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

[arfink]

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.

 

I don't. You asked me then if I thought his conscience was pricking him in being concerned about receiving on the hand. I can't know that.

 

What I can know is that when a lay person talks to 3rd parties about how his brother has this flaw, but he can't exactly and explicitly mention what the flaw is or who has it, but that it's bad enough that this person should be considered a traitor, well... that's usually called gossiping.

Edited June 10, 2014 by arfink

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't. You asked me then if I thought his conscience was pricking him in being concerned about receiving on the hand. I can't know that.

 

What I can know is that when a lay person talks to 3rd parties about how his brother has this flaw, but he can't exactly and explicitly mention what the flaw is or who has it, but that it's bad enough that this person should be considered a traitor, well... that's usually called gossiping.

Not necessarily. Bishop Schneider is warning Catholics under his care (in a broad sense) about entities within the Church who are spiritually harmful. He is doing so presumably in the best way he knows how. Unless you actually do read souls, I do not think you are well placed to call that gossip. But he does have a duty to care for the laity. The way in which he goes about that, as I said, there can be different methods. I am not sure what you are getting so annoyed about.

[arfink]

Not necessarily. Bishop Schneider is warning Catholics under his care (in a broad sense) about entities within the Church who are spiritually harmful. He is doing so presumably in the best way he knows how. Unless you actually do read souls, I do not think you are well placed to call that gossip. But he does have a duty to care for the laity. The way in which he goes about that, as I said, there can be different methods. I am not sure what you are getting so annoyed about.

 

I understand that his circumstances, such as his knowledge of the situation and position as a bishop, may change that. I am speaking from the perspective of a lay person, who normally wouldn't be allowed to make such statements.

[Nihil Obstat]

I understand that his circumstances, such as his knowledge of the situation and position as a bishop, may change that. I am speaking from the perspective of a lay person, who normally wouldn't be allowed to make such statements.

I am not sure what we are arguing about then. Why does this annoy you?

 

I do not think such statements from a layperson are necessarily wrong, however a bishop has much more latitude in such a subject.

[Nihil Obstat]

A thought: are the comments in the OP such that His Grace may say them, but a layperson is sinful in repeating them? Because Arfink, you seem to at least be implying it- am I mistaken? And that seems like an odd state of affairs to me.

I am trying to understand here exactly what your reaction even is. It seems rather strong and rather negative, but I am having a very difficult time determining exactly what it is we are actually disagreeing about. I do not think we are simply rehashing the COTT/CITH debate.

[Nihil Obstat]

As was mentioned earlier, none other than Pope St. John Paul II clearly preferred that Communion not be distributed in the hand, though he did allow the indult to be extended. So on that matter, it seems that Bishop Schneider does not overextend himself.
 
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

 

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.

But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!

To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.
 

And then, more recently again, there is Cardinal Ranjith. So Bishop Schneider is, I think, in fairly good company in making his strong preference known. He does not demand everyone agrees with him, but his opinion seems also to be acceptable for us lay Catholics.

[CatherineM]

I don't find Catholic on Catholuc debate worth my time anymore. No one ever agrees with me. People who used to are mostly gone from Phatmass or rarely post. Going against traddies here just gets me hate mail (as I'm sure this will too). I receive on the hand. I prefer it. I rarely see this alledged wide ranging abuse that everyone else sees. It's allowed whether people like it or not, and preferring it does NOT make me a bad Catholic.

[Perigrina]

I don't find Catholic on Catholuc debate worth my time anymore. No one ever agrees with me. People who used to are mostly gone from Phatmass or rarely post. Going against traddies here just gets me hate mail (as I'm sure this will too). I receive on the hand. I prefer it. I rarely see this alledged wide ranging abuse that everyone else sees. It's allowed whether people like it or not, and preferring it does NOT make me a bad Catholic.

 

I'm a trad and I don't think you are a bad Catholic.

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't find Catholic on Catholuc debate worth my time anymore. No one ever agrees with me. People who used to are mostly gone from Phatmass or rarely post. Going against traddies here just gets me hate mail (as I'm sure this will too). I receive on the hand. I prefer it. I rarely see this alledged wide ranging abuse that everyone else sees. It's allowed whether people like it or not, and preferring it does NOT make me a bad Catholic.

I did not see anyone argue either that it is not allowed (except in Sri Lanka, because it is not permitted there) or that you are a bad Catholic because of your opinion. I certainly do not think so, even though our opinions are extremely different.
Some people, including some bishops, do not share your opinion. I do not think that is something to get upset about. Edited June 11, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[Norseman82]

Meanwhile, since he is over the age of 75 and is battling cancer again, Cardinal George has requested that the Vatican start the process of finding a successor to him as Archbishop of Chicago. 

 

How old is Bishop Schneider?

[PhuturePriest]

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.

 

Pope Benedict XVI, while he was still known as Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in a book that the Church is going to get very small and hold little political power in the near future. Those who are not faithful and devoted will leave for the pleasures of the world, and all that will be left will be a small number of solid Catholics who know the faith and believe it wholeheartedly.

[Nihil Obstat]

Pope Benedict XVI, while he was still known as Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in a book that the Church is going to get very small and hold little political power in the near future. Those who are not faithful and devoted will leave for the pleasures of the world, and all that will be left will be a small number of solid Catholics who know the faith and believe it wholeheartedly.

Some people think that is alarmist and exclusivist. ;)

[PhuturePriest]

Some people think that is alarmist and exclusivist. ;)

 

Don't shoot the person repeating what the Pope said. :P

[Nihil Obstat]

Don't shoot the person repeating what the Pope said. :P

Well, not me. God forbid. But I daresay that there are Catholics, maybe even here on Phatmass - who knows, who would call it 'exclusivist' or 'judgemental' to talk about a smaller, purer Church.

[BarbTherese]

I recall reading those words in one of Pope Benedict's books too and it didn't surprise me at all.

The problem from where I sit in South Australia is that homilies are ALWAYS based on the Gospel of The Day and I am not criticizing this, but sometimes homilies could commence with commentaries on the Gospel and lead into catechising and reinforcing what The Church does teach on subjects relevant for those attending Mass i.e. lay people in the main.  Certainly not all the time but regularly some of the time. I haven't heard such a sermon or homily since before V2 I don't think.  Talking with fellow Catholics at various times it is concerning just how really poor is Catholic lay general knowledge on Church teachings.  Rather regularly when I read a commentary on this latter fact, real blame for many problems amongst laity within The Church is laid on the shoulders of lay people themselves.  I do wonder about that assessment.

 

One of the things that did happen post V2 was that within Catholic cultural consciousness (within my awareness) with perhaps many Catholics was an incorrect understanding that everything was being thrown out baby and bathwater too - and we were beginning again.  This of course was not so. People were left floundering - if everything was out the window, what are we supposed to believe etc. now and I think people very often still do flounder in that state of unknowing, and not knowing, they simply adopt what they think it is probably all about.