a way that permits them freedom from outside interference. We’ll see. I have developed some friendships with people in the Society in the past year or so and they are not the scary monsters they are portrayed as! Shocking! I wish you and all of them all the best, as I do for the Society as a whole and our Holy Mother Church.
I do not trust Francis’ intentions in getting chummy with the SSPX. I have gotten to the point that I believe that he is evil. And any reconciliation efforts would be with his hope of destroying the SSPX. If the SSPX were to “return to full communion” with the conciliar church under Francis, they would probably have a massive split. (They already have a minor split.) and those who stay with the new Vatican-friendly SSPX would be beholden to their friend, Pope Francis.
It bothers me that Bishop Schneider was glad to see Pope Francis’ picture in the seminary entrances. How can anyone who loves Holy Mother Church feel pleased at loyalty to the man who has done more to destroy Her in the past 2 years than all of the other post-conciliar popes combined?
I hope the SSPX proceeds with much caution.
I’m sure you get the point of having that display, which is that the SSPX considers itself part of the Church for good or ill – at least to a point. They could have only had a picture of Lefebvre hanging, which would have conveyed a certain message, or St. Pius X, which would have conveyed another. Yes we may have very many problems with Pope Francis but I’d be equally concerned about arrogating to ourselves such an invincible view of the Faith that we would applaud acts that make clear a certain individual or group does not view him as the actual Pope. The SSPX has decried the revolution since the 60s most forcefully but has always maintained that the popes that have essentially instituted and formalized that revolution have been the real, valid popes.
The concern that the SSPX will be housebroken by a regularization has been a constant concern for 40 years. I don’t think the problem will change very much after Francis leaves the pontificate. The same forces that would like to bring the SSPX to heel will still exist. But they’ve existed for decades. It will take a huge leap of faith for any reconciliation to happen.
“The concern that the SSPX will be housebroken by a regularization has been a constant concern for 40 years.”
I was considering commenting on this particular snippet, but thought it wise to ask for a clarification of this statement first.
What exactly do you mean by “housebroken”?
Thanks
Probably easiest to give some fer instances:
Fer instance, the experience of Campos
Fer instance, demands to offer the NO
Fer instance, demands to concelebrate.
etc
-I don’t know a lot about Campos.
-As far as offering the NO, are you saying that they(SSPX) should? Pope St. Pius V would disagree:
http://papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm
-As far as concelebrating….a novelty like other V2 and NO novelties…..no one is bound by novelty.
With the multitudes(essentially uncountable to mere mortals) of scandals and loss of morals in the “mainstream Church” since the “new springtime” arrived, I think the modernists are the ones who need to be “housebroken”. We will, tragically, have more to add to the list come this fall after the “sin-odd” is completed.
If I have misunderstood you, please let me know. I see the main problems in the Vatican-SSPX situation as coming from the Roman authorities and their utter fixation on continuing a failed experiment….V2 and the NO. While the SSPX, FSSP and ICK are all imperfect, I believe their compasses are more accurately fixed on the solution to this crisis than those in power. Ultimately this our own collective faults as God sends us the leadership we deserve.
If you knew Campos, I think you would know my standpoint. I’m saying that many in the SSPX and without fear that any accord will lead to heavy pressure to do all those things and more, to reconcile to at least some degree with the post-conciliar ethos. Even if there is no document to sign, even if there is no visible “submission” to the Council made, any regularization is likely to result in pressure to accommodate with the conciliar Church, as many in the Society claim the Ecclesia Dei communities have done. Being in a community that falls under Ecclesia Dei, I can say that there are compromises. Whether they are serious/fatal ones or not is extremely complex to hash out, but there are plainly compromises. Just off the top, will the Society, even if it maintains a separate juridicial structure, be assessed by dioceses? What does that money end up supporting (often, not good)? It’s a big risk, but one that will most likely have to be accepted at some point.
Don’t worry, LaGallina Bishop Fellay is proceeding with caution. But if the Society is accepted ‘as is’ that will be grand. That would lend them the liberty to speak freely and at the same time disallow any to lay the calumny of schism at their feet.
The Pope is still the Pope.
And if he does not require any condition prior to regularization that would negate adherence to the Faith, then the Catholic response is to move forward together. The purpose of the Society is to form priests in tradition and to uphold the TLM, that and the teachings of the Church minus the novelties of VII.
Archbishop Lefebvre, contrary to what many falsely believe, never once intended to set up an alternative ‘Church’.
I love Bishop Athanasius Schneider and the Latin Mass. His comments re: SSPX and Vatican II could go a long way toward reunification. We can only pray.
Strangely, if anyone can bring them back in its Pope Francis. Set aside all the progressive comments and appointments. It’s based on his personality which has an independent streak where he doesn’t care what people think. He’s also a go-getter and does things himself without consultation.
If he just sees that SSPX only needs paper recognition he’ll just do it without regards to details. The progressives may complain but Pope Francis is one of them too so the modernists can’t blame him for undermining Vatican II.
Does this mean it’s a high probability? Of course not but the potential is there. Let’s continue to pray.
Only Nixon could go to China.
I think the analogy is a bit forced.
The Bishops think of the Society as an alien religion with more hostility than the most extreme sect or foreign religion precisely because the bishops in question have been formed beneath the confusion of VII that presents the Faith as something different than what it was before.
Recognizing the Society as fully Catholic would call out the embracing of novelty as precisely that – novel – especially if a Society chapel were situated beside it’s diocesan NO counterpart. Woah. The flock is going to notice. Bishops and priests who are all for the VII springtime and pressing forward aren’t going to want that, especially not when it is called nothing more damning than simply Catholic. Some, in my view, just don’t have an accurate education of what the Faith was prior to VII and just how far we’ve departed from that in the old neighborhood.
That’s why FSSP folks have been marginalized by bishops for how long now? Seen as a necessary spur to ward of the evil of the supposed ‘alien’ religion.
I suppose the could regularize the SSPX and sort of treat them as a quasi-separate rite. Not quite like the eastern Catholic ones, but sort of a “subset” of the Roman one. That way, those disposed to the SSPX can be part of them, and the rest of the V II church can ignore them. It might, in a sense, cause a “self-purge” of traditionalists from the V II Church, sort of like giving them their own island. I’d pack my bags and suntan lotion.
I grew up in the SSPX. I credit them for the firm foundation of my faith. I do not belong, however I still have many friends in the SSPX. I haven’t seen the same level of faithfulness or love of the faith outside of the SSPX. I’m sure it exists, I just haven’t seen it.
[…] I think this is what Bishop Schneider meant when he said that there tends to be too much fixation on Vatican II. It happened, and it cannot un-happen. It can be overcome, certainly. The question is how. I have seen evidence that Bishop Schneider tends to share my view that the revolution in the Church will be overcome by a slow process of restoration, not a lightning bolt from on high that throws out the revolutionary content and forcibly re-instills Tradition. […]
Please don’t forget this quote by Bishop Schneider,
“and when the SSPX recognizes the legitimacy of the Pope and the diocesan bishops and prays for them publicly and recognizes also the validity of the sacraments according to the editio typica of the new liturgical books,”
The Trembling Bride
The Pope has excommunicated himself from the Church for adultery. Spiritual adultery is the worst kind. By insisting that unrepentant adulterers be received into Christian fellowship within the Church, Pope Francis has become a partaker in another man’s sin. Pity. He is doing no favor to the adulterer by patting him on the back on his way to hell. This is not compassion. It’s a damnable lie. And every catholic knows it. The Pope is not a catholic. The Church has always taught what our Adorable Saviour taught, that divorce was an adulterous thing to do, and to marry another was a mortal crime that kills all sanctifying grace in the soul from Baptism – A catholic excommunicates himself from Christ when he marries outside the Church. This is the reality of the situation, I’m afraid: Mark 10:11 – Read it and weep.
Ladies and gentlemen, Holy Matrimony is a Sacrament of the Holy Roman Catholic Church as instituted by Christ Himself. The catholic cleric has no authority over this Mystery. He is merely a witness to what the two say there before him that day, and the witness there to behold it – The two become One-Flesh. The Marriage vow creates a bond that is closer than blood relations…
Saint Paul follows his Saviour’s example when he hearkens back to the Genesis account to describe the relationship between Christ and His Church; for, “this cause” he says. What cause? For the establishment of the Sacrament of holy marriage, for without it there is no Catholic Religion!
Genesis 3:15 is often referred to as, “THE PROTOEVANGELIUM OR FIRST GOSPEL.” I’m convinced that Genesis 2:24 is a foreshadowing of the marriage between Saint Mary and Her Joseph, just as sure as Genesis 3:15 is where we see Christ and His Mary.
From henceforth, Genesis 2:24 will be referred to as, “THE ‘PROTOMARITO’ OR ‘FIRST MARRIAGE.”
Hail! Full of Grace! Saint Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost to Conceive Her own Savoiur, only after She was given to Saint Joseph in marriage. Mary gave Her Immaculate Heart to Her Saviour, only after She had given it in marriage to Saint Joseph. Her first Love was and always will be Saint Joseph!
