jump to navigation

Key Portions of Bishop Schneider’s Response to Synod November 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Papa, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, SOD, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
trackback

Rorate as usual coming with the truly important material, has an exclusive 5000 word reaction from Bishop Athanasius Schneider to the Synod of Divorce.  I point out some highlights below (which I would not have been able to do, save a manufacturing screw up has suddenly opened up my morning).  Do go read the whole thing (all text below via Rorate, my emphasis and comments).

The XIV General Assembly of the Synod of the Bishops (October 4 – 25, 2015), which was dedicated to the theme of “The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and Contemporary World”, issued a Final Report with some pastoral proposals submitted to the discernment of the Pope. The document itself is only of an advisory nature and does not possess a formal magisterial value[Something I have pointed out several times.  Good to see it reiterated]

Yet during the Synod, there appeared those real new disciples of Moses and the new Pharisees, who in the numbers 84-86 of the Final Report opened a back door or looming time bombs for the admittance of divorced and remarried to Holy Communion. [Time-bombs a la Vatican II, nebulous statements whose full implications will not be apparent until years later, at least to those who insist on blinding themselves to the agenda being worked here] At the same time those bishops who intrepidly defended “the Church’s own fidelity to Christ and to His truth” (Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, 84) were in some media reports unjustly labeled as Pharisees.

The new disciples of Moses and the new Pharisees during the last two Assemblies of the Synod (2014 and 2015) masked their practical deny [denial] of the indissolubility of marriage and of a suspension of the Sixth Commandment on a case-by-case basis under the guise of the concept of mercy, using expressions such as: “way of discernment,” “accompaniment”, “orientations of the bishop,” “dialogue with the priest,” “forum internum,” “a more fuller integration into the life of the Church,” a possible suppression of imputability regarding the cohabitation in irregular unions (cf. Final Report, nn. 84-86).

This text section in the Final Report contains indeed a trace of a neo-mosaic practice of divorce, even though the redactors skillfully and, in a cunning manner, avoided any direct change of the doctrine of the Church. Therefore, all parties, both the promotors of the so-called “Kasper agenda” and their opponents, are apparently satisfied stating: “All is OK. The Synod did not change the doctrine.” Yet, such a perception is quite naive, because it ignores the back door and the pending time bombs in the above mentioned text section which becomes manifest by a careful examination of the text by its internal interpretive criteria. 

Even when speaking of a “way of discernment” there is talk of “repentance” (Final Report, n. 85), there remains nevertheless a great deal of ambiguity. [And confusion, both of which are the seed beds upon which modernism thrives] In fact, according to the reiterated affirmations of Cardinal Kasper and like-minded churchmen, such a repentance concerns the past sins against the spouse of the first valid marriage and the repentance of the divorced indeed may not refer to the acts of their marital cohabitation with the new civilly married partner.

The assurance of the text in the numbers 85 and 86 of the Final Report that such a discernment has to be made according to the teaching of the Church and in a correct judgement remains nevertheless ambiguous. Indeed, Cardinal Kasper and like-minded clerics emphatically and repeatedly assured that the admittance of the divorced and civilly remarried to Holy Communion will not touch the dogma of the indissolubility and of the sacramentality of marriage, and that a judgement in the conscience in that case has to be considered as being correct even when the divorced and remarried continue to cohabitate in a marital manner, and that they should not be required to live in complete continence as brother and sister.

In quoting the famous number 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II in number 85 of the Final Report, the redactors censured the text, cutting out the following decisive formulation: “The way to the Eucharist can only be granted to those who take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples”.

This practice of the Church is based on Divine Revelation of the Word of God: Written and transmitted through Tradition. This practice of the Church is an expression of the uninterrupted Tradition since the Apostles and, thus, remains unchangeable for all times. Already Saint Augustine affirmed: “Who dismisses his adulterous wife and marries another woman, whereas his first wife still lives, remains perpetually in the state of adultery. Such a man does not any efficacious penance while he refuses to abandon the new wife. If he is a catechumen, he cannot be admitted to baptism, because his will remains rooted in the evil. If he is a (baptized) penitent, he cannot receive the (ecclesiastical) reconciliation as long as he does not break with his bad attitude” (De adulterinis coniugiis, 2, 16). In fact, the above intentional censorship of the teaching of Familaris Consortio in n. 85 of the Final Report, represents for any sane hermeneutics the very interpretation key for the understanding of the text section on divorced and remarried (numbers84-86). [And yet, in spite of such a clear demonstration from St. Augustine as to the Church’s constant belief and practice, the man charged with the sacred task of Guardian of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, was apparently wooed to embrace the Kasperite theorem through intellectual sophistries, turning St. Thomas Aquinas into a modernist]

In our days exists a permanent and omnipresent ideological pressure on behalf of the mass media, which are compliant with the unique thought imposed by the anti-Christian world powers, with the aim to abolish the truth of the indissolubility of the marriage – trivializing the sacred character of this Divine institution by spreading an anti-culture of divorce and concubinage. Already 50 years ago, the Second Vatican Council stated that the modern times are infected with the plague of the divorce (cf. Gaudium et spes, 47). The same Council warns that the Christian marriage as Christ’s sacrament should “never be profaned by adultery or divorce” (Gaudium et spes, 49). [Ah, but what Vatican II giveth, Vatican II taketh away.  These quoted statements of orthodoxy are fundamentally undermined by other texts that speak of the “primacy of the individual conscience” and the need to adapt Church teaching to “modern” times.  I really don’t favor quoting Vatican II for any defense of Doctrine, because of the internal contradictions that riddle all the documents.  I know why prelates do so – it’s so expected as to be required – but by doing so I fear they undermine their own opposition to modernism]

The profanation of the “great sacrament” (Eph 5, 32) of the marriage by adultery and divorce has assumed massive proportions at an alarming rate not only in the civil society but also among Catholics. When Catholics by means of divorce and adultery theoretically and as well as practically repudiate the will of God expressed in the Sixth Commandment, they put themselves in a spiritually serious danger of losing their eternal salvation. [Objectively speaking, they persist in a manifest state of mortal sin]

The most merciful act on behalf of the Shepherds of the Church would be to draw the attention to this danger by means of a clear – and at the same time loving – admonition about the necessarily full acceptance of the Sixth Commandment of God. They have to call the things by their right name exhorting: “divorce is divorce,” “adultery is adultery” and “who commits consciously and freely grave sins against the Commandments of God – and in this case against the Sixth Commandment – and dies unrepentantly will receive eternal condemnation being excluded forever from the kingdom of God.” [Exactly.  Unrepentant adulterers who die in that state will be damned, period, end of sentence.]

……..Those who conduct a married life with a partner, who is not their legitimate spouse, as it is the case with divorced and civilly remarried, reject the will of God. To convince such persons concerning this sin is a work moved by the Holy Spirit and commanded by Jesus Christ and thus an eminently pastoral and merciful work. [contrary to the cold, calculating indifference – one might even call it hatred –  for souls presented as the false “mercy” of today]

The Final Report of the Synod unfortunately omits to convince the divorced and remarried concerning their concrete sin. On the contrary, under the pretext of mercy and a false pastorality, those Synod Fathers who supported the formulations in the numbers 84-86 of the Report tried to cover up the spiritually dangerous state of the divorced and remarried. [Of course! Modernists have pretended sin is not sin ever since they came into being over 100 years ago]

De facto, they say to them that their sin of adultery is not a sin, and is definitely not adultery or at least is not a grave sin and that there is no spiritual danger in their state of life. Such a behavior of these Shepherds is directly contrary to the work of the Holy Spirit and is therefore anti-pastoral and a work of the false prophets to whom one could apply the following words of the Holy Scripture: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Is 5:20) and: “Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading” (Lam 2: 14). To such bishops the Apostle Paul without any doubt would say today these words: “Such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13). [WOW. Now this is rare, harsh language from one prelate to another.  Even more, it is a most stinging indictment of Pope Francis, who simply must be the author of all this chaos and division]

The text of the Final Report of the Synod not only omits to convince unambiguously divorced and civilly remarried persons concerning the adulterous and thus gravely sinful character of their life style. It justifies indirectly such a lifestyle by means of assigning this question ultimately in the area of the individual conscience and by means of an improper applying of the moral principle of imputability to the case of cohabitation of the divorced and remarried. In fact, the applying of the principle of imputability to a stable, permanent and public life in adultery is improper and deceptive. [I’d say it’s evil.  It is the worst kind of lie, replacing salvific Truth with satanic falsehood, and consigning potentially tens or hundreds of millions of souls to eternal damnation.  The monstrosity of this inversion of the Truth is truly mind-boggling, and when one considers the source, positively soul-rocking.]

