Bishop Schneider lowers expectations for “correction”

Bishop Schneider lowers expectations for “correction”

Nothing more than a monumental cop out

Readers may have noticed the unfortunate fact that questions concerning the formal act of correction weren’t broached in the recent interview of Cardinal Raymond Burke (commented upon in yesterday’s post).

Was this merely an oversight on the part of the interviewer, or is it more likely the case that all concerned agree not to mention that particular elephant in the room beforehand?

Whatever the case may be, in a January 6th interview with Rorate Caeli, Bishop Athanasius Schneider was asked about it, and given the fact that he and Cardinal Burke are cut from the same cloth (conciliar, neo-conservative) his answer may very well provide insight into the reason why the  formal act of correction has yet to be delivered.

In fact, based on his response, one may well believe that it will never come.

When asked what he considers to be the reason for the delay, His Excellency replied:

In the face of the current temporal and partial eclipse of the function of the Papal Magisterium concerning concretely the defense and practical enforcement of the indissolubility the marriage, the members of the episcopal and of the cardinalitial colleges have to assist the Pope in this Magisterial duty through public professions of the immutable truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium — that means what all the Popes and the entire episcopate during all times – have taught concerning the doctrine and the sacramental practice of the marriage.

In other words, if the pope is unwilling to defend, in practical terms, the indissolubility of marriage, as is his duty, then cardinals and bishops must “assist” him by making their own “public professions” of this self-same immutable truth.

To many readers this may appear rather unobjectionable, but in reality it is immensely weak and falls woefully short of the duty incumbent upon all Catholics, and much more, the Successors to the Apostles.

In truth, these men have a sacred duty, for the salvation of those souls entrusted to their care, to make “public professions” of – that is, to teach – the immutable truths clearly expressed in Catholic doctrine, both in season and out of season; i.e., whether the man who claims to be pope is willing to do so or not.

They also, however, have the duty and the authority to defend the truths of the faith when they are under attack; i.e., they are called to directly confront and to condemn both heresy and the purveyors of heresy, and this for the good of souls.

As the bitter experience of that last fifty-plus years most certainly attests, men-of-the-Council, who fancy themselves dispensers of the “medicine of mercy,” have not the Catholic cojones to do such a thing.

In the present situation, apparently they have come to believe that a “formal act of correction” is a little bit too much like an act of condemnation for their comfort.

When asked what will happen if “Francis continues to officially approve of bishops’ conferences giving Holy Communion to some divorced and remarried,” Bishop Schneider (while providing the requisite citation of the Almighty Council) made it rather clear that, at least insofar as he is concerned, formally correcting him isn’t an option.

There exists the following principle of the traditional Catholic doctrine since the first centuries: “Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur”, i.e., the first episcopal chair in the Church (the chair of the Pope) cannot be judged by anybody. When bishops remind the Pope respectfully of the immutable truth and discipline of the church, they don’t judge hereby the first chair of the Church, instead they behave themselves as colleagues and brothers of the Pope. The attitude of the bishops towards the Pope has to be collegial, fraternal, not servile and always supernaturally respectful, as it stressed the Second Vatican Council (especially in the documents Lumen gentium and Christus Dominus). One has to continue to profess the immutable faith and pray still more for the Pope and, then, only God can intervene and He will do this unquestionably.

OK, first let’s be very clear: The principle cited – Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur – means that no one has jurisdiction over the pope, and in that sense, the Chair of Peter cannot be judged by anybody.

It does not mean that the objective sense of his teachings are beyond judgment relative to immutable truth and, therefore, cannot be explicitly condemned when they are heretical.

In plain English, Bishop Schneider’s approach to Francis can be summed up as follows:

Cardinals and bishops need only publicly profess Catholic doctrine, remind Francis of the same (as if he simply forgot), and pray for him.

That’s it.

Beyond this, Francis is to be given free rein to spout blasphemies and heresies in whatever way he sees fit, even should he choose to promulgate them in official “papal” texts addressed to the Universal Church in the name of Peter, and even should he take steps to enshrine them and the so-called “pastoral practices” that spring from them in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

In other words, let Bergoglio continue leading souls to Hell, because, after all, “only God can intervene and He will do this unquestionably.”

Sorry, folks. This is nothing more than a monumental cop out.

Apparently Bishop Schneider and his confreres need a reminder of their own:

God did intervene in human history in the Person of Jesus Christ, who established a hierarchical Church endowed with Apostolic Succession, thereby providing bishops with the authority, and the duty, to condemn heresies and heretics in His name, no matter who they may be (even if an angel from Heaven) for the good of souls.

I do not doubt that Bishop Schneider means well, but I also have no doubt that he and many others in the episcopate will one day have to answer for their failure to uphold their sacred duties in the face of the Bergoglian assault.

Get AQ Email Updates

10 comments on “Bishop Schneider lowers expectations for “correction”

  1. IMO the final act in this sorry episode in the history of the Church has yet to be written and I believe that only divine intervention will bring about changes that are necessary.

  2. Well, as many have posted for a while now, ” The fix is in” ! The Modernist, Masonic , Marxist, journey the Church has ben on since Vatican 2 is in the “End Game”. ! The Masonic/Modernist dream of the Catholic Church entering into a “one World Religion” is about to happen. The Good Lord has left the building and the Holy Ghost has flown to parts unknown ! Need a Miracle to turn this sad state of affairs around ! Ecumenical Mass next with women Cardinals and Priests ??? Stand By !!

  3. So far, parsing and tap dancing by “Catholic conservatives” has accomplished about as much as the GOP has concerning federal spending.
    The runaway V2 train is still careening wildly toward the precipice and all conservatives can come up with is to quote the un-council as a “corrective”?
    I simply cannot think of one prelate within the NO regime who will take a position and actually FORCE his colleagues to do their duty. The concept of it escapes all of them, it appears. (And, all stupid BLEEP! screaming aside, that is the only body capable of reversing this catastrophe. )

  4. The principle, “Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur (The First See is judged by no one)”, is being used (by both sides) to undermine the holiness and indefectibility of the Church. Kyrie eleison!

  5. Great point by Louie: Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur has always been understood in the juridical, canonical sense; that the pope has no ecclesiastical superiors, and therefore his judgments at canonical trials are final, nor can he be judged himself *at a formal trial*.
    It’s rank ignorance to pretend it means that he cannot be formally rebuked or corrected otherwise.
    Bishop Schneider obviously thinks that St. Paul made a serious mistake when he resisted Peter “to the face”, when Peter was doing something scandalous and doctrinally incorrect by giving the impression that the Old Law concerning unclean foods was still in force.
    Further, the common opinion of approved theologians — even since Vatican I — is that, even in the juridical sense, there is one exception…the pope *can* be formally judged, and deposed if necessary, for pertinacious heresy.

    • “the common opinion of approved theologians”

      There are loads of such opinions, and we’ve been suffering from them for the past 100 years.

      As far as deposing the pope, that will demolish the Church because no one will be under an obligation to abide by such a decision. Once the bishops remove the pope, there is no means by which they assume his authority. They’d be like the SSPX bishops, namely, the only authority they possess over souls is that which an individual accedes to them. They will be able to do no more than order me off the property.

