Beware of Bishop Schneider

[Kateri89]

8 hours ago, Delivery said:

I apologise. I agree with you. I didn't need to add that in there. I have no problem with the Latin Mass. My problem is with The Best Catholics of All Time. I actually hope to attend Latin Mass sometime. And then maybe again and again. I have no problem with Tradition.

But seriously a majority of the Trads I run into online are racist. Granted it's all online encounters. And then there are Trads (if that's how you identify) like yourself who are not. And I've met others online who are not. But man the majority are just over the top. I'm guessing in real life it's not as bad. Or I would hope not. But it's definitely prevalent. The Tan Book issue is a prime example and evidence of it. That issue is so extreme and wrong. It's mind blowing. But you're right and I do agree with the point you made so my bad. Peace.

Thank you for saying that.

[chrysostom]

If you want to judge an entire group of people based on things you read online, largely written by newsies who get revenue from clicks and controversy, that's on you.

[Ice_nine]

I will say, a good chunk of trads I see online, they aren't the kindest people for sure. I do know many traditionally-minded folk in real-life, they are pretty decent people from what I can tell, and online they do not appear to behave poorly.

But yeah the trad culture online is pretty brutal.

also josh, if the bishop didn't say what you said he said, it would be nice to take that back,

but it's your life.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

also josh, if the bishop didn't say what you said he said, it would be nice to take that back,

but it's your life.

It's what he said. Did you listen? It's also what Skojec said he said. That's why Skojec believes it's okay and advocates it to his followers or cult. Or whatever it is. 

[chrysostom]

What is he said was not so clear-cut. He said that it would be his personal choice, if the only Mass close by was full of abuses and a Protestant free-wheeling style, to drive a long distance to a worthily celebrated Mass, and possibly to refrain from attending until the next worthily celebrated Mass was available.

He did not mention the TLM.

If you want to take issue with that statement, that's fine. I have no interest in defending it.

Nor am I interested in defending Skojec. His own interest in the hot take and controversy is on him. It's the controversial ones, the argumentative ones, who get the most internet traffic. What's the point in the end? Twitter is a public cesspool. Please don't bring Twitter fights here.

I appreciate you care about the faith. Sunday obligation is Sunday obligation, period. But this is what it *feels* like you are saying:

"Two people said something bad online. They are popular and traditionalist, so most traditionalists are bad too. All traditionalists should feel responsible for what these two people say online."

But we're not responsible. Feel free to attack Bp Schneider's or Skojec's statement. But why attack a group of people, most of whom are minding their own business, at the same time?

[KnightofChrist]

2 hours ago, Delivery said:

It's what he said. Did you listen? 

You are lying.

I'd challenge you to post a direct quote but you cannot. Because you are lying.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, chrysostom said:

He did not mention the TLM.

She did when she asked the question. She said what if you can't find a Latin Mass?

[chrysostom]

1 hour ago, Delivery said:

She did when she asked the question. She said what if you can't find a Latin Mass?

And he didn't, and I think that's quite deliberate. He chose to qualify his response very heavily.

This is like insisting that Pope Francis meant the wrong thing in one of his interviews. His interviews are simply sometimes ambiguous, and we have to live with it.

In this case of Bp Schneider it is a little ambiguous. I fully understand if someone has a problem with that.

That being said, he did not actually say what you accuse him of saying. He was being circumspect, couching his statement in many conditions. He said the ambiguous thing, not the definite thing. Clearly this statement is already enough to cause lots of angry online debates about it, and I don't think Lifesite should even have asked that question, and Steve Skojec is being scandalous.

[chrysostom]

But again, what's the point of attacking all trads as a part of this criticism, even if the criticism of Schneider is entirely accurate?

Would you be fine with attacking all Catholics of any type any time Pope Francis or Pope Benedict says something wrong?

(I have no problem with you taking issue with what he said, though I may argue about what he meant)

Edited April 21, 2020 by chrysostom

[Aloysius]

Bishop Schneider himself, to my understanding, while he does celebrate the extraordinary form he does not do so exclusively, but does sometimes also do the ordinary form.  If he was saying what you say he said, he'd either be a hypocrite, a coward, and/or an idiot.  Clearly the more likely explanation is that people have cited him stating that you do not have an obligation when the only mass available to you is an abusive one, and those people have a certain definition of what constitutes 'abusive' that basically means anything that is not the TLM/extraordinary form.  It is clear that this is not the line he has in mind, as he is someone who is a bishop in good standing in a church where the ordinary form is the norm.

The principle in what Schneider says is sound IMHO: if the only mass you have available to you is excessively abusive, you do not have an obligation to attend it.  Where that line is, that is debatable.  Schneider's line is probably more strict than yours (or mine to be honest) and perhaps he could/should be critiqued on that, but the principle is sound and can be demonstrated by thinking of an extreme example: if the only mass you have available has incorporated outright idolatry into part of it, then even if the core of the mass is valid, you would not have an obligation to attend it.  I think that should be uncontroversial.  Now where should that line be drawn on less extreme liturgical abuses?  I think it's something for a prudent conscience to think about with the basic question--is the abusive thing truly harming my spiritual life?  be careful with that, as an agitated emotional state built on ego and haughtiness and false piety could be confused for being harmed spiritually.  some agitated emotional states and suffering through things not being exactly as they should be can be offered up and endured in ways that are conducive to grace.  but if the answer is truly 'yes, this is spiritually harming me' to a well-formed conscience due to something happening in that liturgy that is wrong according to the church and her traditions, you wouldn't be obliged to attend, in which case you should seek another mass and if one is not available you would not be obliged to attend the excessively abusive mass.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, chrysostom said:

That being said, he did not actually say what you accuse him of saying. He was being circumspect, couching his statement in many conditions. He said the ambiguous thing, not the definite thing.

She ask if there's no Latin Mass and all the priests are modernists and support heresies what should people do? He says don't go to Mass. So we can decide that as Catholics? We can find faults with the Mass or the priests and dispense ourselves from the Sunday obligation? Because he just said we could. He said even if the Eucharist is valid he would advise to stay home. 

 

2 hours ago, chrysostom said:

Clearly this statement is already enough to cause lots of angry online debates about it, and I don't think Lifesite should even have asked that question, and Steve Skojec is being scandalous.

I have no idea if it's causing lots of angry online debates. The exchange I screenshot wasn't that. It was two trads (one of which) is confused how Catholics can dispense themselves from going to Mass on their own judgement that the Novus Ordo is full of abuses and modernist priests. There was no heated exchange their because both believe (like the SSPX do) that the Novus Ordo is evil. What's happening in the conversation is the one trad is feeling conflicted into agreeing with Steve (and the Bishop according to Steve) that Catholics can dispense themselves from the Sunday obligation.

 

2 hours ago, chrysostom said:

But again, what's the point of attacking all trads as a part of this criticism, even if the criticism of Schneider is entirely accurate?

My bad on that. To all the non racist trads that don't call the Novus Ordo evil you have my apology. To all the trads who don't agree with Tan Book's racist assentment of an entire race of people you have my apology. 

 

2 hours ago, chrysostom said:

(I have no problem with you taking issue with what he said, though I may argue about what he meant)

I've got to much into religious commentary on websites. I don't talk about it to people in real life. Nor on Facebook or Instagram. I honestly don't care enough to and most people wouldn't even understand what I was talking about. I just get compelled to comment on this stuff on Catholic websites. 

[Aloysius]

it is an interesting dilemma, should an individual Catholic feel dispensed from their Sunday obligation on their own judgment?  Consider a scenario in which every mass began with an invocation to the Caananite god moloch, but otherwise still went on as usual and the priest still intended to do what the Church does.  maybe this priest believes moloch is just symbolic and is a relativist on such things, but he still has the proper intention and hence the Eucharist is still valid.  can an individual Catholic decide not to be obliged to go?  absolutely, based on a well-formed conscience telling them it was spiritually harmful to them.

But this is a dangerous line of thinking, especially with modern ppl inclined to think they should "vote with their feet" or "vote with their wallet" how they want things to be--such an attitude would be incredibly prideful when applied to a liturgy.  If the Mass just has a guitar and some happy clappy music but is still otherwise valid, then I'm sorry if you're emotionally agitated by it but I don't think a well-formed conscience should consider that spiritually harmful.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

Bishop Schneider himself, to my understanding, while he does celebrate the extraordinary form he does not do so exclusively, but does sometimes also do the ordinary form.  If he was saying what you say he said, he'd either be a hypocrite, a coward, and/or an idiot.  Clearly the more likely explanation is that people have cited him stating that you do not have an obligation when the only mass available to you is an abusive one, and those people have a certain definition of what constitutes 'abusive' that basically means anything that is not the TLM/extraordinary form.  It is clear that this is not the line he has in mind, as he is someone who is a bishop in good standing in a church where the ordinary form is the norm.

If that's the case (and if you think it is that's good enough for me) I apologise to the Bishop. My fault. I went by Steve's tweet and his assessment on what the Bishop said. And I know the Bishop is affiliated with One Peter Five. And when I heard the interview it seemed he was saying that. But I have no problem admitting I was misunderstood.

13 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

The principle in what Schneider says is sound IMHO: if the only mass you have available to you is excessively abusive, you do not have an obligation to attend it.  Where that line is, that is debatable.  Schneider's line is probably more strict than yours (or mine to be honest) and perhaps he could/should be critiqued on that, but the principle is sound and can be demonstrated by thinking of an extreme example: if the only mass you have available has incorporated outright idolatry into part of it, then even if the core of the mass is valid, you would not have an obligation to attend it.  I think that should be uncontroversial.  Now where should that line be drawn on less extreme liturgical abuses?  I think it's something for a prudent conscience to think about with the basic question--is the abusive thing truly harming my spiritual life?  be careful with that, as an agitated emotional state built on ego and haughtiness and false piety could be confused for being harmed spiritually.  some agitated emotional states and suffering through things not being exactly as they should be can be offered up and endured in ways that are conducive to grace.  but if the answer is truly 'yes, this is spiritually harming me' to a well-formed conscience due to something happening in that liturgy that is wrong according to the church and her traditions, you wouldn't be obliged to attend, in which case you should seek another mass and if one is not available you would not be obliged to attend the excessively abusive mass.

Thanks for this perspective. Appreciate it.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Delivery said:

heated exchange their because both believe (like the SSPX do) that the Novus Ordo is evil.

*there

[Guest]