The diminution of the subjective responsibility is given only in the case when the partners have the firm intention to live in complete continence and make sincere efforts therein. As long as the partners intentionally persist to continue a sinful life, there can be no suspension of imputability. The Final Report gives the impression to intimate that a public life style in adultery – as it is the case of civilly remarried – is not violating the indissoluble sacramental bond of a marriage or that it does not represents a mortal or grave sin and that this issue is furthermore a matter of private conscience. Hereby one can state a closer drift towards the Protestant principle of subjective judgement on matters of faith and discipline and intellectual closeness to the erroneous theory of “fundamental option,” a theory already condemned by the Magisterium (cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 65-70). [The “fundamental option” being that all souls, regardless of belief or conduct, were saved by Jesus Christ, and that everyone goes to Heaven automatically, even Adolf Hitler. Bishop Schneider rightly points out the indistinguishable nature of the thinking that encourages such a lowest common denominator view in both morals and with regard to salvation……it is the indifference of a completely worldly mindset that no longer believes really ANY of revealed Truth except the “good stuff.”  It is identical to unitarianism]

……..Those who in our days strongly defend the sanctity of the sacraments of Marriage and Eucharist are labeled as Pharisees. Yet, since the logical principle of non-contradiction is valid and common sense still functions, the contrary is true.

The obfuscators of the Divine truth in the Final Report are more like Pharisees. For in order to reconcile a life in adultery with the reception of Holy Communion, they skillfully invented new letters, a new law of “discernment and integration,” introducing new human traditions against the crystalline commandment of God. To the advocators of the so-called “Kasper agenda” are addressed these words of the Incarnated Truth: “You made void the word of God by introducing your own tradition” (Mark 7: 13). Those who during 2,000 years spoke relentlessly and with an utmost clarity about the immutability of the Divine truth, often at the cost of their own life, would be labelled in our days as Pharisees as well; so Saint John the Baptist, Saint Paul, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Athanasius, Saint Basil, Saint Thomas More, Saint John Fisher, Saint Pius X, just to mention the most glowing examples.

The real result of the Synod in the perception of the faithful and of the secular public opinion was that there has been practically only one focus on the question of the admittance of the divorced to Holy Communion. One can affirm that the Synod in a certain sense turned out to be in the eyes of public opinion a Synod of adultery, not the Synod of family. [Or a Synod of Divorce, even Death] Indeed, all the beautiful affirmations of the Final Report on marriage and family are eclipsed by the ambiguous affirmations in the text section on the divorced and remarried, a topic which was already confirmed and decided by the Magisterium of the last Roman Pontiffs in faithful conformity with the bi-millennial teaching and practice of the Church. It is therefore a real shame that Catholic bishops, the successors of the Apostles, used synodal assemblies in order to make an attempt on the constant and unchangeable practice of the Church regarding the indissolubility of the marriage, i.e. the non-admittance of the divorced who live in an adulterous union to the Sacraments.

Each period of confusion during the history of the Church is at the same time a possibility to receive many graces of strength and courage and a chance to demonstrate one’s love for Christ the Incarnated Truth. To Him each baptized and each priest and bishop promised inviolable fidelity, everyone according to his own state: through the baptismal vows, through the priestly promises, through the solemn promise in the episcopal ordination. Indeed, every candidate to the episcopacy promised: “I will keep pure and integral the deposit of faith according the tradition which was always and everywhere preserved in the Church.” The ambiguity found in the section on divorced and remarried of the Final Reportcontradicts the abovementioned solemn episcopal vow. Notwithstanding this, everyone in the Church – from the simple faithful to the holders of the Magisterium – should say:

“Non possumus!” I will not accept an obfuscated speech nor a skilfully masked back door to a profanation of the Sacrament of Marriage and Eucharist. Likewise, I will not accept a mockery of the Sixth Commandment of God. I prefer to be ridiculed and persecuted rather than to accept ambiguous texts and insincere methods. I prefer the crystalline “image of Christ the Truth, rather than the image of the fox ornamented with gemstones” (Saint Irenaeus), for “I know whom I have believed”, “Scio, Cui credidi!” (2 Tim 1: 12).

