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

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

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 Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

SSPX Transfers

+ JMJ Eponymous flow posted the following list of transfers etc. Source: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2020/04/castling-of-leadership-at-sspx.html The departures Bishop Bernard Fellay, the third Superior General until 2018, leaves the General House in Menzingen and moves to the Seminary of St. Thomas Aquinas in the USA. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, suffering from ill health, is being referred to the Seminary of St. Pius X in Ecene as a retreat. Fr. Christian Thouvenot, until now Secretary General of the General House, becomes a professor at the seminary in Ecene. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, until now Rector at the Seminary of the Heart of Jesus in Zaitzkofen, moves to the district of Germany. Fr. Jürgen Wegner, until now district superior of the DISTRICT USA, moves to the district of Austria. Fr. Philippe Brunet, until now Superior of the Autonomous House of Spain-Portugal, becomes professor at the Seminary U.L.F. and co-saviour of La Reja in