MONS. SCHNEIDER DIXIT

 

BISHOP SCHNEIDER DIXIT (II)

 

BISHOP SCHNEIDER DIXIT

 

SAME‐SEX CIVIL UNIONS AND THE CATHOLIC FAITH

 

INTRODUCTION BY CATHOLICITY

 It should be noted that the personal opinions expressed by a Pope in an interview are not infallible nor do they express the Magisterium of the Church if what is said does not coincide with it. This is the case of the recent opinions of Pope Francis regarding homosexuality. Although it is true that in the first part of the interview -in which the Pope claims the right for homosexuals to be part of the family they were born in- has been distorted, with malicious intent, by the news media that presented it as referring to homosexual relationships, it is also true that he asserted the following that totally contradicts Catholic doctrine:

 “What we have to have is a civil coexistence law; they have the right to be legally covered.” 

 This is literally the unorthodox expression in the second part to the reporter's question about whether homosexuals can bring their children to church. The Pope does not answer the question, instead he starts talking about the exclusion of homosexuals from the family in which they were born, as the first part of the answer. And there is a pause after which the Pope asks again for "a law of civil coexistence." 

 Rome Reports, the Vatican's digital news newspaper, thus interpreted Pope Francis's statements regarding homosexual couples, with the following title: "Pope Francis says same-sex couples have a right to be legally covered."

 Bishop Víctor Manuel Fernández, Archbishop of La Plata and theological advisor to Pope Francis, interpreted it this way: "Coexistence and Civil Unions are the same for the Pope.” https://www.aciprensa.com/noticias/conntación-y-union-civil-son-lo-mismo-para-el-papa-explica-arzobispo-asesor-de-francisco-20110 

 The Church is made up of the hierarchy and the Catholic faithful, the Pope only represents Christ, he is the Vicar of Christ, servant of Christ. He cannot replace Christ, nor contradict Him, on the contrary, his function is to strengthen the sheep in the faith of Christ and keep it INTEGRAL and INTACT. 

 The correct stance to address this problem should be: 

 1. Never ignore the Authority of the Pope.

 2. Reaffirm our filial reverence for the Pontiff.

 3. Recognize that there is a serious crisis due to his statements and the documents he has published that derive from and exaggerate previous Modernist errors. 

4. Through prudent and respectful action, conclude that it is not possible to accept what is objectively contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 5. It is necessary to opt for a healthy, respectful and filial resistance, and to prudently make known and warn others what goes against the two thousand-year teachings of the Catholic Church in order to remain firmly faithful to them and, therefore, faithful to Christ and to His Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church. Below we include a very important article by Bishop Athanasius Schneider that extraordinarily clarifies the Catholic doctrine and a truly Catholic position.

 SAME-SEX CIVIL UNIONS AND THE CATHOLIC FAITH 

By Bishop Athanasius Schneider 

 The Catholic Faith in the voice of the perennial Magisterium, the sense of the faith of the faithful (sensus fidelium) as well as common sense clearly reject any civil union of two persons of the same sex, a union which has the aim that these persons seek sexual pleasure from each other. Even if persons living in such unions should not engage in mutual sexual pleasure — which in reality has been shown to be quite unrealistic — such unions represent a great scandal, a public recognition of sins of fornication against nature and a continuous proximate occasion of sin. Those who advocate same-sex civil unions are therefore also culpable of creating a kind of structure of sin, in this case of the juridical structure of habitual fornication against nature, since homosexual acts belong to sins which cry to heaven, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (see n. 1867). 

Every true Catholic, every true Catholic priest, every true Catholic bishop must with deep sorrow and a weeping heart regret and protest against the unheard fact, that Pope Francis, the Roman Pontiff, the successor of the apostle Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth, uttered in the documentary film “Francesco” that premiered on October 21st 2020 as part of the Rome Film Festival his support for civil same-sex unions. Such support of the pope means support for a structure of sin, for a lifestyle against the sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, which was written with the fingers of God on stone tables on Sinai (see Ex. 31:18) and delivered by the hands of Angels to men (see Gal. 3:19). 

 What God has written with His hand, even a pope cannot erase nor rewrite with his hand or with his tongue. The Pope cannot behave as if he were God or an incarnation of Jesus Christ, modifying these words of the Lord: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Mt 5:27-28) and instead of this say, more or less, the following: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’, ‘if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination’ (Lev. 20:13), ‘men who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God’ (1 Cor. 6:9); ‘the practice of homosexuality is contrary to sound doctrine’ (1 Tim. 1:10). But I say to you that for persons who feel same-sex attraction “we have to create a civil union law. That way they are legally covered”.

 Every Shepherd of the Church and the Pope above all should always remind others of these serious words of Our Lord: “Anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:19). Every pope has to take very much to heart what the First Vatican Council proclaimed: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.” (Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus, chap. 4).

 The advocating of a legal union so that a lifestyle against the explicit Commandment of God, against human nature and against human reason will be legally covered, is a new doctrine, which “sews cushions under every elbow and makes pillows for the heads of persons” (Ez. 13:18), a new doctrine that “perverts the grace of our God into sexual pleasure” (Jude 4), a doctrine which is evidently against Divine Revelation and the perennial teaching of the Church of all times. Such a doctrine is scheming with sin, and is therefore a most anti-pastoral measure.

To promote a juridical lifestyle of sin is against the core of the Gospel itself, since persons in same-sex unions through their sexual acts grievously offend God. Our Lady of Fatima made the maternal appeal to all humanity to stop offending God, who is already too much offended. 

 The following voice of the Magisterium, is faithfully echoing the voice of Jesus Christ, Our Divine Master, the Eternal Truth, and the voice of the Church and the popes of all times: 

 • “Civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.” (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium vitae, 72).