There is a dead corpse in the Church, and it stinketh; an adulterous body of death, seated right there before us. Beware. It’s got the Church by the neck, and seeks to suffocate Her to death. And how does the enemy plan to do this? By corrupting the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and causing the Church to eat damnation to Herself! The Church of God is under an attack the likes of which the world has never seen. Satan would seek to thrust a dagger forthright into the Heart of the Church, in the Sacrament of Her Matrimony, as the knight falls on his own sword. The Father has chosen to use the Bonds of Holy Matrimony as an analogy of His relationship with His Church, and right now, there are few things as important as protecting the integrity of this analogy. What we are seeing the Pope of Rome doing, on the other hand, is tearing asunder the Marriage between the Son of God and His bride. If successful, this would be a death blow to the Catholic Faith, for without Holy Matrimony, there is no Marriage Supper of the Lamb!
The Church, Pope Francis has been quoted as having said, looks upon those in such situations with a maternal heart and, “always looks for the good and the salvation of persons,” in reference to Catholics in adulterous marriages. Really? How can there be any good in an adulterous relationship? What virtue is there in having a commitment to doing something that is wrong even if you do it with another exclusively? Can it really be a good thing to do this forever, to pray while doing it and to do it publicly? What is it that we have here? A commitment to live in gross sin exclusively with another, to do it till death, and pray while doing it. But the Church’s maternal heart can be found in the loving embrace of the tender and desirable arms of the Mother of God – The Holy, Spotless and Lovely Mary. To attach the heart of our Mother to that of a whore-monger is an unspeakable outrage of skullduggery against Her Immaculate and Sacred Heart – It is a suicide mission. Mary, the most powerful of all of God’s creations! St. Anthony, the hammer of heretics, learned at Her feet. She must be so very beautiful! Oh, if we only knew the love that my Mary has for our fallen hearts, we could not contain it. True devotion to Mary can drive heresy out of the heart of the obstinate Professed Religious heretic, by a recognition of Her Majestic authority to reveal that the Catholic Church is the True Church, and the realization that without Mary the Gospels would have never been written.
But, I must forewarn you my ordained friend, you will be devastated. It is a great wonder to me how Christ can send His Mother to us with the way she is so mistreated. I couldn’t do it. I could not send my mother to do something for me knowing that she would be so hurt, so maligned and outraged by such barbaric and ungrateful men as Mary is! Knowing that She would be blasphemed by every false and abominable counterfeit misrepresentation of Her True presence by minions of the fallen angel who have been wholly given over to the rebellion of their own hearts; attributing to the Holy Mother of God the attributes and character of the despicable imagination of their own lusts. But He does! He does! Is it little wonder then, why He may be hesitant to allow His Mother to be exposed to such trauma? I don’t see how He can do it.
A rescue attempt by the Mother of God can truly be a last ditch effort at converting the hardened and obstinate Professed Religious sinner. So, I must warn you. If Jesus Christ sends His Mother in an attempt to persuade the Professed Religious obstinate heretic to forsake his sin, and he rejects Her – he is doomed.
Speaking on behalf of the young children of these adulterous unions, Pope Francis insists that there is an, “urgency of developing in our community a real welcome toward the persons who are living in such situations.” Our, “language and attitudes,” must change with the times as well it seems, as Pope Francis struggles to reconcile the Church’s responsibility to influence parents to raise their children in the faith, while they continue to live in sin, with the clear teaching of the Church that what they are doing is morally repugnant. How can these people ever hope to raise any children in the Catholic Faith if they are committing adultery right in front of their faces every day?
Their children are illegitimate quite frankly, and he knows this right well. To, “hold them at a distance from the life of the community, as if they were excommunicated,” Pope Francis opines concerning the adulterous couple, will somehow prevent the Church from catechizing the next generation of children of these adulterous relationships which seem to be so prevalent in the Church today. This is a real dilemma for those in the Vatican who have created all these societal anomalies over the last fifty years with their Vatican 2ew theology for which they now pretend to offer remedy. I’m sorry. If the Romans do not offer up this compromise, their church will disintegrate.
Pope Francis refers to Pope John Paul II’s, Familiaris Consortio, and demands that we must distinguish between those who caused the breakup of the initial marriage and those who endured it. This sounds so very familiar to the protestant ideology of the “innocent spouse” in such situations. The Pope is here representing Christ as replacing death with divorce, in a roundabout way. But is this not who our Jesus died for? The guilty party? This is nonsense to say that there is an innocent spouse in a divorce who is somehow thereby justified in contracting a subsequent marriage while their true spouse is still alive.
This is not Catholicism. It is Calvinism, of the worst kind. We don’t execute the adulterer, no, we simply divorce the offending party and then go on to marry another, while the guilty spouse must eek out an existence, void of any hope as one who is “spiritually” dead. After all, we’re Catholics, and would never advocate that mortal sins in God’s Moral Government, should also be capital crimes in the civil law as well! Ladies and gentlemen, what the Pope is doing here is rotten at the foundation. It’s disgusting. No wonder he nearly got a standing ovation, “tell us what we want to hear! Or else!” the crown jeers…
RbM