Thursday, 4 February 2016

Bishop Schneider interviewed

There is a reason why Rorate Caeli Blog, is one of, if not the most widely read Catholic blog in the world along with Father Z. You can check the veracity of my statement at Once again, they have featured for our edification, the wise words of a holy prelate. 

During the vexatious and unethical lawsuit launched upon me by Thomas Rosica, CSB, I received letter of prayer and consolation from Bishop Athanasius Schneider. He is one of the men which we must look to in these difficult times of crisis for the Church. His words below touch the very heart of the crisis and while charitable in his criticisms, he holds nothing back as to the seriousness of the situations facing the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ and each one of us.

Rorate Caeli has given blanket permission for a reprint of their interview with Bishop Schneider and we thank them for it.


SSPX; Women and foot washing; consecrating Russia; anti-pastoral bishops and much more

Last week, Rorate Caeli interviewed His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider, one of the most visible prelates working on the restoration of the traditional Latin Mass and faith, on numerous topics. 

In this wide-ranging interview, His Excellency thoughtfully expounded on issues critical to the Church in this great time of crisis. Read the entire interview so you don't miss His Excellency's thoughts on the current status of the SSPX,women's participation in the Mass and the washing of women's feet, whether Russia was ever truly consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Summorum Pontificum and anti-pastoral bishops and much, much more. 

All may reprint/repost this interview -- but you must credit Rorate Caeli. 

*NB: words in bold by Rorate for emphasis:


Rorate CaeliIn the recent Synod, we will not know the legal impact it will have on the Church for some time, as it’s up to Pope Francis to move next. Regardless of the eventual outcome, for all intent and purposes, is there already a schism in the Church? And, if so, what does it mean practically speaking? How will it manifest itself for typical Catholics in the pews?

H.E. Schneider: Schism means according to the definition of the Code of Canon Law, can. 751: The refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with those members of the Church who are submitted to the Supreme Pontiff. One has to distinguish the defect in belief or heresy from schism. The defect in belief or heresy is indeed a greater sin than schism, as Saint Thomas Aquinas said: “Unbelief is a sin committed against God Himself, according as He is Himself the First Truth, on which faith is founded; whereas schism is opposed to ecclesiastical unity, which is a lesser good than God Himself. Wherefore the sin of unbelief is generically more grievous than the sin of schism” (II-II, q. 39, a. 2 c). 

The very crisis of the Church in our days consists in the ever growing phenomenon that those who don’t fully believe and profess the integrity of the Catholic faith frequently occupy strategic positions in the life of the Church, such as professors of theology, educators in seminaries, religious superiors, parish priests and even bishops and cardinals. And these people with their defective faith profess themselves as being submitted to the Pope. 

The height of confusion and absurdity manifests itself when such semi-heretical clerics accuse those who defend the purity and integrity of the Catholic faith as being against the Pope – as being according to their opinion in some way schismatics. For simple Catholics in the pews, such a situation of confusion is a real challenge of their faith, in the indestructibility of the Church. They have to keep strong the integrity of their faith according to the immutable Catholic truths, which were handed over by our fore-fathers, and which we find in in the Traditional catechisms and in the works of the Fathers and of the Doctors of the Church.   

Rorate Caeli: Speaking of typical Catholics, what will the typical parish priest face now that he didn’t face before the Synod began? What pressures, such as the washing of women’s feet on Maundy Thursday after the example of Francis, will burden the parish priest even more than he is burdened today?

H.E. Schneider: A typical Catholic parish priest should know well the perennial sense of the Catholic faith, the perennial sense as well of the laws of the Catholic liturgy and, knowing this, he should have an interior sureness and firmness. He should always remember the Catholic principle of discernment: “Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus”, i.e. “What has been always, everywhere and from all” believed and practiced. 

The categories “always, everywhere, all” are not to be understood in an arithmetical, but in a moral sense. A concrete criterion for discernment is this: “Does this change in a doctrinal affirmation, in a pastoral or in a liturgical practice constitute a rupture with the centuries-old, or even with the millennial past? And does this innovation really make the faith shine clearer and brighter? Does this liturgical innovation bring to us closer the sanctity of God, or manifest deeper and more beautiful the Divine mysteries? Does this disciplinary innovation really increase a greater zeal for the holiness of life?” 

As concretely to the innovation of washing the feet of women during the Holy Mass of the Last Supper on Holy Thursday: This Holy Mass celebrates the commemoration of the institution of the sacraments of the Eucharist and the Priesthood. Therefore, the foot washing of women along with the men not only distracts from the main focus on Eucharist and on Priesthood, but generates confusion regarding the historical symbolism of the “twelve” and of the apostles being of male sex. The universal tradition of the Church never allowed the foot washing during the Holy Mass, but instead outside of Mass, in a special ceremony. 

By the way: the public washing and usually also kissing of the feet of women on the part of a man, in our case, of a priest or a bishop, is considered by every person of common sense in all cultures as being improper and even indecent. Thanks be to God no priest or bishop is obliged to wash publicly the feet of women on Holy Thursday, for there is no binding norm for it, and the foot washing itself is only facultative.    


Rorate Caeli: A non-typical situation in the church is the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Why does Your Excellency think that so many Catholics are afraid of the SSPX or anxious about any association with it? From what Your Excellency has seen, what gifts do you think the SSPX can bring to the mainstream Church?

H.E. Schneider: When someone or something is unimportant and weak, nobody has fear of it. Those who have fear of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X ultimately have fear of the perennial Catholic truths and of its demands in the moral and the liturgical domain. 

When the SSPX tries to believe, to worship and to live morally the way our fore-fathers and the best-known Saints did during a millennial period, then one has to consider the life and the work of these Catholic priests and faithful of the SSPX as a gift for the Church in our days – even as one of the several instruments which the Divine Providence uses to remedy the enormity of the current general crisis of the faith, of the morals and of the liturgy inside the Church. 

In some sectors of the SSPX there are, however, as it is the case in every human society some eccentric personalities. They have a method and a mindset which lack justice and charity and consequently the true “sentire cum ecclesia,” and there is the danger of an ecclesial autocephaly and to be the last judicial instance in the Church. However, to my knowledge, the healthier part corresponds to the major part of the SSPX and I consider their General Superior, His Excellency Monsignor Bernard Fellay, as an exemplarily and true Catholic bishop. There is some hope for a canonical recognition of the SPPX.   


Rorate Caeli: Back on the Synod, while focusing on tradition, does Your Excellency believe that the changes in the Roman liturgy post-Vatican II contributed to the current crisis in the Church, the crisis of marriage, the family and societal morality in general??

H.E. Schneider:  I wouldn’t affirm this in such a way. Indeed the very source of the current crisis in the Church, the crisis of marriage, of the family and of the morality in general is not the liturgical reform, but the defects in faith, the doctrinal relativism, from which flows the moral and liturgical relativism. For, if I believe in a defective manner, I will live a defective moral life and I will worship in a defective, indifferent manner. It is necessary first to restore the clearness and firmness of the doctrine of faith and of morals in all levels and, from there, start to improve the liturgy. The integrity and the beauty of the faith demands the integrity and the beauty of one’s moral life and this demands the integrity and the beauty of the public worship.

Rorate Caeli: Still on the Synod, it is clear to those with eyes to see that Pope Francis caused confusion instead of clarity in the Synod process, and encouraged a turn toward rupture by elevating the role of Cardinals Kaspar and Danneels, Archbishop Cupich, etc. What is the proper attitude a Catholic should have towards the pope in these troubled times? Are Catholics obliged to make their views known and “resist” as Cardinal Burke said in an interview last year with us, even when their views are critical of the pope?

H.E. Schneider: For several past generations until our days there reigns in the life of the Church a kind of “pope-centrism” or a kind of “papolatria” which is undoubtedly excessive compared with the moderate and supernatural vision of the person of the Pope and his due veneration in the past times. Such an excessive attitude towards the person of the Pope generates in the practice an excessive and wrong theological meaning regarding the dogma of the Papal infallibility. 

If the Pope would tell the entire church to do something, which would directly damage an unchangeable Divine truth or a Divine commandment, every Catholic would have the right to correct him in a due respectful form, moved out of reverence and love for the sacred office, and person of the Pope. The Church is not the private property of the Pope. The Pope can’t say “I am the Church,” as it did the French king Louis XIV, who said: “L’État c’est moi.” The Pope is only the Vicar, not the successor of Christ.

The concerns about the purity of the faith is ultimately a matter of all members of the Church, which is one, and a unique living body. In the ancient times before entrusting to someone the office of a priest and of a bishop, the faithful were asked if they can guarantee that the candidate had the right faith, and a high moral conduct. The old Pontificale Romanum says: “The captain of a ship and its passengers alike have reason to feel safe or else in danger on a voyage, therefore they ought to be of one mind in their common interests.” It was the Second Vatican Council, which very much encouraged the lay faithful to contribute to the authentic good of the Church, in strengthening the faith. 

I think in a time in which a great part of the holders of the office of the Magisterium are negligent in their sacred duty, the Holy Spirit calls today, namely the faithful, to step into the breach and defend courageously with an authentic “sentire cum ecclesia” the Catholic faith.


Rorate Caeli: Is the pope the measure of tradition, or is he measured by tradition? And should faithful Catholics pray for a traditional pope to arrive soon?

H.E. Schneider: The Pope is surely not the measure of tradition, but on the contrary. We must always bear in mind the following dogmatic teaching of the First Vatican Council: The office of the successors of Peter does not consist in making known some new doctrine, but in guarding and faithfully expounding the deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles (cf. Constitutio dogmatica Pastor aeternus, cap. 4). 

In fulfilling one of his most important tasks, the Pope has to strive so that “the whole flock of Christ might be kept away from the poisonous food of error” (First Vatican Council, ibd.).  The following expression which was in use since the first centuries of the Church, is one of the most striking definitions of the Papal office, and has to be in some sense a second nature of every Pope: “Faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith” (First Vatican Council, ibd.). 

We must always pray that God provides His Church with traditional-minded Popes. However, we have to believe in these words: “It is not for you to have knowledge of the time and the order of events which the Father has kept in his control” (Acts 1: 7). 

Rorate Caeli:  We know there are many bishops and cardinals – possibly the majority – who want to change the Church's doctrinal language and long-standing discipline, under the excuses of "development of doctrine" and "pastoral compassion." What is wrong with their argument?

H.E. Schneider: Expressions like "development of doctrine" and "pastoral compassion" are in fact usually a pretext to change the teaching of Christ, and against its perennial sense and integrity, as the Apostles had transmitted it to the whole Church, and it was faithfully preserved through the Fathers of the Church, the dogmatic teachings of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Popes. 

Ultimately, those clerics want another Church, and even another religion: A naturalistic religion, which is adapted to the spirit of the time. Such clerics are really wolves in sheep’s clothing, often flirting with the world. Not courageous shepherds – but rather cowardly rabbits.    


Rorate Caeli: We hear a lot about the role of women in the Church today – the so-called “feminine genius.” Women obviously have played a critical role in the Church since the beginning, starting with the Blessed Virgin Mary. But liturgically, Christ made His position crystal clear, as have pre-Conciliar popes. Does Your Excellency believe that female involvement in the liturgy, whether it’s women taking part in the Novus Ordo Mass or girl altar boys, has played a positive or negative role in the Church the last four decades?

H.E. Schneider: There is no doubt about the fact that the female involvement in the liturgical services at the altar (reading the lecture, serving at the altar, distributing Holy Communion) represents a radical rupture with the entire and universal tradition of the Church. Therefore, such a practice is against the Apostolic tradition. 

Such a practice gave to the liturgy of the Holy Mass a clear Protestant shape and a characteristic of an informal prayer meeting or of a catechetical event. This practice is surely contrary to the intentions of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council and there is not in the least an indication for it in the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy.


Rorate Caeli: Your Excellency is well known for celebrating the traditional Latin Mass in many places around the world. What does Your Excellency find to be the deepest lessons learned from saying the Latin Mass, as a priest and as a bishop, that other priests and bishops may hope to gain by saying the traditional Mass themselves?

H.E. Schneider: The deepest lessons I learned from celebrating the traditional form of the Mass is this: I am only a poor instrument of a supernatural and utmost sacred action, whose principal celebrant is Christ, the Eternal High Priest. I feel that during the celebration of the Mass I lost in some sense my individual freedom, for the words and the gesture are prescribed even in their smallest details, and I am not able to dispose of them. I feel most deeply in my heart that I am only a servant and a minister who yet with free will, with faith and love, fulfill not my will, but the will of Another. 

The traditional and more than millennial-old rite of the Holy Mass, which not even the Council of Trent changed, because the Ordo Missae before and after that Council was almost identical, proclaims and powerfully evangelizes the Incarnation and the Epiphany of the ineffably saintly and immense God, who in the liturgy as “God with us,” as “Emmanuel,” becomes so little and so close to us. The traditional rite of the Mass is a highly artfully and, at the same time, a powerful proclamation of the Gospel, realizing the work of our salvation. 

Rorate Caeli: If Pope Benedict is correct in saying that the Roman Rite currently (if strangely) exists in two forms rather than one, why has it not yet happened that all seminarians are required to study and learn the traditional Latin Mass, as part of their seminary training? How can a parish priest of the Roman Church not know both forms of the one rite of his Church? And how can so many Catholics still be denied the traditional Mass and sacraments if it is an equal form?

H.E. Schneider: According to the intention of Pope Benedict XVI, and the clear norms of the Instruction “Universae Ecclesiae,” all Catholic seminarians have to know the traditional form of the Mass and be able to celebrate it. The same document says that this form of Mass is a treasure for the entire Church – thus it is for all of the faithful. 

Pope John Paul II made an urgent appeal to all bishops to accommodate generously the wish of the faithful regarding the celebration of the traditional form of the Mass. When clerics and bishops obstruct or restrict the celebration of the traditional Mass, they don’t obey what the Holy Spirit says to the Church, and they are acting in a very anti-pastoral way. They behave as the possessors of the treasure of the liturgy, which does not belong to them, for they are only administrators.

In denying the celebration of the traditional Mass or in obstructing and discriminating against it, they behave like an unfaithful and capricious administrator who – contrary to the instructions of the house-father – keeps the pantry under lock or like a wicked stepmother who gives the children a meager fare. Perhaps such clerics have fear of the great power of the truth irradiating from the celebration of the traditional Mass. One can compare the traditional Mass with a lion: Let him free, and he will defend himself.   


Rorate Caeli: There are many Russian Orthodox where Your Excellency lives. Has Alexander of Astana or anyone else in the Moscow Patriarchate asked Your Excellency about the recent Synod or about what is happening to the Church under Francis? Do they even care at this point?

H.E. Schneider: Those Orthodox Prelates, with whom I have contact, generally are not well informed about the internal current disputes in the Catholic Church, or at least they had never spoken with me about such issues. Even though they don’t recognize the jurisdictional primacy of the Pope, they nevertheless look on the Pope as the first hierarchical office in the Church, from a point of view of the order of protocol.

Rorate Caeli: We are just a year away from the 100th anniversary of Fatima. Russia was arguably not consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and certainly not converted. The Church, while ever spotless, is in complete disarray – maybe worse than during the Arian Heresy. Will things get even worse before they get better and how should truly faithful Catholics prepare for what is coming?

H.E. Schneider: We have to believe firmly: The Church is not ours, nor the Pope’s. The Church is Christ’s and He alone holds and leads her indefectibly even through the darkest periods of crisis, as our current situation indeed is. 

This is a demonstration of the Divine character of the Church. The Church is essentially a mystery, a supernatural mystery, and we cannot approach her as we approach a political party or a pure human society. At the same time, the Church is human and on her human level she is nowadays enduring a sorrowful passion, participating in the Passion of Christ. 

One can think that the Church in our days is being flagellated as our Lord, is being denuded as was Our Lord, on the tenth Cross station. The Church, our mother, is being bound in cords not only by the enemies of Christ but also by some of their collaborators in the rank of the clergy, even sometimes of the high clergy.

All good children of Mother Church as courageous soldiers we have to try to free this mother – with the spiritual weapons of defending and proclaiming the truth, promoting the traditional liturgy, Eucharistic adoration, the crusade of the Holy Rosary, the battle against the sin in one’s private life and striving for holiness. 

We have to pray that the Pope may soon consecrate explicitly Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, then She will win, as the Church prayed since the old times: “Rejoice O Virgin Mary, for thou alone have destroyed all heresies in the whole world” (Gaude, Maria Virgo, cunctas haereses sola interemisti in universo mundo).