• “Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, n. 6) 

• “It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behavior, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behavior as a private phenomenon and the same behavior as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more far-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior”. Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.” (ibid.) 

 • “Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.” (ibid., n. 7) 

 • “By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.” (ibid., n. 8)

 • “The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it. There are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.” (ibid.) 

 • “It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society” (ibid., n. 9) 

 • There is always “a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons, July 24, 1992, n. 14) 

 All Catholics whether they be lay faithful as little children, as young men and young women, as fathers and mothers of family, or as consecrated persons, as cloistered nuns, as priests and as bishops, are inviolably keeping and “fighting for the faith which was once and for ever delivered to the Saints,” (Jude 3), and who are for this reason despised and marginalized at the periphery in the life of the Church of our days, should weep and cry to God that, through the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, who in Fatima said that people should stop offending God, who is already too offended, Pope Francis may convert and retract formally his approval for the civil same-sex unions, in order to confirm his brethren, as the Lord has commanded him (see Luke 22:32). 

 All these little ones in the Church (children, young men, young women, fathers and mothers of family, cloistered nuns, priests, bishops) would surely say to Pope Francis: Most Holy Father, for the sake of the salvation of your own immortal soul, for the sake of the souls of all those persons who through your approval of the same-sex unions are by their sexual acts grievously offending God and exposing their souls to the danger to be eternally lost, convert, retract your approval and proclaim with all your predecessors the following unchangeable teaching of the Church: 

 “The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, n. 11)

 “Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.” (ibid., n. 11)

 By the incredible approval of same-sex unions through the pope, all the true children of the Church feel like orphans, no more hearing the clear and unambiguous voice of the Pope, who should inviolably keep and faithfully expound Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.

 The true children of the Church of our days might use these words of Psalm 137, saying: We feel as if in exile, by the rivers of Babylon, weeping when remembering Zion, when remembering the luminous and crystal-clear teaching of the popes, of our Holy Mother Church. Yet we unshakably believe in the words of Our Lord, that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. 

 The Lord will come, even if He will come late, only in the fourth watch of the night, to calm the storm within the Church, to calm the storm within the papacy of our days, and He will say: “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid. O you of little faith, why did you doubt? And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.” (Mt. 14:27;32-33).

 Our Lord will say also to Pope Francis: “For what does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, and suffers the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works.” (Mt. 16:26-27); and Our Lord will say in addition to Pope Francis: “I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and that once you have converted, you must strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32)

 October 22, 2020 

 + Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana * 

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE COUNCIL AND THE CURRENT CRISIS OF THE CHURCH

On June 24, 2020, Bishop Athanasius Schneider issued the following text to clarify his stance on the Council, and to dispel any confusion among the faithful. Bishop Schneider’s reflections, based in great part on his book-length interview Christus Vincit: Christ’s Triumph Over the Darkness of the Age, expand on certain points of its discussion of Vatican II, in light of recent debate.

Bishop Schneider gave the official version of the document exclusively to Corrispondenza Romana in Italian, to Correspondencia Romana in Spanish, to The Remnant in English and to the Blog of Jeanne Smits in French. All rights reserved.

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE COUNCIL AND THE CURRENT CRISIS OF THE CHURCH

June 25, 2020 (The Remnant) – In recent decades, not only declared modernists, but also theologians and faithful who love the Church, have displayed an attitude that resembles a kind of blind defense of everything said by the Second Vatican Council. Such an attitude seemed sometimes to require real mental acrobatics and a “squaring of the circle.” Even now, the general mentality of good Catholics corresponds with a de facto total infallibilization of everything that the Second Vatican Council said, or that the current Pontiff says or does. This kind of unhealthy papal-centralism had already been present for several generations in Catholics over the last two centuries. And yet respectful criticism and serene theological debate have always been present and allowed within the Church’s great tradition, since it is truth and faithfulness to divine revelation and to the constant tradition of the Church that we should seek, which in itself implies the use of reason and rationality, and avoiding mental acrobatics. Some explanations of certain obviously ambiguous and misleading expressions contained in the Council’s texts seem artificial and unconvincing, especially when one reflects upon them in a more intellectually honest manner, in the light of the unbroken and constant doctrine of the Church.

Instinctively, every reasonable argument has been repressed which could, even in the slightest, call into question any expression or word in the Council texts. However, such an attitude is not healthy and contradicts the great tradition of the Church, as we observe in the Fathers, the Doctors, and great theologians of the Church over the course of two thousand years. An opinion different from what the Council of Florence taught on the matter of the Sacrament of Orders, i.e. the traditio instrumentorum, was allowed in the centuries following this Council, and led to Pope Pius XII’s pronouncement in the 1947 Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, whereby he corrected the non-infallible teaching of the Council of Florence, by stating that the only matter strictly necessary for the validity of the Sacrament of Orders is the imposition of hands by the bishop. By this act, Pius XII did not implement a hermeneutic of continuity but, indeed, a correction, because the Council of Florence’s doctrine in this matter did not reflect the constant liturgical doctrine and practice of the universal Church. Already in the year 1914, Cardinal W.M. van Rossum wrote concerning the Council of Florence’s affirmation on the matter of the Sacrament of Orders, that this doctrine of the Council is reformable and must even be abandoned (cf. De essentia sacramenti ordinis, Freiburg 1914, p. 186). And so, there was no room for a hermeneutic of continuity in this concrete case.

When the papal magisterium or an ecumenical Council has corrected non-infallible doctrines of previous ecumenical Councils (this has rarely happened), they did not undermine the foundations of the Catholic faith by this act, nor did they set the magisterium of tomorrow against that of today, as history has proven. With a Bull in 1425, Martin V approved the decrees of the Council of Constance and even the decree “Frequens” — from the 39th session of the Council (in 1417). This decree affirmed the error of conciliarism, i.e., the error that a Council is superior to a Pope. However, in 1446, his successor, Pope Eugene IV, declared that he accepted the decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Constance, except those (of sessions 3 – 5 and 39) which “prejudice the rights and primacy of the Apostolic See” (absque tamen praeiudicio iuris, dignitatis et praeeminentiae Sedis Apostolicae).

Vatican I’s dogma on papal primacy then definitively rejected the conciliarist error of the Ecumenical Council of Constance. As already mentioned, Pope Pius XII corrected the error of the Ecumenical Council of Florence regarding the matter of the Sacrament of Orders. The foundations of the faith were not undermined by these rare acts to correct previous affirmations of the non-infallible Magisterium, precisely because these concrete affirmations (e.g. of the Councils of Constance and Florence) were not infallible.

Several expressions in the texts of the Second Vatican Council cannot be so easily reconciled with the Church’s constant doctrinal tradition. Examples include certain expressions of the Council on the topic of religious freedom (understood as a natural right, and therefore positively willed by God, to practice and spread a false religion, which may also include idolatry or even worse); its distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church (the problem of “subsistit in” gives the impression that two realities exist: on the one side, the Church of Christ, and on the other, the Catholic Church); and its stance towards non-Christian religions and the contemporary world.

Although the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church (29 June 2007), offered an explanation of the expression “subsistit in,” it unfortunately avoided saying clearly that the Church of Christ is truly the Catholic Church. That is, it avoided explicitly declaring the identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. Indeed, there remains a nuance of vagueness.

There is also an attitude that rejects a priori all possible objections to the aforementioned questionable statements in the Council texts. Instead, the only solution presented is the method called “hermeneutic of continuity.” Unfortunately, doubts about the theological problems inherent in these Council statements are not taken seriously. We have to always bear in mind the fact that the chief end of the Council was pastoral in character, and that the Council did not intend to propose its own definitive teachings.

The pronouncements of the popes before the Council, even those of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, faithfully reflect their predecessors and the constant tradition of the Church in an unbroken manner. The popes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, that is, after the French Revolution, do not represent an “exotic” period compared to the two-thousand-year tradition of the Church. One could not claim any rupture in the teachings of those popes regarding the previous Magisterium. For example, concerning the theme of the social kingship of Christ and of the objective falsehood of non-Christian religions, one cannot find a perceivable rupture between the teachings of the Popes Gregory XVI and Pius XII on the one side, and the teaching of Pope Gregory the Great (sixth century) and his predecessors and successors on the other.

One can really see a continuous line without any rupture from the time of the Church Fathers to Pius XII, especially on such topics as the social kingship of Christ, religious liberty, and ecumenism in the sense that there is a natural right, positively willed by God, to practice only the one true religion which is the Catholic faith. Before the Second Vatican Council there was no need to make a colossal effort to present voluminous studies showing the perfect continuity of doctrine between one Council and another, between a pope and his predecessors, because the continuity was evident. For example, the very fact that a “nota explicativa previa” to the document Lumen Gentium was needed shows that the text of Lumen Gentium, in n. 22, is ambiguous with regard to the topic of the relationship between papal primacy and episcopal collegiality. Documents clarifying the Magisterium in post-conciliar times, such as the encyclicals Mysterium Fidei, Humanae Vitae, and Pope Paul VI’s Creed of the People of God, were of great value and help, but they did not clarify the aforementioned ambiguous statements of the Second Vatican Council.

Perhaps today’s crisis with Amoris Laetitia and the Abu Dhabi document forces us to deepen this consideration on the need to clarify or correct some of the aforementioned Council statements. In the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas always presented objections (“videtur quod”) and counterarguments (“sed contra”). St. Thomas was intellectually very honest; you have to allow for objections and take them seriously. We should use his method on some of the controversial points of the Council texts that have been under discussion for almost sixty years. Most of the Council texts are in organic continuity with the previous Magisterium. Ultimately, the papal magisterium has to clarify in a convincing manner the controversial points of some of the expressions in the Council texts. Until now, this has not always been done in an intellectually honest and convincing way. Were it necessary, a pope or future ecumenical Council would have to add explanations (a kind of “notae explicativae posteriors”) or even amendments and corrections of those controversial expressions, since they were not presented by the Council as an infallible and definitive teaching. As Paul VI stated, the Council “avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium” (General Audience, January 12, 1966).

History will tell us this from a distance. We are only fifty years out from the Council. Maybe we will see this more clearly in another fifty years. However, from the point of view of the facts, of the evidence, from a global perspective, Vatican II did not bring a real spiritual flowering in the life of the Church. And even if there were already problems in the clergy before the Council, for the sake of honesty and justice, we have to acknowledge that the moral, spiritual and doctrinal problems of the clergy prior to the Council were not as widespread, or so vast in scale and present with such intensity, as they have been in post-conciliar times until today. Bearing in mind that there were already problems before the Council, the first aim of the Second Vatican Council should have been precisely to issue the clearest possible, even demanding, norms and doctrines that were free of any ambiguity, as all the reform Councils did in the past. The plan and intentions of the Second Vatican Council were primarily pastoral, yet, despite its pastoral aim, there followed disastrous consequences that we still see today. Of course, the Council had many beautiful and valuable texts. But the negative consequences and the abuses committed in the name of the Council were so strong that they overshadowed the positive elements which are there.

There were positive elements in Vatican II: it was the first time that an ecumenical Council made a solemn appeal to the laity to take seriously their baptismal vows to strive for holiness. The chapter in Lumen Gentium about the laity is beautiful and profound. The faithful are called to live out their baptism and confirmation as courageous witnesses of the faith in secular society. This appeal was prophetic. However, since the Council, this appeal to the laity was often abused by the progressive establishment in the Church, and also by many functionaries and bureaucrats who worked in Church offices and chanceries. Oftentimes the new lay bureaucrats (in certain European countries) were not themselves witnesses but helped to destroy the faith in parish and diocesan councils and in other official committees. Unfortunately, these lay bureaucrats were oftentimes misled by clergy and bishops.

The time after the Council left one with the impression that one of the main fruits of the Council was bureaucratization. This worldly bureaucratization in the decades since the Council paralyzed spiritual and supernatural fervor to a considerable extent, and instead of the announced springtime, there came a spiritual winter. Well known and unforgettable remain the words with which Paul VI honestly diagnosed the Church’s state of spiritual health after the Council: “We thought that after the Council there would come a day of sunshine for the history of the Church. Instead, there has come a day of clouds, of storms, of darkness, of searching and of uncertainty. We preach ecumenism and we distance ourselves more and more from others. We seek to dig abysses instead of filling them” (Sermon on June 29, 1972).

Within this context, it was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in particular (although he was not the only one to do so) who began, on a larger scale and with a frankness similar to that of some of the great Church Fathers, to protest the watering down and dilution of the Catholic faith, especially regarding the sacrificial and sublime character of the rite of Holy Mass, that was occurring in the Church, and being supported or at least tolerated, even by the high-ranking authorities in the Holy See. In a letter addressed to Pope John Paul II at the beginning of his pontificate, Archbishop Lefebvre realistically and aptly described in a brief synopsis the true extent of the crisis in the Church. I am continually impressed by the clear-sightedness and prophetic character of the following affirmations:

In approaching matters related to the Second Vatican Council and its documents, one has to avoid forced interpretations and the method of “squaring the circle,” while of course keeping all due respect and the ecclesiastical sense (sentire cum ecclesia). The application of the principle of the “hermeneutic of continuity” cannot be used blindly in order to eliminate unquestioningly any evidently existing problems, or to create an image of harmony, while there remain shadows of vagueness in the hermeneutic of continuity. Indeed, such an approach would transmit artificially and unconvincingly the message that every word of the Second Vatican Council is inspired by God, infallible and in perfect doctrinal continuity with the previous magisterium. Such a method would violate reason, evidence, and honesty, and would not do honor to the Church.

Sooner or later (maybe after a hundred years) the truth will be stated as it really is. There are books with documented and reproducible sources, which provide historically more realistic and true insights into the facts and consequences regarding the event of Vatican II itself, the editing of its documents, and the process of the interpretation and application of its reforms in the last five decades. I recommend, for instance, the following books which could be read with profit: Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th century (1996); Roberto de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story (2010); Alfonso Gálvez, Ecclesiastical Winter (2011).

These points — the universal call to holiness, the role of the laity in defending and witnessing to the faith, the family as a domestic church and the teaching about Our Lady — are what can be considered the truly positive and lasting contributions of the Second Vatican Council.

The Magisterium has been so overloaded in the last 150 years with an insane papolatry that there emerged an atmosphere in which a central role is attributed to the men of the Church instead of Christ and His Mystical Body, which in turn is a hidden anthropocentrism. According to the vision of the Church Fathers, the Church is only the moon (mysterium lunae), and Christ is the sun. The Council was unfortunately a demonstration of a very rare “Magisteriocentrism,” since by the sheer volume of its long-winded documents it far surpassed all other Councils. However, the Council gave a beautiful description of what the Magisterium is, which had never before been given in the history of the Church. It is found in Dei Verbum, n. 10, where it is written: “The Magisterium is not above the Word of God, but serves it.”

By “Magisteriocentrism,” I mean the human and administrative elements — especially the excessive and continuous production of documents and frequent discussion forums (under the motto of “synodality”) — were put at the center of the life of the Church. Although the Shepherds of the Church must always zealously exercise the munus docendi, the inflation of documents, and oftentimes of long-winded documents, has proved suffocating. Less numerous, shorter and more concise documents would have had a better effect.

A striking example of the unhealthy “Magisteriocentrism,” where representatives from the Magisterium behave not as servants but as masters of tradition, is the liturgical reform of Pope Paul VI. In some ways, Paul VI put himself above Tradition — not the dogmatic Tradition (lex credendi), but the great liturgical Tradition (lex orandi). Paul VI dared to begin a true revolution in the lex orandi. And to some extent, he acted contrary to the affirmation of the Second Vatican Council in Dei Verbum, n. 10, which states that the Magisterium is only the servant of Tradition. We have to put Christ at the center, He is the sun: the supernatural, the constancy of doctrine and of the liturgy, and all the truths of the Gospel which Christ taught us.

Through the Second Vatican Council, and already with Pope John XXIII, the Church began to present herself to the world, to flirt with the world, and to manifest an inferiority complex towards the world. Yet clerics, especially the bishops and the Holy See, are tasked with showing Christ to the world — not themselves. Vatican II gave the impression that the Catholic Church has started begging sympathy from the world. This continued in the postconciliar pontificates. The Church is begging for the sympathy and recognition of the world; this is unworthy of her and will not earn the respect of those who truly seek God. We have to beg sympathy from Christ, from God, from heaven.

Some who criticize the Second Vatican Council say that, although there are good aspects to it, it’s somewhat like a cake with a bit of poison in it, and so the whole cake needs to be thrown out. I do not think we can follow this method, nor the method of “throwing the baby out with the bath water.”

With regard to a legitimate ecumenical Council, even if there were negative points, we have to maintain an overall attitude of respect. We have to evaluate and esteem all that is really and truly good in the Council texts, without irrationally and dishonestly closing the eyes of reason to what is objectively and evidently ambiguous and even erroneous in some of the texts. One has always to remember that the texts of the Second Vatican Council are not the inspired Word of God, nor are they definitive dogmatic judgments or infallible pronouncements of the Magisterium, because the Council itself did not have this intention.

Another example is Amoris Laetitia. There are certainly many points we need to criticize objectively and doctrinally. But there are some sections which are very helpful, really good for family life, e.g., about elderly people in the family: in se they are very good. One should not reject the entire document but receive from it what is good. The same with the Council texts.

Even though, before the Council, they all had to take the Anti-Modernist Oath issued by Pope Pius X, some theologians, priests, bishops and even cardinals did it with mental reservations, as subsequent historical events have proven. With the pontificate of Benedict XV, there began a slow and careful infiltration of ecclesiastics with a worldly and somewhat Modernist spirit into high positions in the Church. This infiltration grew particularly among theologians, so that later Pope Pius XII had to intervene by condemning well-known theologians of the so-called “nouvelle théologie” (Chenu, Congar, De Lubac, etc.), and by publishing in 1950 the encyclical Humani generis.

Nonetheless, from the pontificate of Benedict XV onwards, the Modernist movement was latent and continually growing. And so, on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, a considerable part of the episcopacy and professors in the theological faculties and seminaries were imbued with a Modernist mentality, which is essentially doctrinal and moral relativism and worldliness, love for the world. On the eve of the Council, these cardinals, bishops and theologians loved the “form” — the thought pattern — of the world (cf. Rom 12:2) and wanted to please the world (cf. Gal 1:10). They showed a clear inferiority complex towards the world.

Pope John XXIII also demonstrated a kind of inferiority complex towards the world. He was not a modernist in his mind, but he did have a political way of looking at the world and strangely begged sympathy from the world. He surely had good intentions. He convoked the Council, which then opened the floodgate for the Modernist, Protestantizing and worldly-minded movement inside the Church. Very significant is the following acute observation, made by Charles de Gaulle, President of France from 1959 to 1969, regarding Pope John XXIII and the process of reforms started with the Second Vatican Council: “John XXIII opened the floodgates and could not close them again. It was as if a dam collapsed. John XXIII was overcome by what he triggered” (see Alain Peyrefitte, C’était de Gaulle, Paris 1997, 2, 19).

The talk of “opening the windows” before and during the Council was a misleading illusion and a cause of confusion. From these words, people got the impression that the spirit of an unbelieving and materialistic world, which was plainly evident in those times, could transmit some positive values for the Christian life. Instead, the authorities of the Church in those times should have expressly declared the true meaning of the words “opening the windows,” which consists in opening the life of the Church to the fresh air of the beauty of divine truth, to the treasures of ever-youthful holiness, to the supernatural lights of the Holy Spirit and the saints, to a liturgy celebrated and lived with an ever more supernatural, sacred and reverent sense. Over time, during the postconciliar era, the partly opened floodgate gave way to a disastrous flood which caused enormous damage in doctrine, morals, and liturgy. Today, the flood waters that entered are reaching dangerous levels. 

We are now experiencing the peak of the flood disaster.

Today the veil has been lifted and Modernism has revealed its true face, which consists in the betrayal of Christ and becoming a friend of the world by adopting its way of thinking. Once the crisis in the Church is over, the Magisterium of the Church will have the task of rejecting all the negative phenomena which have been present in the life of the Church in recent decades. And the Church will do this, because she is divine. She will do it precisely and will correct all of the errors which have accumulated, beginning with several ambiguous expressions in the Council texts.

Modernism is like a hidden virus, hidden in part in several affirmations of the Council, but that has now manifested itself. After the crisis, after the serious spiritual viral infection, the clarity and preciseness of doctrine, the sacredness of the liturgy, and the holiness of priestly life, will shine more brightly.

The Church will do this in an unambiguous manner, as she did in times of serious doctrinal and moral crises over the past two thousand years. To teach clearly the truths of the divine deposit of faith, to defend the faithful from the poison of error, and to lead them in a sure way to eternal life belongs to the very essence of the divinely appointed task of the pope and bishops.

The Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, reminds us of the real nature of the true Church, which is “in such wise that in her, the human is directed and subordinated to the divine, the visible to the invisible, action to contemplation and this present world to that city yet to come, which we seek” (n. 2).

His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider
June 24, 2020
Liturgical Feast of the Birth of St. John the Baptist

BISHOP SCHNEIDER: THE BAN ON COMMUNION IN THE MOUTH… CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF AUTHORITY. RELATED TO CORONAVIRUS

Editor’s note: The following article was first published at Rorate Caeli, and is reprinted with Bishop Schneider’s permission.

February 28, 2020 (Rorate Caeli) – Nobody can force us to receive the Body of Christ in a way that constitutes a risk of the loss of the fragments, and a decrease in reverence, as is the way of receiving Communion in the hand…

In these cases, it is better to make a Spiritual Communion, which fills the soul with special graces. In times of persecution, many Catholics were unable to receive Holy Communion in a sacramental way for long periods of time, but they made a Spiritual Communion with much spiritual benefit.

Communion in the hand is no more hygienic than Communion in the mouth. Indeed, it can be dangerous for contagion. From a hygienic point of view, the hand carries a huge amount of bacteria. Many pathogens are transmitted through the hands. Whether by shaking other people's hands or frequently touching objects, such as door handles or handrails and grab bars in public transport, germs can quickly pass from hand to hand; and with these unhygienic hands and fingers people then touch often their nose and mouth.

Also, germs can sometimes survive on the surface of the touched objects for days. According to a 2006 study, published in the journal "BMC Infectious Diseases", influenza viruses and similar viruses can persist on inanimate surfaces, such as e.g. door handles or handrails and handles in transport and public buildings for a few days.

Many people who come to church and then receive Holy Communion in their hands have first touched door handles or handrails and grab bars in public transport or other buildings. Thus, viruses are imprinted on the palm and fingers of their hands. And then during Holy Mass with these hands and fingers they are sometimes touching their nose or mouth. With these hands and fingers they touch the consecrated host, thus impressing the virus also on the host, thus transporting the viruses through the host into their mouth.

Communion in the mouth is certainly less dangerous and more hygienic compared to Communion in the hand. In fact, the palm and the fingers of the hand, without intense washing, undeniably contain an accumulation of viruses. The ban on Communion in the mouth is unfounded compared to the great health risks of Communion in the hand in the time of a pandemic. Such a ban constitutes an abuse of authority. Furthermore it seems, that some Church authorities are using the situation of an epidemic as a pretext. It seems also that some of them have a kind of cynical joy to spread more and more the process of trivialization and de-sacralization of the Most Holy and Divine Body of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrament, exposing the Body of the Lord himself to the real dangers of irreverence (loss of fragments) and sacrileges (theft of consecrated hosts). Then there is also the fact that during the Church's 2,000-year history there were no proven cases of contagion due to the reception of Holy Communion. In the Byzantine Church the priest gives Communion to the faithful even with a spoon, the same spoon for everyone. And then, the priest or deacon drinks the wine and water with which he purified the spoon, which was sometimes even touched with the tongue of a faithful during the reception of Holy Communion. Many faithful of the Eastern churches are scandalized, when they see the lack of faith of bishops and priests of the Latin Rite, as they introduce the ban on receiving Communion in the mouth, a ban made ultimately for lack of faith in the sacred and Divine character of the Body and Blood of the Eucharistic Christ.

Then there is also the fact that during the Church's 2,000-year history there were no proven cases of contagion due to the reception of Holy Communion.

In the Byzantine Church the priest gives Communion to the faithful even with a spoon, the same spoon for everyone. And then, the priest or deacon drinks the wine and water with which he purified the spoon, which was sometimes even touched with the tongue of a faithful during the reception of Holy Communion. Many faithful of the Eastern churches are scandalized, when they see the lack of faith of bishops and priests of the Latin Rite, as they introduce the ban on receiving Communion in the mouth, a ban made ultimately for lack of faith in the sacred and Divine character of the Body and Blood of the Eucharistic Christ.

The following prayer for making a Spiritual Communion is recommended:

At Thy feet, O my Jesus, I prostrate myself, and I offer Thee the repentance of my contrite heart, which is humbled in its nothingness and in Thy holy presence. I adore Thee in the Sacrament of Thy love, the ineffable Eucharist. I desire to receive Thee into the poor dwelling that my heart offers Thee. While waiting for the happiness of sacramental Communion, I wish to possess Thee in spirit. Come to me, O my Jesus, since I, for my part, am coming to Thee! The love embrace my whole being in life and in death. I believe in Thee, I hope in Thee, I love Thee. Amen

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of St. Mary in Astana

________________________________________

BISHOP SCHNEIDER: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A CATHOLIC BISHOP TO REMAIN SILENT BEFORE THIS SCANDAL

By INFOVATICANA | October 28, 2019

Syncretism and paganism are like poisons entering the veins of the Mystical Body of Christ, that’s what Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary Bishop of the diocese of Astana, published in an open letter on Saturday strongly condemning the use of the Pachamama statuettes in the Synod on the Amazon. He has asked all Catholics, bishops, priests and laity to offer acts of reparation, protest and correction for the use of these statuettes, which he has called a "new Golden Calf."

Below is the letter written by Bishop Schneider.

1. “You shall have no other gods before Me,” says the Lord God, as the first of the commandments (Ex 20:3). Delivered originally to Moses and the Hebrew people, this command remains valid for all people and all times, as God tells us: “You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them” (Ex 20:4-5). Our Lord Jesus Christ kept this commandment perfectly. When offered the kingdoms of the world if only he would bow to the devil, Jesus responded, “Begone, Satan! for it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve’” (Mt 4:10; Dt 6:13-14). The example of Christ therefore is of the utmost importance for all people who desire “the true God and eternal life”; as St. John the Apostle exhorts us: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 Jn 5:20-21).

In our day, this message has special importance, for syncretism and paganism are like poisons entering the veins of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. As a successor to the Apostles, entrusted with care for God’s flock, I cannot remain silent in the face of the blatant violation of God’s holy will and the disastrous consequences it will have upon individual souls, the Church as a whole, and indeed the entire human race. It is therefore with great love for the souls of my brothers and sisters that I write this message.

2. On October 4, 2019, on the eve of the Amazon Synod, a religious ceremony was held in the Vatican Gardens, in the presence of Pope Francis and of several bishops and cardinals, which was led partly by shamans and in which symbolic objects were used; namely, a wooden sculpture of an unclothed pregnant woman. These representations are known and belong to indigenous rituals of Amazonian tribes, and specifically to the worship of the so-called Mother Earth, the Pachamama.In the following days the wooden naked female figures were also venerated in St. Peter’s Basilica in front of the Tomb of St. Peter. Pope Francis also greeted two bishops carrying the Pachamama object on their shoulders processing it into the Synod Hall where it was set in a place of honor. Pachamama statues were also put on display in the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina.

In response to outcries from the Catholic faithful regarding these rites and the use of these statues, Vatican spokesmen and members of committees of the Amazon Synod downplayed or denied the evident religious syncretistic character of the statues.Their answers, however, were evasive and contradictory; they were acts of intellectual acrobatics and denials of obvious evidence.

The American visual media company “Getty Images” made an official press photograph of this ritual with this description: “Pope Francis and Cardinal Cardinal Cláudio Hummes, Archbishop Emeritus of São Paulo, President of the Pan-Amazonian Ecclesial Network (REPAM), stand in front of a statue representing Pachamama (Mother Earth).” Rev. Paulo Suess, a participant in the Amazon Synod, left no doubt as to the pagan character of the ceremonies with the wooden images in the Vatican Gardens and dared even to welcome pagan rites, saying: “Even if this was a pagan rite, it is nevertheless a pagan worship of God. One cannot dismiss paganism as nothing” (October 17, Vatican News interview). In an official statement, on October 21, the Pan-Amazonian Ecclesial Network (REPAM) condemned the heroic act of the gentlemen who had thrown the wooden images into the Tiber as an act of “religious intolerance.” They thereby unmasked the lies and tricks with which they denied the religious character of the venerated wooden images. Volunteers of the Carmelite Church Santa Maria in Traspontina, where the wooden statues were displayed, corroborated this statement, saying: “The [carved] mother that I brought from Brazil … that was in the procession, well, we brought it from Brazil. It was done by an indigenous artist, and we asked him for a piece of art that would symbolize all of that connection of Mother Earth, of women, the feminine aspect of God, that God is the one who protects and nourishes life,” she said, calling it both a symbol of “Mother Earth” and the “Pachamama.”

Objective sources note that the Pachamama is an object of veneration, a goddess to which some Bolivians sacrifice llamas, an earth deity worshipped by some Peruvians, rooted in pagan Incan beliefs and practices.

3. Catholics cannot accept any pagan worship, nor any syncretism between pagan beliefs and practices and those of the Catholic Church. The acts of worship of kindling a light, of bowing, of prostrating or profoundly bowing to the ground and dancing before an unclothed female statue, which represents neither Our Lady nor a canonized saint of the Church, violates the first Commandment of God: “You shall have no other gods before Me” and the explicit prohibition of God, who commands: “Beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and worship them and serve them, things which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven” (Dt 4:19), and: “You shall make for yourselves no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall you set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God” (Lev 26:1).

The Apostles prohibited even the slightest allusions or ambiguity in regard to acts of venerating idols: “And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Cor, 6:15-16), and “Flee from idolatry.  The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that you should have fellowship with devils. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: you cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” (1 Cor 10:16, 21-22).

St. Paul, without doubt, would say to all who actively participated in the acts of veneration of Pachamama statues, which symbolize material or creatural things, these words: “But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known by God: how turn you again to the weak and needy elements, which you desire to serve again?” (Gal 4:9). The pagans, indeed, worshipped the elements as though they were living things. And observing the syncretistic or at least highly ambiguous religious acts in the Vatican’s Gardens, in St. Peter’s Basilica and in the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, St. Paul would say: “They worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever” (Rom 1:25).

4. The uninterrupted tradition of the Church avoided the slightest ambiguities or collaborations with idolatrous acts. The explanations which were given by Vatican spokesmen and by persons connected with the Amazon Synod, in order to justify the religious veneration of the wooden figure of a pregnant naked woman, were very similar to the arguments given by the pagans in the time of the Fathers of the Church, as reported by St. Athanasius. St. Athanasius refuted the pseudo-arguments of the pagans, and his refutations apply fully to the justifications given by Vatican authorities. St. Athanasius said: “They will boast that they worship and serve, not mere stocks and stones and forms of men and irrational birds and creeping things and beasts, but the sun and moon and all the heavenly universe, and the earth, deifying thereby the creation” (Contra Gentiles, 21, 1-3) and: “They will combine all together, as constituting a single body, and will say that the whole is God” (Contra Gentiles, 28, 2). “Instead of the real and true God they deified things that were not, serving the creature rather than the Creator (see Rom. 1:25), thus involving themselves in foolishness and impiety” (Contra Gentiles, 47, 2).

The second-century apologist Athenagoras said about the veneration of material elements by pagans: “They deify the elements and their several parts, applying different names to them at different times. They say that Kronos is time, and Rhea the earth, and that she becomes pregnant by Kronos, and brings forth, whence she is regarded as the mother of all. Missing to discover the greatness of God, and not being able to rise on high with their reason (for they have no affinity for the heavenly place), they pine away among the forms of matter, and rooted to the earth, deify the changes of the elements” (Apol. 22).

The following words of the Second Council of Nicaea are fully applicable to all churchmen, who supported the above mentioned syncretistic religious acts in Rome: “Many pastors have destroyed my vine, they have defiled my portion. For they followed unholy men and trusting to their own frenzies they calumniated the holy Church, which Christ our God has espoused to himself, and they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane, asserting that the icons of our Lord and of his saints were no different from the wooden images of satanic idols.”

As established by the Second Council of Nicaea, the Church permits the veneration with exterior gestures of worship such as bowing, kissing and blessing, no other symbols, pictures, or statues but “the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype.”

