Skip to main content

CMTV's Response to Bishop Schneider

+
JMJ

I figured that CMTV would have a 'response' to the responses to Bishop Schneider's interview.

Here's what I found on suscipedomine:



Church_Militant_Moderator:
I deleted your and other similar posts because a) a link to the full interview is already provided in the article, and b) what you wanted to post gives a distorted understanding both of what Bishop Schneider said and what he meant. We don't wish discussion of this article to be distracted in a direction that is both inaccurate and misleading.

Also, there is a perception that what Bishop Schneider said about the SSPX is at odds what CM has said and, since we have so much respect for Bishop Schneider, how do we reconcile the perceived contradictions?

Here is how someone raised this point earlier, followed by our response:

"So... when the SSPX is finally "canonically recognized", without changing anything they believe... what will Church Militant do to save face?"
In our FAQ on the Society http://www.churchmilitant.com/... we say:

"We are well aware of ongoing dialog between the SSPX and Rome. It is to be fervently hoped that these dialogs result in a return of the SSPX to full communion with the Church, granting their bishops and clergy canonical status and the authority to exercise ministry. Reconciliation of the SSPX with the Church would be a great blessing for the Church but most especially for the SSPX. "

Read the whole thing at the link.

Exactly what, in our FAQ or in any of our reporting on the Society, is contradicted by anything said by Bishop Schneider in his interview?
We have focused almost exclusively on the canonical status of the Society (or complete lack thereof) and its consequences, issues not addressed specifically by Bishop Schneider but clearly assumed. He chose to emphasize the positives that reconciliation of the Society with the Church would bring. We agree with all of that (see above), and always have. If and when the Society reconciles with the Church, no one will celebrate more than CM.

What "face" would we have to save when the Society reconciles if reconciliation is what both we and Bishop Schneider hope will occur?
The Society may not have to change anything they believe ("come as they are"), but they do have to choose to submit to the authority of the Vicar of Christ, accepting his dogmatically defined “full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church,” a power "ordinary and immediate over all the churches and over each and every member of the faithful". This requires more than hanging pictures of the Pope in the sacristy and praying for him.

If the Society believes that it can reconcile with the Church without submitting to the Roman Pontiff, then that is one belief that would have to change for reconciliation to happen. In that important respect, the Society cannot "come as they are." And Bishop Schneider agrees with that.

We have followed up with Bishop Schneider directly for clarification of what he said in his interview. He agrees that some of what he has said is being misinterpreted and misunderstood, and has given us permission to provide the necessary clarifications.

In light of all this, posting quotes that Bishop Schneider himself agrees are being misunderstood serves no good purpose.
Clarification of Bishop Schneider's remarks on the SSPX is forthcoming.

CMTV Article / comments
Just can't wait for the clarification. I suspect that they will provide leading questions in order to get the answers formed according to their pre-conceived notions.

Canonically, refusal of submission to the Vicar of Christ is schism, assuming that CMTV knows what they're talking about (no promises on this one) they are again calling the SSPX 'schismatic'.  The only thing is that the SSPX isn't schismatic, it is merely 'not in full communion' although that label has been dropped for a year or so now replaced by 'reconciliation' as the SSPX is obviously neither Heretical nor Schismatic.

Really, the problem is that the SSPX is simply following pre-conciliar magisterium that is of a higher theological note.  It is not a question of submission, but capitulation on those points (Four Points) of CLEAR pre-conciliar magisterium.  If they capitulate then they will be going against their consciences and admitting that for 50 years everything has been 'ok'.

Here's what the CDF responded to the following question / response, please note that the response did NOT state that the SSPX are in a state of formal schism.












































So please note that the SSPX is not in a state of 'formal schism' - it is merely 'not in full communion' - perhaps (since they are neither schismatic nor heretical) they are merely not canonically regular. As my American friends would say: Duh!

The real problem with CMTV et al is, I believe,  that they have a sedevacantist understanding of what constitutes 'submission to the Vicar of Christ'.  It is a blind 'submission' no matter what the Pope says or does.  This is reflected in their last statement:
If the Society believes that it can reconcile with the Church without submitting to the Roman Pontiff, then that is one belief that would have to change for reconciliation to happen. In that important respect, the Society cannot "come as they are." And Bishop Schneider agrees with that.
CMTV's cultural assumption is a dangerous one.

CMTV will not criticise the Pope's words on communion for those who have abandoned their spouse from their marriage and are living in concubinage with a 'partner'.  To do so, is some how 'refusing submission to the Pope'. Note They say they fear that that would cause more harm than the Pope's own words / actions.

CMTV simply doens't understand what true obedience is and therefore we hear crickets when the Popes says or does something that undermines Church Teaching.

Imagine CMTV's frustration as the Pope blissfully trashes this or that Truth of the Faith.

So instead of speaking the truth they lash out at anyone that does not agree with their POV.  Be they liberal or traditional.

Pray for them, because eventually they are going to be painted into a corner.

P^3

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law – Part I: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ Is a Traditional Catholic who abandons the doctrine of the Catholic Church - are they truly worthy of the name of Catholic? This is why it is important to understand Catholic Doctrine so we don't knowingly abandon it! This is a lecture provided by Dr. Lamont that touches on the topic of obedience. Obedience is one key to emerging from this crisis. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May 2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law – Part I By John Lamont (Lecture given in New York on Friday, April 4, 2014)

Schism

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches:  "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...