———End Quote———-

I left out over half, but I really do encourage you to not let the length intimidate and read all of it.  This is one of the best documents from a current-day prelate I can ever recall reading.  It is a firm defense of the Faith, and an equally firm condemnation of the heterodox “modernizers.”  The criticism of the Pope is most severe.  No, he does not give the emotional satisfaction (over which, we might want to check our motives) of calling the Pope a heretic, but the implications of his condemnations are readily apparent.

God bless Bishop Schneider. May we all follow his call of non possumus.  We will be persecuted for doing so.  We already have bishops on record as saying they will eagerly implement any new “divorce regulations” that come from Pope Francis or he Synod.  As painful as that may be, we must adhere to the Truth that saves.  To do otherwise would be to throw away our own salvation.

The final exhortation raises an interesting point.  Vatican II – by Bishop Schneider’s own admission – is already full of “obfuscated speech.”   And it is also the departure point for the Revolution within the Church (yes Revolution predated but at Vatican II it burst out into the open).  The crisis in the Church is inseparable from the disordered aspects of the concliar texts.  That point must also be recognized, even preached with the same kind of clarity and stridency we see above, if the crisis is ever to be overcome.

Otherwise the modernists will simply resume their march under another guise.

Comments

1. And now we hear from the modernist cabal: Cardinal Weasel’s er Wuerl’s evasive heterodoxy | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics - November 3, 2015

[…] Consider the previous post and this one exhibits A and B for the crisis in the Church.  Exhibit A presented a quite strong orthodox critique of the Synod, exhibit B shows the consummate Church politician (and doctrinal ne’er do well) exhibiting both the naked DISDAIN for souls that most of the hierarchy holds, as well as their inability to ever pronounce clearly on a subject of any controversy.  Cardinal Wuerl, there is a sad appropriateness in your being so long the ordinary of Washington, DC (consider it a test of  your patience to see if you can watch the whole thing): […]

2. L. Chapman - November 3, 2015

Is there any possibility that because of the new wording in the ordination rite at a crucial point, the sacrament of Orders is not valid, and hence the Novus Ordo Mass is not valid? Which would solve all problems, e.g. no sacrilege. Do the N.O. bishops perhaps even operate from such a sensus catholicus?

3. LaGallina - November 3, 2015

Sorry for my cynicism in advance — but we are supposed to be excited because ONE bishop spoke out on behalf of marriage in a long, boring 5000 word statement? No one is going to read that. The population of the world couldn’t care less about Bishop Schneider’s long-winded critique of the synod. 99.99% of people will never hear it or pay the least bit of attention to it. So, really, it will not help the situation whatsoever.

What they wil listen to is a bishop (or better yet, a cardinal) who will forget the 5000 words and simply say these five — “The pope is a heretic.” I’ve checked my motives. And I can say boldly that I do want to see this pope declared a heretic because I’m sick of knowing that millions of souls are being misled by this man in the Vatican who is actively trying to destroy the Church. I’m sick of seeing Holy Mother Church dragged through the mud by the not-so-Holy Father on a daily basis with not even a peep from our priests, bishops, or cardinals. Are they not willing to die to defend the truths of the Church, let alone speak up on Her behalf?

The situation in the Church will never improve until we have forceful prelates bravely challenge the papacy of Francis.

Tantumblogo - November 3, 2015

So nothing short of “The Pope is a heretic” is acceptable?

LaGallina - November 4, 2015

Has any prelate even criticized Francis directly, clearly and firmly? We, the laity, have been in a continuous state of confusion, turmoil, and perhaps even despair for some, directly because of the constant attacks this pope makes against the Catholic faith and against those of us who are trying to live a Catholic life. Yet no one will say, “It’s time to get the enemy out of the Vatican.”

I am sorely disappointed that we did not have any bishops come out to the press to say, “This synod is a sham! The case was closed on communion for the divorced/ remarried long, long ago. This pope is trying to change the teachings of the Catholic Church!”

It’s very hard for me to believe that the great saints of the Church would have hesitated for a second to speak clearly and boldly against such a pope as this — even to his face, if necessary.

When you have a pope whom you wouldn’t trust to teach catechism to your 1st-grader, you know you’ve got a problem. When the leaders of the Catholic Church hate Her teachings more than Jack Chick… (Hmmm. I wonder who hates the Church more — Kasper or Chick? But I digress. Sorry.)