      • No. There is only ONE common opinion of theologians on any ONE issue. We have not at ALL been suffering from the common opinions of theologians. Those opinions are tradition (N.B. the lower case t, however).
        What we have been suffering from is the random, individualist opinions of random individuals, especially Modernists and Liberals, but also “right” wing types like the Dimond brothers, and certain others who borrow from both sides of the spectrum — hyperinfallibilists, for example — toward which side Schneider and Burke, among many others, definitely lean.
        Deposition of a pope and replacing him with another will demolish the Church?
        But that has *already* been done, and the Church is still here.
        In the Great Western Schism, if there were any who did not feel obligated to abide by the decision, they were rather few. At least, we sure don’t hear much about them. And what if there were? We have had schismatics in every age.
        Or do we think that the vast majority of Novus Ordo priests, bishops and “faithful” are not already schismatic in every way except the official rubber stamping?
        If the bishops do remove a pope, they don’t do it by assuming his authority. No theologian has ever suggested that this is the way it would work. That would be the heresy of conciliarism.
        Finally, it is simply not possible that the Church be demolished entirely. But so far as it can be, what really would be the most effective way to do that?
        By declaring an anti-Catholic pope deposed and replacing him with a Catholic one?
        In that case, the vast majority of CINOs would of course fall into formal, rubber stamp schism. No difference there as far as their salvation goes. They are well on the way to Hades anyway; might as well give them a chance to actually choose to be either hot or cold.
        Should we rather let The Tool Of Satan continue his work of confirming his brethren in the Satanic Faith?
        In that case, the darkness gets ever deeper; the Novus Ordoites are more and more convinced that faggery, etc., is truly the will of Christ, that there are no dogmas at all, no moral law at all, etc., etc.. Tradition gets more and more smeared and defamed as uncharitable, mean, intolerant, etc.
        As I’ve said before, the question is merely academic at this point. That it is possible to depose a pope is not dogma. That it is impossible to depose a pope is not dogma.
        All I’m saying is, even if it’s not dogma, it is DANGEROUS to set oneself up as knowing more than the great majority of approved theologians. (Some even say that to do so is a mortal sin of presumption.)
        But as long as you are prepared to accept the consequences, believe what you want. It’s what we all do by nature anyway.
        And again I say: The purpose of these debates should not be to convince anybody of our own opinion. Our own opinion, AS our opinion, is literally damnable. We do not make truth. We need to be looking to make our opinions be not ours at all, but God’s — because they conform to the reality that God creates. Outside of dogmas, we laypukes don’t have a right to impose our opinions on anyone.
        On the other hand, to hear the opinions of others — and I do mean hear; not as in “having ears, they may not hear” — prepares the mind for the future. Any number of things could happen. Having a broad exposure to ideas as to what constitutes Catholic doctrine gives us, assuming good will on our part, a better chance of making the right choice, both now and when things get even weirder than they are now.
        Pax, amice.

  6. “Deposition of a pope and replacing him with another will demolish the Church? But that has *already* been done, and the Church is still here.”

    That is not true. You’re referring to the Great Western Schism. The 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia is clear that the legitimate pope was Gregory XII. He convoked the Council of Constance and then submitted his resignation in order to have a pope elected to put an end to the divisions and antipopes.

    I don’t agree that there is a universal opinion that the pope can be deposed. But that is neither here nor there. There is, however, a universal tradition that the pope is judged by no one. In the absence of a counter tradition, you resort to shaming me into admitting opinions of theologians. I won’t bite. In fact I’ll counter that it’s dangerous, especially now, to advance the theory while we have a pope who is imposing heresy on the Church.

    It’s more than an academic question now that we have Pope Francis. Cardinal Burke has openly stated that the the pope could automatically lose his authority, and that the College of Cardinals could judge him as being in heresy, hence confirming the vacant chair. Isn’t that lovely, as more folks are entertaining the idea that Francis has already lost his authority. And Burke complains about the SSPX!

    Pax. Amen.

    • You are almost certainly correct that Gregory XII was in fact the real pope. But that is a judgment of hindsight that most of the bishops convened at Constance were probably not graced with.
      Gregory XII resigned, and was not deposed. But that he was in fact the real pope was at the time *definitely* uncertain. It is a matter that was debated seriously into the 1900s, and still somewhat today. The supposedly false Pisan popes were not removed from the official records as true popes until well into the 20th c.
      So my real point was that, since as far as most people knew at the time, real popes were being really deposed by Church councils, the *scandal* caused by a pope being deposed has already happened in the Church, and the Church survived.
      The fathers of Constance, at least at first, took upon themselves *simply to decide the question of FACT: who was the real pope and who wasn’t*. Of course, later they took things too far, and claimed that a council actually had superior jurisdiction to a pope. But they first attempted simply to discern the point of fact as to who was the actual pope, and enforce his recognition, and the submission of pretenders. So far, that was OK, but when that failed, they presumed to depose all claimants who stood in the way of making a new election. Since Gregory XII was most probably the real pope, and he resigned instead of being deposed, perhaps divine providence arranged in this way to prevent the continuation of the confusion — since if Constance had actually deposed a real pope, the heresy that a council is superior to a pope in jurisdiction would have gained a precedent — and no doubt the followers of Gregory XII would have continued to fight for his cause.
      The mere establishment of the fact of a pope’s validity or invalidity does not necessarily entail a judgment of a pope in the canonical sense, and thus a deposition. The scenario envisioned in the case of a need to “depose” a pope for heresy is that the cardinals/bishops would simply make an official verification of the fact of formal heresy in the pope; they would question the pope, and he would in effect explicitly say “such and such dogma(s) was indeed taught by the Church in the past, and by my predecessors, but I refuse to believe it” Thus he, by *himself* giving abundant proof that he was a contumacious heretic, would by that very fact resign his office *of his own free will, BEFORE being judged*. He would have already judged himself, that he does not want to be Catholic…obviously then, he is not eligible to be pope. How do you put on trial and judge a “pope” when the fact is already established that he has resigned, and is no longer the pope?
      But what if he insisted that he was still pope, and wanted to continue as such? Might as well say that he could formally convert to Islam, but that he could still retain the papacy until he either voluntarily resigned it, or died. Of course, if a pope became a muslim, he would be quite happy if the Church were stupid enough to let him remain pope at the same time. What better position could one hope for in order to best destroy one’s worst enemy, but to become the LEADER of your enemy’s forces?
      You may think this is farcical. But this pope, being a Modernist, is actually worse than he would be if he became a devout convert to Islam. Not only is modernism the synthesis of all heresies, but the master of all subterfuges and lying sneakiness. Today’s actual situation may be farcical, but it is definitely also factual, and most unfortunately so, for Francis will very likely never come right out and admit that he denies many dogmas of the Faith. That could lead to him being removed from his position of supreme leader over his enemy, the Church. That’s the last thing a sneaky Modernist Judas wants.
      That’s why I don’t actually see Francis being deposed.
      I did not speak of a universal opinion, but of a common opinion. This is a technical term, meaning a consensus of theological opinion, not total unanimity.
      There is indeed a universal Tradition that the pope is judged by no one. It is also a dogmatic fact — AND the word ‘judged’ is understood in the juridical sense I mentioned. Vatican I formally defined that Tradition; it understands judgment of a pope in reference to ecclesiastical trials. See Denzinger 1830 & 1831. The latter is a dogmatic canon; an article of Faith; must be believed on pain of heresy. Anybody who cares more about the truth than they do about themselves (i.e. who has supernatural charity), and who thus wants to have the Church’s opinion on this rather than their own, will read and accept Dz 1830 & 1831.
      If that, or anything else I say, looks like an attempt to shame anyone, so be it. From my point of view, if anyone were to point me to a dogma of the Church, and say “You must believe this, otherwise you love yourself and your own opinions more than God and truth, and you are a heretic”, I like to think that I wouldn’t perceive that as an attempt to shame me. I’d like to think my response would be “You’re #!$7! right that I would be a heretic — and I don’t have the slightest bleeping intention of becoming one, so don’t worry about it.”
      Of course, having that attitude is maybe wishful thinking on my part, but in any case it’s the right attitude.
      My saying that this is an academic question was meant in the context of what follows. That is, it’s academic to us laypukes. I agree 100% that it is NOT merely academic to the princes of the Church.
      Ex me, satis

  7. There is one who can judge the Pope and we all know who that One is. Until or unless that happens, we are left to the mercy and intercessory powers of the Holy Mother of God. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

Leave a Reply