I’m afraid too much chatter isn’t helping out matters as hysteria by some in the Church about the Synod on Synodality as it soon begins its chattering sessions takes place. The far majority of Catholics are completely disinterested in it. The majority have followed Pope Francis’ in condemning a self referential Church that pushes Christ to the side in favor of chatter about who I am and all those existential questions that the Church was once able to teach in an orthodox way without wringing her hands wondering if she needs to talk and talk and talk about herself.
Bishop Schneider reminds Catholics that no human person can depose a pope and he rightfully states that a pope cannot commit heresy when he speaks ex cathedra. But outside of e cathedra statements, a popes can commit heresies.
While Bishop Schneider upholds one aspect of the papal office, he seems to open the door to encouraging Catholics to enter into schism with the pope through disobedience. Not sure that is a good thing for a bishop to write down. Schism is a mortal sin.
Read Bishop Schneider’s whole article here. Here is the sound byte:
The pope cannot commit heresy when he speaks ex cathedra, this is a dogma of faith. In his teaching outside of ex cathedra statements, however, he can commit doctrinal ambiguities, errors and even heresies. And since the pope is not identical with the entire Church, the Church is stronger than a singular erring or heretical Pope. In such a case one should respectfully correct him (avoiding purely human anger and disrespectful language), resist him as one would resist a bad father of a family. Yet, the members of a family cannot declare their evil father deposed from the fatherhood. They can correct him, refuse to obey him, separate themselves from him, but they cannot declare him deposed.
Good Catholics know the truth and must proclaim it, offer reparation for the errors of an erring Pope. Since the case of a heretical pope is humanly irresolvable, we must implore with supernatural faith a Divine intervention, because that singular erring Pope is not eternal, but temporal, and the Church is not in our hands, but in the almighty hands of God.
We must have enough supernatural faith, trust, humility, and a spirit of the Cross in order to endure such an extraordinary trial. In such relatively short situations (in comparison to 2000 years) we must not yield to a too human reaction and to an easy solution (declaring the invalidity of his pontificate), but must keep sobriety (keep a cool head) and at the same time a true supernatural view and trust in Divine intervention and in the indestructibility of the Church.
21 comments:
That was actually pretty rough. Sort of like one of those plays where the bad guy looks like someone famous and his name rhymes with the famous person. It will be interesting to see how he weathers this. Lots of sycophantic henchmen willing to stick the knife to gain favor.
Father,
When I read this yesterday I wanted to thank Bishop Schneider for writing this, as I thought it was much needed. However, I in no way interpreted anything he wrote as encouraging people into schism.
At this point, as far as Pope Francis is concerned, I pray for him but pretty much try to ignore him. With our previous popes I would look forward to what they had to say or write, but with this pope that is not the case. The Church is in a very sad situation right now but it will pass.
Yvonne
Is it possible to agree with BOTH parties? I think Fr. Altman has a strong case that Francis may not be a legit pope. My problem is, I hesitate to make such a proclamation publicly, because to do so is not in my competence. Unfortunately, we don't get to figure out who the antipopes are until after they are gone and have done their damage.
Yvonne, you are correct that Bishop Schneider does not advocate schism in the explicit sense. It is implied in the example he gives of an evil human father (that implies the current Holy Father is evil). And that we can disobey an evil father. Implied we can disobey the pope. Public disobedience to the pope can lead to a schism.
However, the SSPX which tend toward schism, are not technically in schism, although their founding archbishop is now dead, was excommunicated for disobeying St. Pope John Paul II. The excommunication, though, was never followed by a statement that he and any members of the SSPX, clergy, religious or laity, are in schism and thus also excommunicated. Apart from the bishops of the SSPX, prior to Pope Benedict lifting their excommunications, no other members of SSPX were excommunicated in a public manner.
Pope Francis could declare the SSPX in schism, meaning all their members, like the Eastern Orthodox are in schism. But no pope, not even Francis has done so.
And yes, I use to be excited to read and understand the profound statements of popes, but not with Francis. I cringe and now prefer to ignore his teachings too because of confusing incoherence and that i usually interpret what in says in a way he doesn’t intend, meaning my interpretation gives him the benefit of the doubt in terms of orthodoxy only for me to find out what I thought he meant in a positive way isn’t what he meant!
SM, there is no human authority to state that any pope is not a legitimate pope while that pope if reigning. The only one that can declare that a pope is no longer the pope is the very same pope, like Pope Benedict XVI.
Fr. Altman is wrong and has no authority to declare the seat of Peter to be vacant. Talk about delusions of grandeur!
But you are correct, a subsequent pope or successor of Saint Peter can declare such and such a pope to be an anti-pope. However, in the history of popes, the only ones declared to be anti popes are the ones who existed with other men declaring they were pope too at the same time. it was’t really clear who the duly elected pope was. Thus another pope had to say this one was the true pope and this one wasn’t. That could not be definitively settled until those claiming to be pope were dead. At one point in papal history there were three claiming to be pope. That part of papal history is fascinating on many levels and what led to the decision of who was the true pope and who was an anti pope if fascinating too.