(You’d never know what a happy-go-lucky gal I am! But even happy girls get mad at popes who try to destroy the Church.)

Tantumblogo - November 4, 2015

Cardinal Burke said if the pope/Synod introduced damaging un-Catholic concepts he would oppose them. I think we need to be very careful here. We’re scandalized. We’re offended. And that creates a great deal of emotion. We feel hurt. And our natural reaction when hurt is to see the one who hurt us get hurt back, or at least get some kind of comeuppance. There is a temptation among really devout Catholics to want to see those who have hurt them excoriated in the kinds of terms that would, in a sense, get revenge for that hurt.

The other thing is that we live in a time of hyper-montanism. The role and position of the papacy has become distorted, and excessive fealty is widely accepted as normal. For 150 years or more, Catholic orthodoxy has been equated with “being with the pope.” The experience of Paul VI changed that a bit, primarily for laity, but then 35 years of JPII and PBXVI caused many in the Church, and especially the hierarchy, to go back to being really comfortable with hypermontanism. I say all this, because you’re asking men who have believed for decades that the pope is the sine qua non of orthodoxy to throw that belief aside and suddenly castigate the pope in the strongest terms possible. I think that may be expecting a bit much from frail, fallen men.

Not that I don’t want that. Sure I’d like to see 500 bishops or more suddenly thunder from pulpits against this papacy. I just try to be a little bit realistic. I also try to recognize good things when i see them.I don’t think it helps to lambaste prelates who make a good intervention (and Schneider’s was very good, what you see as its vice, its length, I see as a virtue, as it was a thorough and detailed deconstruction of the modernist ethos) because it doesn’t suit our desires.

And, I’ve said many times before, not everyone is at our own exalted state of perfection. But then again, perhaps we’re not so perfect as we think, and it is possible that our desire for severe condemnations could do more harm than good. When I see good will efforts from those of basically a like mind, I try to give them applause and encourage them. This is also behind my drive for conciliation between the different traditional sects. Firebrands in both the Fraternity and Society are ever ready to go to war with one another and just blast to bits everyone not of their tribe. That is a huge problem and inhibits the effectiveness of traditional response. Instead of looking for faults in the Society, Institute, Fraternity, or diocesan, I try to find ways to build up and work together.

tg - November 4, 2015

Awesome comment, Tandum.

LaGallina - November 4, 2015

Sorry! I did not mean to offend YOU by being less than impressed that 1 bishop in the entire world is speaking out on behalf of marriage. I should say, I wasn’t trying to express my disappointment in your post. I’m glad you look for the bright side. And I love this blog, The Remnant, OnePeterFive, and other traditional sites that don’t encourage fighting between the trads!! That’s why I don’t like the whole sedevacantist movement. They spend most of their time dissing trads.

However, we do need prelates to speak out and speak loud. As for Cardinal Burke, I guess he found nothing objectionable in the synod? I am just hoping and praying for Church leaders to express the Catholic Truth loud and clear! I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.

Tantumblogo - November 4, 2015

I wasn’t offended at all. I was just explaining my rationale for why I think it a good thing to give some credit and understand why prelates may not give us the kind of clear, if perhaps harsh, condemnation we might want. And to be clear, I’d love to see several dozen or several hundred prelates condemn this pontificate in the harshest terms. I just doubt it’s going to happen. We have to hope and pray more of our leaders, appointed or allowed by God for whatever reason, will get there.

You never offend me, mama hen.

4. tg - November 3, 2015

“consider it a test of your patience to see if you can watch the whole thing): ” – I guess I practiced virtue last night by watching the whole thing.:)

5. Margaret Costello - November 5, 2015

Agree with LaGallina…it’s time to stop the emo two step and call a spade a spade i.e. this Pope is a heretic. It’s not emotional, although there can be an emotional satisfaction in finally hearing the truth and witnessing a bishop or cardinal in our day grow a spine.

Objectively this Pope IS a heretic…albeit material for now. This is truth, not emotion, and speaking truth will only set people free, including this lost Pope. It’s time to “man up” and call out this insanity for what it is in clear and simple words like Our Lord did. Lead with reason, truth, logic and the motive to destroy the evil behind all of this…God will do the rest.

God bless~

Tantumblogo - November 5, 2015

Go for it. Start a blog. It’s painfully easy.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: