Beware of Bishop Schneider

[Guest]

  Taylor Marshall

Edited April 21, 2020 by Guest

[Aloysius]

I'm not a fan of this kind of guilt by association, Schneider clearly supports the thesis of Dr. Marshall's infiltration book.  is he right or wrong on this?  there's something we could debate.  but does his support for Marshall's thesis on infiltration imply he is connected to this other person who appears to be (at least sympathetic to if not an outright proponent of) alt-right white identitarianism?  I don't think so.  That's something to critique Marshall for, does Marshall support that same stuff?  I really hope not.  I don't agree with the guy but I really hope he hasn't gotten himself entangled in such vile stuff.

The bug comment is rather problematic, though tone and context would be important to judge whether it was truly a mean-spirited thing or some kind of joke not actually intended to be mean-spirited or dehumanizing.  your screen shots of this woman with Marshall seem to be relating to a satanic mass she was protesting?  is this before or after the incidents of daily stormer/unite the right stuff you're mentioning?  has Marshall stated anything for or against what she said at unite the right or daily stormer?

there is indeed a problem in radtrad communities that, mostly due to their niche marginal position, they do attract some people with other niche marginal ideologies, some of which are vile like this.  in my experience I don't think the majority of the radtrad community is like this, at least i definitely hope not.  probably the present political environment has seen a seeping contagion from the present configuration of the extreme right / alt-right of the US political spectrum, unfortunately.  but I don't think this kind of discourse trying to build guilt by associations and endless decries of being offended is a healthy way to root it out.

[Anastasia]

While I have nothing to say re: the above Bishop Schneider is worthy of respect because he said what the whole Church should of say:

"As long as supermarkets are open and accessible, and as long as people have access to public transportation, one cannot see a plausible reason for banning people from assisting at Holy Mass in a church,” Bishop Schneider said. “One can guarantee in churches the same and even better hygienic protective measures.”

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4826-exclusive-interview-bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-church-s-handling-of-coronavirus

To me at least his point of view gave some comfort.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Anastasia said:

"As long as supermarkets are open and accessible, and as long as people have access to public transportation, one cannot see a plausible reason for banning people from assisting at Holy Mass in a church,” Bishop Schneider said. “One can guarantee in churches the same and even better hygienic protective measures.”

This was printed March 27th. Ridiculous and unscientific advice. It's the Remnant though so I wouldn't expect anything different. You're not shoulder to shoulder in a grocery for an hour not moving. The "plausible reason" Mass was suspended was to save lives. Michael Matt has said the same idiotic things throughout the pandamic. Not surprised at all. He's always been an *******. 

Again in real life I pay no mind to fanatics like Matt and The Best Catholics of All Time. But on the internet I fall victim. It was actually refreshing to agree with Steve Skojec once in my life about his views on the pandamic. He has consistently tweeted responsible information about the virus and how dangerous and deadly it is. And also defending the Church's authority on closing to save lives and not spread the virus and overwhelm hospitals.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Delivery said:

The "plausible reason" Mass was suspended was to save lives.

I said that wrong. Mass wasn't suspended. Rather the laity being able to attend. My bad.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Delivery said:

pandamic

pandemic

[little2add]

6 hours ago, Delivery said:

6 hours ago, Delivery said:

 

I said that wrong. Mass wasn't suspended. Rather the laity being able to attend. My bad.

[Anastasia]

Quote

>> You're not shoulder to shoulder in a grocery for an hour not moving. The "plausible reason" Mass was suspended was to save lives.

Yes, this is a very popular augment yet it does not work being considered closely.

Let’s take a huge cathedral and the early Mass that gathers five-ten people at most (I am speaking about the situation in a town I live). It is very easy to space them, one person per… five benches etc. In supermarkets people move chaotically and come much closer than that

But even if this is somehow “dangerous” (it is not) I cannot see how Mass or Liturgy can be different from… a takeaway. Just like with takeaways people could wait outside of the church building (being spaced of course), listen to Mass done inside and then a priest could give communion to the believers.

It is possible to organize such things if they are desired of course. If Holy Communion was considered to be as important as food then it would be done. The horror of a current situation, to me at least that the Church stopped being “essential” – not just for the world (it is expected) but for itself.

The discussed Bishop has a strong sense of the Church/Eucharist as essential. He and many others simply cannot understand how it is possible that takeaways and retails are open and churches are closed (and even more, how churches can be closed regardless anything else).

The argument boils down to a sense what is acceptable and what is not. “Logically speaking” anything can be proved and excused, especially “for the good of others” like “we do not have communion because we want to save lives”. To me it is oxymoron; to others it is perfectly reasonable.

To make a total: if we believe in the Real Presence than we cannot simply close the churches. Via shutting down the churches we shut down the Presence of Christ. One may argue it is not so, He is still there, in Tabernacle – but the sight of the "shut down churches" obliterated that knowledge.

6 hours ago, Delivery said:

I said that wrong. Mass wasn't suspended. Rather the laity being able to attend. My bad.

Well, you expressed the Eastern Orthodox point of view . To us, the Liturgy done by the clergy only, is incomplete and "not normal" so to speak. "Liturgy" is translated as "the common business" or "something all congregation does" an understood as such.

[Lilllabettt]

10 hours ago, Anastasia said:

 

It is possible to organize such things if they are desired of course. If Holy Communion was considered to be as important as food then it would be done. 

This is true. 

[Lea]

10 hours ago, Anastasia said:

Let’s take a huge cathedral and the early Mass that gathers five-ten people at most

Well, I live in an area that allows public services with max. 15 attendees. Without singing together, holy water, signs of the cross (touching ones face), an altered distribution of the Eucharist - the priest will stand as far away as possible, says nothing like "The body of Christ!", wears gloves or disinfects hands after each person, it seems rather strange to me. 

The lists for attending are incredibly long, but I personally decided against it. 1. I don't want to take the opportunity away for persons possibly living alone and that are starving more than I do. 2. It's a way to stand in solidarity with those who are not allowed to join Mass right now because they are high risk or for other reasons. 

And I know even vowed religious who have decided likewise. 

[Anastasia]

15 hours ago, Lea said:

It's a way to stand in solidarity with those who are not allowed to join Mass right now because they are high risk or for other reasons. 

This I understand very well.  

[Kateri89]

From the very start of the lockdowns I’ve been completely torn on the issue of churches closing.  On the one hand, if priests didn’t close the churches at the order of the bishop, they’re being disobedient.  The question is whether obedience to the bishop in this case is disobedience to Jesus.  After all, the sacraments are vital, especially for those who are ill and near death.

At the same time, if the priests don’t take extreme caution and their parishioners contract the virus, do they incur guilt because of their lack of prudence? Do the faithful incur guilt for pushing the priests to be more available if the priests end up contracting the virus? I don’t know the answer but I will say that I do think there were options that weren’t offered that may have been possible.  

For instance, even if they had to put public masses on hold, couldn’t they leave the church open and have a sign up for parishioners, only allowing 5 people at a time in the church?  They could require all people going inside to wear a mask and to space themselves as far apart as possible.  They could also have clorox wipes and ask everyone to wipe down their seat and the church door handles after they’ve used them.  This way the faithful could be in the presence of the Eucharistic Lord which would be a tremendous comfort and a source of great graces.

I don’t know, I could be wrong.  It just seems almost unbearable to be completely without any of the sacraments.  Of course, I know that there are people in other parts of the world who suffer in this way even in healthier times and we could offer up our sufferings in union with them and for them.

[Anastasia]

4 hours ago, Kateri89 said:

At the same time, if the priests don’t take extreme caution and their parishioners contract the virus, do they incur guilt because of their lack of prudence? Do the faithful incur guilt for pushing the priests to be more available if the priests end up contracting the virus? I don’t know the answer but I will say that I do think there were options that weren’t offered that may have been possible.  

I don’t know, I could be wrong.  It just seems almost unbearable to be completely without any of the sacraments.

I think it is a matter of a choice. If some priest feels he is too scared he may refrain from giving sacraments. Likewise, if some parishioners are scared, concerned etc, they may refrain from receiving. But it is my deepest conviction that being Christians we have a right to receive communion, no matter what is going on but especially during times of a danger.

Also, the Roman Catholic way of giving communion is almost sterile compare to the Eastern Orthodox (we all receive from one Cup via the same spoon and then a priests drinks and eats all what is left). Personally, I do not believe one can contract a virus via communion. Via some sneezing – yes and this is why social distancing.

Communion is a medicine for a soul and body. You are not wrong. Yes, it is unbearable and unnecessary in many cases.

[Lea]

5 hours ago, Anastasia said:

But it is my deepest conviction that being Christians we have a right to receive communion, no matter what is going on but especially during times of a danger.

Actually, I don't think we have a "right" to receive communion... if so, why would we let people in some areas (e.g. Amazonia, some parts of eastern Europe) go without it for months and even years because there's no priest available? Why would the roman church deny it to people who have remarried after divorce? 

Christ does not say "Do this every sunday!" but "Do this, as often as you eat this bread, in memory of me!" 

Plus - I haven't found anything like a "right to receive the communion" in "Instruction Redemptionis sacramentum". 

[chrysostom]

You do indeed have a right, in ordinary circumstances (these are extraordinary I admit):

Quote

Can.  912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

To be honest what is more difficult to bear is not being able to assist at the Holy Sacrifice, to be present in person. St Charles Borromeo would set up an altar in the midst of the square, where the townspeople could observe from afar. Some drive-in Masses are like this, skipping the distribution of Holy Communion.