Just withhold from Peter's Pence.
Father McDonald said..."I’m afraid too much chatter isn’t helping out matters as hysteria by some in the Church about the Synod on Synodality as it soon begins its chattering sessions takes place. The far majority of Catholics are completely disinterested in it."
Father McDonald, my bishop, as well as your bishops, have spoken well of the Synod/Synodal process.
Father, are the Faithful of the Dioceses of Charleston, as well as Savannah, disinterested in the Synod/Synodal process?
Bishop Parkes has insisted that this is an exciting time for Holy Mother Church. Bishop Parkes has insisted that the Synod/process has been driven by the Holy Ghost. Bishop Parkes has insisted that we have been called to move forward as a Synodal Church.
Most Rev. Jacques Fabre-Jeune, CS, DD, has echoed the above in regard to the Diocese of Charleston. Have his spiritual children ignored his teachings in regard to the Synod/process?
The Diocese of Charleston, in regard to the Synod, has declared:
"New methods of collaboration of laity and clergy will invigorate the present and help shape the future, where each member’s specific vocation and purpose is valued."
"This radical equality in the “common priesthood of the faithful,” received at baptism, needs to be revitalized in every aspect of the Church or it will miss the giftedness and gifts of all, especially of the laity and those groups that experience exclusion or marginalization from Church life."
"Survey respondents and listening session participants stated that the process of synodality can continue and find new forms if the Church discerns the movement of the Holy Spirit locally, nationally, and globally."
Father McDonald, your bishops, as well as my bishop, have insisted that the Synod is of tremendous importance to Holy Church.
Why would Catholics ignore that which is their future? That is, a Synodal Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bishops are putting on a positive face and spin on the synod. The majority of laity are ambivalent and could care less, especially young people. I would say the majority of priests and deacons are ambivalent. Those who are keeping up with it are anxiety laden. At this point CAtholics are free to believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the synod or not, just as any Catholic can believe in or not believe Marian apparitions, even the ones approved, like Lourdes and Fatima. Aging heterodox progressives are jubilant. They comprise the majority of the less than 1/3rd % of all Catholics who have an opinion, yea or nay on the synod.
Does Thomas actually think most bishops are going to publicly contradict the pope? He expects them to at least tow the party line publicly, and I suspect many say what they are paid to say, regardless of their private thoughts. I also have no doubt that many bishops ARE excited about the prospect of dismantling the Catholic Church into the synodal chaos the Orthodox churches enjoy. Bishops like Strickland, meaning bishops with integrity and courage, are few and far between.
Mr. Thomas' desire to publicly display his naivete is stunning.
Father McDonald said..."And yes, I use to be excited to read and understand the profound statements of popes, but not with Francis. I cringe and now prefer to ignore his teachings..."
Father McDonald, my pastor, in communion with our God-loving bishop, has, with great enthusiasm, brought us in touch with His Holiness' teachings. In turn, at my parish, there is tremendous love, respect, as well as enthusiasm, for Pope Francis. That applies as well to the four nearby parishes with which I am familiar. Converts have informed me that their love for Pope Francis had ignited their interest in the Church.
Young Catholics are on board with Pope Francis. For years, numerous young priests from our seminary have championed Pope Francis.
Pope Benedict XVI heaped tremendous love, respect, and praise, upon Pope Francis. In line with Pope Benedict XVI, the holy priests in my area have continued to promote that in regard to Pope Francis.
Deo gratias for holy priests who have brought us close to Pope Francis. God, via His Holiness Pope Francis, has blessed me abundantly.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Fr. Allan J. McDonald said... But you are correct, a subsequent pope or successor of Saint Peter can declare such and such a pope to be an anti-pope. However, in the history of popes, the only ones declared to be anti popes are the ones who existed with other men declaring they were pope too at the same time. It wasn’t really clear who the duly elected pope was.
Father, the above statement is not correct.
Formosus was elected pope in AD 891. There is no evidence that anyone else claimed to be pope during his reign. Later, the Church, in the person of Stephen VI (VII), declared Formosus to be an antipope (I use that language to prove a point).
In AD 896, after Formosus' death, Boniface VI was "elected" as a result of a rioting populace. He had been reduced to the lay state twice by John VIII due to accusations of immorality. He was rehabilitated by John after the first time but was never rehabilitated after the second time. Thus, according to some, who shall remain unnamed, God chose a defrocked priest to serve as pope. His papacy lasted 15 days.
Subsequently, in AD 898, God apparently changed His mind, and the Church, in the person of John IX, declared the irregular papacy of Boniface VI null and void.
After Boniface's death, the Church, in the person of Stephen VI (VII), declared Formosus to be an antipope after the "cadaver synod." That declaration was later reinforced by Sergius III.
The problem with the positions of certain people who shall remain nameless is that the Church also, in the persons of Theodore II, John IX (who annulled the papacy of Boniface VI), Benedict IV, and Leo V, contradicted Stephen and Sergius and held Formosus to be a valid pope.
In AD 898, Sergius III was elected but then deposed by his enemies and excommunicated by John IX, who, according to Sergius, had usurped the papacy.
After the alleged pontificates of John IX, Benedict IV, Leo V, and antipope Christopher, Sergius III took the papacy with the help of an army. The Church then proceeded, in the person of Sergius III, to declare John, Benedict, Leo, and Christopher to be antipopes.
Other than Sergius, who was never declared to be an antipope, no one opposed the pontificates of John IX and Benedict IV. So, if they were indeed antipopes, as the Church has stated in the person of Sergius III, the only reason they would be antipopes is because Sergius was the true pope who had been deposed.
In addition to the above, there are several problems with the Annuario Pontificio, which lists some people as popes and then later lists them as antipopes.
What this mess tells us is that the opinions of some people are not correct regarding whether popes are elected directly by the Holy Ghost and whether everything a pope does means that "the Church" is actually doing that. If that is true, as certain people maintain, then both the Church and the Holy Ghost contradict themselves.
Father McDonald said..."Bishops are putting on a positive face and spin on the synod. The majority of laity are ambivalent and could care less, especially young people."
There are many Catholics who couldn't care less about assisting at Sunday Mass, Confession, embracing popular devotions, marrying within the Church, baptizing their children into the Church, obeying one Church teaching after another, etc.
Oh, well.
Father McDonald, the unavoidable reality is that Church's future will feature Her Synodal side.
In communion with the Vicar of Christ, and having listened with His Holiness to the Holy Ghost, your bishops — Stephen Parkes, as well as Most Rev. Jacques Fabre-Jeune, CS, DD — my bishop, and one bishop after another throughout the Church, will guide Holy Mother Church down the Synodal path.
In regard to those who are uninterested in the above: Oh, well. That is the irreversible path upon which Holy Mother Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, has embarked.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."Bishops are putting on a positive face and spin on the synod."
They should, as in line with Pope Francis, one bishop after another throughout the world has taught that the Synod is Holy Ghost-driven.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT, no one has to believe the synod is Holy Spirit driven. But, like you, you can believe it until the next pope cancels synodality as Pope Zfrancis understands it and then you are free to believe the cancelation by the next pope is Holy Spirit driven.
By Larry Chapp:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/09/13/on-the-illogic-and-insanity-of-sedevacantism/
Altman has no case.
Father McDonald,
LOL. You nailed it. Only leftwing loons care about the Synods because it is their tool to change doctrine.
The citation of inspiration and guidance by the Holy Spirit sets me against nearly anyone who claims it. I can be convinced, but it would, ironically, take an act of God.
"Young Catholics are on board with Pope Francis. For years, numerous young priests from our seminary have championed Pope Francis."
Perhaps the most hilarious, delusional statement this poor fellow has offered us yet!
Jerome Merwick,
His obsession with the worst Pope of my lifetime, and I go back to Pius XII, borders on the insane. I know three young pastors, all in their 30s, who loathe Pope Francis and are praying for better times. They never speak of him publicly and do not cite any of his "works." Strange, they do publicly mention John Paul II and Benedict. But then again, their words are worth mentioning.
Jerome Merwick
This should get the flow of non sequiturs and holy, holies, going!
"The Abortion Pope: Under the Benevolent Silence of Francis and his Negligent Bishops, Latin America became the Center of the Global Babykilling Industry
First, his neighboring Uruguay. Then, his native Argentina. Then, Colombia. Now, the second-greatest prize, Mexico. Soon, Brazil, whose Supreme Court has just started debating the liberalization, and others.
Francis says NOTHING. We know, from John Paul II, that a Church that is clear in her pronouncements on abortion can truly change the debate. The Wojtyla pontificate was a beacon of hope for life, from Latin America to Eastern Europe — and even in UN conferences. Yet Francis says nothing. He does nothing. On the contrary, his allies are the same globalists promoting human sacrifice in Latin America. Maybe they think it’s good for the climate and net zero carbon goals"
Father McDonald said..."But, like you, you can believe it until the next pope cancels synodality as Pope Zfrancis understands it and then you are free to believe the cancelation by the next pope is Holy Spirit driven."
Father McDonald, I stand with Pope Benedict XVI's holy example: I will (should I live) grant unto Pope Francis' successor my unconditional reverence and obedience. I will accept the future Pope's God-given authority to teach, govern, and sanctify me.
I had stood with Pope Benedict XVI when he "cancelled" the ancient, traditional Good Friday prayer for Jews.
I had stood with Pope Benedict XVI when he "cancelled" the ancient, traditional, Good Friday prayer for Jews. I had stood with Pope Benedict XVI when he "cancelled" ancient teachings that had condemned prayer and worship with non-Catholics.
I had stood with Pope Benedict XVI when he "cancelled" Pope Saint John Paul II's liturgical peace plan.
Today, I stand with His Holiness, Pope Francis. Should I live to see Pope Francis' successor, then I will stand with our future Pope.
The tremendous power to bind or loose has been granted to the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, in line with Pope Benedict XVI's holy example, I will always render unto the Roman Pontiff my "unconditional reverence and obedience."
Father McDonald, thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment