Blunt Words From Bp. Athanasius Schneider On The Crisis In The Church

[KnightofChrist]

If he's right Christ is being trampled on and abused, again. 

[Perigrina]

It seems to me that receiving on the hand or tongue is one of those "legitimate diversities".

 

Receiving in the hand is not intrinsically wrong and it is permitted by the Church.  Therefore it is legitimate.  However, in practice, there are a lot of problems with it.  As I recall, all the popes since it was introduced have written about abuses of it.

 

Pope Benedict did not allow people to receive in the hand at Masses he celebrated.  This was a major factor in my decision to switch to receiving on the tongue.  

[Perigrina]

Sadly the West lacks a strong tradition of lay involvement. The Greeks have great lay saints like St Maximos the Confessor who carried tremendous influence. In the Latin West most people were uncultivated and so there role was simply to follow the ecclesiastics who were literate and capable of sound decisions. Times have changed of course, and I feel there is a certain moral responsibility to do something in face of a serious collapse and crisis. The rejection of transubstantiation has been an issue for decades, and yes changing the way we receive and catechesis have been big parts of this but of course it goes much deeper, and it was addressed by Cardinal Ottaviani when changes to the Mass were first proposed. I feel we can't simply sit and wait, action must be taken. The USCCB isn't going to fix this let alone address it anytime soon, we need to do something and it need not be radical.

 

What exactly could we do?

[arfink]

To be honest, upon a second reading, his words don't seem very blunt at all. :P Just a slightly more emphatic and baroque repeating of what we already have heard from our other pastors, with the exception of his unusual comparison of people in irregular marriages to diabetics and his unusual comparison of receiving in the state of mortal sin to receiving on the hand.

Edited June 10, 2014 by arfink

[CrossCuT]

Receiving in the hand is not intrinsically wrong and it is permitted by the Church.  Therefore it is legitimate.  However, in practice, there are a lot of problems with it.  As I recall, all the popes since it was introduced have written about abuses of it.

 

Pope Benedict did not allow people to receive in the hand at Masses he celebrated.  This was a major factor in my decision to switch to receiving on the tongue.  

 

I grew up receiving on the tongue as my parish didnt allow it in the hand. They even have a kneeling rail as well that people had to kneel on instead of standing.

 

But I am not opposed to the alternative. 

[Perigrina]

To be honest, upon a second reading, his words don't seem very blunt at all. :P Just a slightly more emphatic and baroque repeating of what we already have heard from our other pastors, with the exception of his unusual comparison of people in irregular marriages to diabetics and his unusual comparison of receiving in the state of mortal sin to receiving on the hand.

 

He was not comparing receiving in the state of mortal sin to receiving in the hand.  He was saying that these are both problems for different reasons.

[KnightofChrist]

If he's right Christ is being trampled on and abused, again. 

 

And I don't believe most defenders of communion in the hand really want to face this reality.

[Ice_nine]

I pick up what he's putting down

[Nihil Obstat]

To be honest, upon a second reading, his words don't seem very blunt at all. :P Just a slightly more emphatic and baroque repeating of what we already have heard from our other pastors, with the exception of his unusual comparison of people in irregular marriages to diabetics and his unusual comparison of receiving in the state of mortal sin to receiving on the hand.

It seems to me that most pastors are not willing to speak about a crisis in the Church, at least not with near the specificity as Bishop Schneider.

[Nihil Obstat]

It seems to me that most pastors are not willing to speak about a crisis in the Church, at least not with near the specificity as Bishop Schneider.

For instance:
 

‘We are a minority. We are surrounded by a very cruel pagan world. The temptation and challenge of today can be compared with the first centuries. Christians were asked to accept the pagan world and to show this by putting one grain of incense into a fire in front of the statue of the Emperor or of a pagan idol. But this was idolatry and no good Christian put any grain of incense there. They preferred to give their lives, even children, lay people, who were persecuted, gave their lives. Unfortunately there were in the first century members of the clergy and even bishops who put grains of incense in front of the statue of the Emperor or of a pagan idol or who delivered the books of the Holy Scripture to be burned. Such collaborationist Christians and clerics were called in those times “thurificati” or “traditores”.
‘Now, in our days the persecution is more sophisticated. Catholics or clergy are not asking to put some incense in front of an idol. It would be only material. Now, they neo-pagan world wants us to take over its ideas, such as the dissolution of the Sixth Commandment of God, on the pretext of mercy. If some clergy and bishops start to collaborate with the pagan world today in this dissolution of the Sixth Commandment and in the revision of the way God created man and woman, then they are traitors of the Faith, they are participating ultimately in pagan sacrifice.’

It is not 'blatant', in a sense, but in context this quote is very clear. Bishop Schneider, without naming names, has indicated that there are clergy and even bishops in the Church who are traitors, for the reasons he specified. He is not speaking about some hypothetical.

[Credo in Deum]

Bravo Bishop Schneider!

[Nihil Obstat]

Interestingly Arfink, the more I re-read this interview, the more radical I find Bishop Schneider's position to be.
 
There are few with the courage, and fewer still with the authority and position to be taken seriously who would say this:
 
Q. Can you see a split coming in the Church?
BAS: â€˜Unfortunately, for some decades some clergy have accepted these ideas of the world. Now however they are following them publicly. When these things continue, I think, there will be an interior split in the Church of those who are faithful to the faith of their baptism and of the integrity of the Catholic faith. There will be a split with those who are assuming the spirit of this world and there will be a clear split, I think. One can imagine that Catholics, who remain faithful to the unchangeable Catholic truth may, for a time, be persecuted or discriminated even on behalf of those who has power in the exterior structures of the Church? But the gates of the hell, i.e. of the heresy, will not prevail against the Church and the Supreme Magisterium will surely issue an unequivocal doctrinal statement, rejecting any collaboration with the neo-pagan ideas of changing e.g. the Sixth Commandment of God, the meaning of sexuality and of family. Then some 'liberals', and many collaborators with the spirit of this world, many modern “thurificati et traditores” will leave the Church. Because the Divine truth will unresistingly bring the clarification, will set us free, and will separate in the midst of the Church the sons of the Divine light and the sons of the of the pseudo-light of this pagan and anti-Christian world. I can presume that such a separation will affect each level of the Catholics: lay people and even not excluding the high clergy. Those clergy who accept today the spirit of the pagan world on morality and family declare themselves Catholics and even faithful to the Pope. They even declare extremists those who are faithful to the Catholic faith or those who are promoting the glory of Christ in the liturgy.’


This is nearly unprecedented honesty. He is predicting, in essence, a deep schism, and one which implicates even prelates, even cardinals. Like I said, he names no names, nor in general circumstances should he, but Catholics should take his words to heart and be prepared for persecution.

[arfink]

For instance:
 

It is not 'blatant', in a sense, but in context this quote is very clear. Bishop Schneider, without naming names, has indicated that there are clergy and even bishops in the Church who are traitors, for the reasons he specified. He is not speaking about some hypothetical.

 

Well if he sees traitors maybe it should be his duty to actually point them out and also to directly name what they're trying to encourage instead of using the fluffy and indiscriminate "dissolution of the sixth commandment," as though sexuality was too taboo to speak of.
 

[Nihil Obstat]

Well if he sees traitors maybe it should be his duty to actually point them out and also to directly name what they're trying to encourage instead of using the fluffy and indiscriminate "dissolution of the sixth commandment," as though sexuality was too taboo to speak of.
 

Maybe it should, maybe it should not. I recall you saying that you do not read souls.

I am inclined to think that there are perhaps several valid methods at this point in time.

[fides' Jack]

Nihil - this looks like a good read.  Thanks - I will read it when I have a chance.