Click here to follow @RorateCaeli on Twitter

[Original posting time: February 1, 2016, 6 AM GMT]


Anonymous said...

Bishop Athanasius Schneider is truly a living Saint. May God walk beside him and those who defend the faith. Abundant prayers offered for all the Holy men given to us during this very difficult time.

Anonymous said...

I am so grateful for this interview and I love Rorate! But Fr. Z . . . lately it has been an endless reporting of food, guns and ham radio. Nowhere near as substantive as Rorate or your blog.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Schneider is a rock -- steadfast, solid and without equivocation. Dear Lord, thank you for this Bishop. Protect him from the wickedness and snares of the devil. Help us to follow him in the spiritual battle of our times.

Anonymous said...

There is great evidence being active in church ministry for the first several centuries.

Guest said...


Anonymous said...

"Bernard Fellay, an exemplarily and true Catholic bishop"

Well... It seems to be truly the case. Fellay continually acts in a kind of submission to his Pope, like a puppy, as the canonical law enforces him to do, as long as Bergoglio promises him a red hat.

The same can't be said about Schneider. If he keeps speaking like that about Bergoglio, he'll be eligible to be the next "mercied" prelate. For now, Schneider can enjoy his position as para-Pope of the traditionalists beside Burke.

Schneider is the typical valiant bureaucrat, who always speaks solemnly against a non-specific entity without never naming him. A good orator, but not an idiot.

Eirene said...

Please someone explain the reference of the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary! A devout R.C. friend of mine says it has already been done (I am Coptic Orthodox - so I wouldn't know).
Seems to me important enough to be verified totally (or not!). Thank you everyone.

Vox Cantoris said...


That is the million dollar question.

I attest that it has not been done because "Russia" has never been mentioned, specifically; only the "world." You cannot look to history and find when it was done. It simply was not.

The problem is that it begs the question, was Sister Lucia, delusional or confused over some other Catholic prophesy? Well, they accept that Our Lady of Fatima is more than a "private revelation" after all, there are churches named after Her and there is a feast day. So, the Vatican must believe it happened. Then why would they not believe Lucia on this? Was Lucia delusional, she could not have been.

No, they have not done it and then that gets in to the whole conspiracy theory about the Third Secret and was it released in its entirely.

There are books, The Secret Still Hidden by Christopher Ferrara and The Fourth Secret by Antonio Socci that deal with this.

Personally, what do I think?

1. The Consecration was not done because they wanted Ostpolitik with Russia and they could not understand how Russia's evils would undermine the Church.

2. Russia's evils are already spread and the West has now become culturally, secularist/humanist/atheist/communist/fascist/homosexualist and that is the error, the Russia of then is not the Russia of now.

3. That is not to say that a consecration today would be meaningless, more on that in a moment.

4. I believe that the untold secret which the Church contends was released in 2000 was not. That "secret" describes a bishop in white walking over dead bodies on a hill and falling victim to an army. Well, that is not new, Pius X had a vision as have other Catholic mystics. What is missing is, why?

5. I believe that what the secret holds that is not released would undermine the authority of popes and bishops for a sixty years nearly. I believe it warned of; a Council that would be taken over by Satan, the liturgy would be undermined in order to weaken the faith, the great apostasy is upon us and the Mohammedans will overrun Rome and destroy St. Peter's and murder the pope.

6. In my view, today, the Consecration of Russia, would be an immense outpouring of grace to reawaken Russia to its true Christian mission as Holy Mother Russia to recognise immediately the need to unite with Rome under Peter and come to his rescue and that of Europe from the hordes of Islam and securlarism and a re-evangelisation of the world.

Then again, I could be totally wrong, but world events seem to point to it.

Mark Thomas said...

Rorate Caeli asked Bishop Schneider the following question: "...does Your Excellency believe that the changes in the Roman liturgy post-Vatican II contributed to the current crisis in the Church, the crisis of marriage, the family and societal morality in general?"

Bishop Schneider answered: "I wouldn’t affirm this in such a way. Indeed the very source of the current crisis in the Church, the crisis of marriage, of the family and of the morality in general is not the liturgical reform..."

That answer places Bishop Schneider at odds with every Traditional Catholic I have ever met or whose opinions on the state of the Roman Liturgy I have encountered on Traditional Catholic blogs. The liturgical "reform" (revolution) is not the primary source of the horrific crisis in which the Church is engulfed? I am amazed that Bishop Schneider offered that statement.

The party line from our Churchmen is that the collapse of the (Latin) Church is not the result of the Novus Ordo liturgical "reform" (revolution). If Rorate Caeli quoted Bishop Schneider correctly, then Bishop Schneider very much accepts and promotes the party line in question.

Again, it's difficult to believe that Bishop Schneider has refused to link the horrific crisis which has engulfed the Church to the liturgical "reform".



Mark Thomas

Ana Milan said...

Is it not time for Traditional Catholics to admit that all of our prelates are post Vatican II, have been nurtured in its heresies to at least some extent, have embraced Modernism, been appointed to their lofty positions by questionable popes, many prelates being of the gay variety hell bent on overturning the Ten Commandments to suit their LGBT agenda and have no intention of threatening those positions in any way. Bishop Schneider has already told us (the laity) that it will be our duty to restore Christ's Church on earth as those who should are too weak and afraid of losing the position they presently hold.

We could, I believe, insist on the consecration of Russia to be carried out correctly as per Our Lady's wishes, as to continue in their disobedience brings shame on the whole CC and threatens mankind. The many petitions I've signed seem to have had no effect whatsoever, so maybe the time has come for a worldwide blanket denial of donations via Mass collections with written notes to explain why instead. If people would come together and do this it could have a prompt & desired effect, but can you depend on the public co-operating? Probably not, but it would actively support Bishop Schneider, Cardinals Burke & Sarah etc. and back-up our prayers for a successful conclusion to Our Lady's request.

The Pope needs to get firm with his Bishops & Cardinals and give the order to comply under threat of Latae Sententiae (removal from their offices), otherwise they will continue to resist. Of course, if PF does not consider himself the Vicar of Christ (or worse if he doesn't believe in God) then the laity must continue in their civil disobedience to donate alms until the message is received & acted on. Even in the CC money is the bottom line & the laity should use the power that gives them.

hitherandfro said...

In response to Eirene's question, you can find your answer Eirene by logging onto or you can watch interviews with Father Gruner on you tube.

Father Gruner dedicated his entire life towards working on the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Father Gruner has recently passed away, we miss him dearly but his work continues.

He explains the attempt on the consecration made by Pope John Paul ii.

God Bless.

Catholic Mission said...

Bishop Schneider like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and SSPX bishops and priests confuses what is invisible as being visible.Card. Gerhard Muller and Pope Francis do the same.So Vatican Council II becomes a break with the past

Dorota said...

@ Mark Thomas

I am convinced that a Catholic who is faithful to Church teaching will remain so, even if he attends Novus Ordo Mass only. Having grown up in Poland, I never knew the Latin Mass, nor did my Parents (except for when they were very young).
A Catholic who neither knows nor is interested in knowing Church teaching or upholding it, will not be helped by the Latin Mass. He will go home and continue in his errors.
The main point of the Church is bringing people to salvation, not to the Latin Mass.

Jesus said not to follows false doctrines, teachings other than the ones He gave us. It just so happens that Latin Masses are said by priests who teach sound Catholicism as well. One can erroneously deduce that it some magic of the Mass, when it is faithfulness to Jesus and His doctrines.

Dorota said...

Vox, you are saying:

"In my view, today, the Consecration of Russia, would be an immense outpouring of grace to reawaken Russia to its true Christian mission as Holy Mother Russia to recognise immediately the need to unite with Rome under Peter and come to his rescue and that of Europe from the hordes of Islam and securlarism and a re-evangelisation of the world."

What "Peter" do you have in mind? Bergoglio, who is applying pressure on the EU and North America to accept all these "refugees" as a Christian obligation? This "Peter" is the engine (at least an important part of it) behind unification of all religions, and a basher of faithful Christians as extremists. He spends more time bashing faithful Catholic as extremists than murderous militant Islamists as such.

It is because of Bergoglio that Polish bishops, who are still somewhat patriotic (Like JPII was) and catholic, despite the resistance of the Nation to the imposed EU refugee quotas, are talking about the necessity to bring these people to Poland as our Christian duty.

It is Bergoglio and his supporters among the hierarchy (or rather the globalist masons who have infiltrated the Church, and their Bergoglio) who are responsible for the "refugee" flood here in the USA and Canada as well.

Mark Thomas said...

Dorota, I am convinced that a Catholic who desires to remain Faithful to the Church will do so even, as you noted, if he attends the "Novus Ordo Mass only". Even if the Mass is the most banal imaginable, a determined Catholic will remain Faithful to the Church.

That said, not everybody's sense of or commitment to the Faith is the same. Therefore, to make Herself known and understood beyond question, Holy Mother Church imbued Her rites with a profound sense of Catholicism. Traditional Catholic rites, Eastern and Western, are majestic and powerful. While perhaps a bit more subdued than as found amongst Her Eastern Churches, Latin Church rites were nevertheless majestic and unmistakably Catholic. That applies to the Traditional rite of Mass known as the TLM.

The TLM is so majestic and awesome that throughout its history, the TLM converted entire continents to the Faith. The TLM filled churches with countless Faithful who defended and promoted the True Religion with their blood. The TLM inspired people within and without the Church to produce great music, literature, and art.

The bottom line is that the TLM has an undeniable history of having drawn countless souls to the True Church. I ask the following with a profound sense of sadness:

Honestly, Dorota, does any of the above apply to the Novus Ordo?

Dorota, the very men who "manufactured" (then-Cardinal Ratzinger's word) the Novus Ordo acknowledged that they watered-down the Novus Ordo of its sense of Catholicism to advance the cause of the Ecumenical Movement.

It is simply undeniable that as compared to the Traditional Latin Mass, the Novus Ordo contains watered-down prayers and rites. As compared to the TLM, the Novus Ordo has a reduced amount of sacred Catholic gestures.

The TLM, as compared to the Novus Ordo, is far more powerful in conveying the Catholic Faith to the people in the pews. Unlike the Novus Ordo, the TLM was not developed by Churchmen who were determined to water-down the Faith for purposes of ecumenism.

Dorota, you may disagree, but it's my opinion that the TLM, as compared to the Novus Ordo, is more likely to form people in the Catholic Faith.

Why is the Novus Ordo collapsing almost everywhere throughout the Church? Conversely, why, despite a great effort among bishops and priests to curtail the TLM, the Traditional Latin Mass continues to flourish throughout the Church?

Why do Novus Ordo parishes close? Why do Novus Ordo seminaries close? Why is one religious order after another attached to the Novus Ordo dying? Conversely, why do TLM-only parishes flourish? Why are TLM seminaries filled? Why do vocations abound among TLM-only religious orders?

Even where Novus Ordo parishes are staffed by solid priests who offer the Mass reverently, Mass attendance often remains low. Why? Why has the Novus Ordo failed to attract worshipers and converts as effectively as the TLM?

Yes, Dorota, many holy Catholics assist at Novus Ordo Masses. At Novus Ordo parishes, countless brothers in sisters in the Faith at far holier than I. However, I am convinced that there is a substantial difference in the ability of each Mass to convey the Catholic Faith. I believe that as compared to the Novus Ordo, the TLM does so in superior fashion. I am aware that we disagree on that. Peace to you and your family.


Mark Thomas

Catholic Mission said...

Mark Thomas:

Imagine Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider announcing in public that all non Catholics need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions and that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II

Mark Thomas said...

Catholic Mission, I am aware that you agree with Bishop Schneider in that the crisis within the Church is not linked to the liturgical reform. I disagree with you and Bishop Schneider in that regard. But I will continue to read the arguments in regard to the crisis of faith that you and Bishop Schneider offer. I am open to exploring the information and arguments that you offer.


Mark Thomas

Catholic Mission said...

Bishop Athansius Schneider thinks the doctrinal aspect is important.But he is vague.
He is correct though when he notices that it is doctrine which determines the faith at Mass, Traditional Latin Mass (TLM ) or Novus Ordo.
So the issue is do we interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents with Feeneyism or Cushingism ? This decides doctrine.It is the difference between tradition and liberalism
The bishop is a Cushingite, unfortunately.For him there are 'known exceptions' to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and there are 'known exceptions' in Vatican Council to the pre- Council of Trent interpretation of the dogma EENS. This is magisterial so he has to follow it, to remain in full communion with the Church.
So today we have the TLM offered with a heretical doctrine and Catholic religious, ecclesiasitical leaders, are teaching a new doctrine. They at least, do not beleive in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the political correct position at the TLM.
The SSPX is part of the problem here.

Mark Thomas said...

Catholic Mission, one of the problems that I have with your notion is that just about everybody within the Church espouses supposedly "heresy". His Holiness Pope Francis, Bishop Schneider, Bishop Fellay and the SSPX, FSSP, one Cardinal, bishop, and priest after another...everybody except you and a microscopic amount of Catholics espouse heresy. Is that realistic to believe?

Even during the Arian crisis, there was a bit more than a handful of orthodox Catholics. But based upon that which I have read on your blog, not even a handful of Catholics agree with your understanding of EENS.

I realize that you insist that your understanding of EENS is simply that of the Church's. But do Pope Francis, Bishop Schneider, Bishop Fellay (and SSPX), FSSP, ICK all misunderstand the Church's teaching on EENS? Every one of them espouses heresy? Every one?

Sorry, that doesn't seem rational to me.

Even more unbelievable to me is that I read on your blog today that even "the St. Benedict Centers, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA, they interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism."

You mean, for example, that even Saint Benedict Abbey (first Abbot Right Reverend Gabriel Gibbs, requiescat in pace, and today, Right Reverend Xavier Connelly) espouses heresy? I am very family with the Abbey and have found it uplifting and orthodox.

I hope to continue to read your posts here and on your blog. But I find it difficult to believe that from Saint Benedict Abbey to the SSPX, to the FSSP, to the ICK, to Cardinal Burke, to Bishop Schneider, to Pope Francis, that all have fallen into heresy.


Mark Thomas

Catholic Mission said...

Mark Thomas
There is a wonderful choice before Deacon Edward Schaefer

Catholic Mission said...

Mark Thomas

This is a good point.Can all of them be in heresy ? Can the magisterium be in heresy? And what is the precise heresy ?

I think in general the SSPX and conservative Catholics say that the present Church is a break with the past.Aside from the traditionalists, in the SSPX, even the traditionalists at the St.Benedict Center say Fr. leonard Feeney was de fide and the present understanding of the dogma is not traditional or correct. It is a rupture with the non-heretical teachings over the centuries before the Council of Trent.
So in a way it is not only me who is saying they are in heresy in the present times or that the present magisterium does not contradict the past magisterium.

Secondly, if any pope or religious, uses an irrational premise and inference to interpret magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II, the conclusion has to be irrational, non traditional- and heretical.

Bishop Bernard Fellay has on line interpreted Vatican Council II using the false premise and inference.You can read it on my blog.
Cardinal Walter Kaspar has done the same. I have pointed it out precisely on my blog. This is a factual error.
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J has done the same.
So if any one makes an objective mistake in the interpretation the result has to be heretical.
It is something obvious. It can be checked on line.
The error is there in two papers of the International Theological Commission and the traditionalists at the SSPX and SBC have not noticed it, since they make the same error.
-Lionel Andrades

Paul said...

Evreyone ignore the Feeneyite troll; he can't be reasoned with nor can you have a profitable debate. He'll always work in every reply of his somehow that the reason for problems in the Church (of any sort) is that the Church doesn't believe in Feeneyite EENS.

Catholic Mission said...

The issue is not just the dogma EENS but Vatican Council II. How do you interpret Vatican Council II ?.
You can interpret Lumen Gentium 16 (being saved in invincible ignorannce with or without the baptism of water) as referring to objectively visible cases or objectively invisible cases. So there is a choice. One choice is Feeneyite and the other is not.One choice is traditional and the other is not. One choice is rational and the other is not and one choice is heretical.

So there are two ways of reasoning and this may directly not have anything to do with the dogma EENS.

The contemporary Church does not believe in Feeneyite EENS, as compared to the pre. Council of Trent Church, this is a given.However the issue is how do you interpret Vatican Council II?

Cardinal Ottaviani was a Cushingite like Pope John XXIII.Those who participated in the Council of Florence were Feeneyites -2

Catholic Mission said...

Objectively speaking Jews need to believe and be baptised or else be condemned - Chris Ferrara