5. Believers in the One True God have always worked to eliminate worship of false gods, and to remove their images from the midst of God’s holy people. When Hebrews bowed before the statue of the Golden Calf—encouraged and abetted by the high clergy—God condemned such acts. His servant Moses also condemned these acts of “welcoming and tolerance” towards the local indigenous divinities of those times and ground the statue to powder and scattered it on the water (see Ex. 32:20). Similarly, the Levites were commended for stopping all who worshipped the golden calf (Ex 32:20,29). Throughout the ages, true Catholics also have worked to overthrow the “powers of this present darkness” (Eph 6:12), and the veneration of images that represent them.

Amid the consternation and shock over the abomination perpetrated by the syncretistic religious acts in the Vatican, the entire Church and the world has witnessed a highly meritorious, courageous and praiseworthy act of some brave Christian gentlemen, who on October 21 expelled the wooden idolatrous statues from the Church of Santa Maria in Traspontina in Rome, and threw them into the Tiber. Like a new “Maccabees” they acted in the spirit of the holy wrath of Our Lord, who expelled the merchants from the temple of Jerusalem with a whip. The gestures of these Christian men will be recorded in the annals of Church history as a heroic act which brought glory to the Christian name, while the acts of high-ranking churchmen, on the contrary, who defiled the Christian name in Rome, will go down in history as cowardly and treacherous acts of ambiguity and syncretism. 

Pope St. Gregory the Great, in a letter to St. Aethelbert, the first Christian king of England, exhorts him to destroy idolatrous images: “Suppress the worship of idols; overthrow their buildings and shrines” (Bede, Ecclesiastical History, Book I).

St. Boniface, the Apostle of Germany, felled by his own hand an oak dedicated to the idol Thor or Donar, which was not only a religious, but also a symbol of the protection of soldiers, of vegetation and even of fertility of the indigenous culture of the Germanic tribes.

St. Vladimir, the first Christian prince in Kiev, went on to have the wooden idols he had erected, torn down and hacked to pieces. The wooden statue of the chief pagan God, Perun, he cast into the River Dnieper. This act of St. Vladimir is very reminiscent of the heroic act of those Christian gentlemen, who on October 21, 2019, threw the wooden statues of the pagan indigenous culture of Amazonian tribes into the Tiber River.

If the actions of Moses, of Our Lord Jesus Christ in violently expelling the merchants from the Temple, of St. Boniface and of St. Vladimir had taken place in our times, the Vatican spokesmen would surely have condemned them as acts of religious and cultural intolerance and theft.

6. The sentence of the Abu Dhabi document, which reads: “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom” found its practical realization in the Vatican ceremonies of the veneration of wooden statues, which represent pagan divinities or indigenous cultural symbols of fertility. It was the logical practical consequence of the Abu Dhabi statement.

7. In view of the requirements of the authentic worship and adoration of the One True God, the Most Blessed Trinity, and Christ Our Savior, in virtue of my ordination as a Catholic bishop and successor to the Apostles, and in true fidelity and love for the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter, and for his task to preside over the “Cathedra of the truth” (cathedra veritatis), I condemn the veneration of the pagan symbol of Pachamama in the Vatican Gardens, in St. Peter’s basilica, and in the Roman church of Santa Maria in Traspontina.

It would be good for all true Catholics, first and foremost bishops and then also priests and lay faithful, to form a worldwide chain of prayers and acts of reparation for the abomination of the veneration of wooden idols perpetrated in Rome during the Amazon Synod. Faced with such an evident scandal, it is impossible that a Catholic bishop would remain silent, it would be unworthy of a successor of the Apostles. The first in the Church who should condemn such acts and do reparation is Pope Francis.

The honest and Christian reaction to the dance around the Pachamama, the new Golden Calf, in the Vatican should consist in a dignified protest, a correction of this error, and above all in acts of reparation.

With tears in one’s eyes and with sincere sorrow in the heart, one should offer to God prayers of intercession and reparation for the eternal salvation of the soul of Pope Francis, the Vicar of Christ on earth, and the salvation of those Catholic priests and faithful who perpetrated such acts of worship, which are forbidden by Divine Revelation.

One could propose for this aim the following prayer:

“Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, receive through the hands of the Immaculate Mother of God and Ever Virgin Mary from our contrite heart a sincere act of reparation for the acts of worship of wooden idols and symbols, which occurred in Rome, the Eternal City and the heart of the Catholic world, during the Synod for the Amazon. Pour out in the heart of Our Holy Father Pope Francis, of the Cardinals, of the Bishops, of the priests and lay faithful, your Spirit, who will expel the darkness of the minds, so that they might recognize the impiety of such acts, which offended your Divine majesty and offer to you public and private acts of reparation.

Pour out in all members of the Church the light of the fulness and beauty of the Catholic Faith. Enkindle in them the burning zeal of bringing the salvation of Jesus Christ, true God and true man, to all men, especially to the people in the Amazon region, who still are enslaved in the service of feeble material and perishable things, as they are the deaf and mute symbols and idols of “mother earth”, to all people and especially to the people of the Amazonian tribes, who do not have the liberty of the children of God, and who do not have the unspeakable happiness to know Jesus Christ and to have in Him part in the life of your Divine nature.

Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, you the one true God, besides Whom there is no other god and no salvation, have mercy on your Church. Look especially upon the tears and the contrite and humble sighs of the little ones in the Church, look upon the tears and prayers of the little children, of the adolescents, of young men and young women, of the fathers and mothers of family and also of the true Christian heroes, who in their zeal for your glory and in their love for Mother Church threw in the water the symbols of abomination which defiled her. Have mercy on us: spare us, O Lord, parce Domine, parce Domine! Have mercy on us: Kyrie eleison!”

____________________________

"No Authority on Earth – Not Even the Supreme Authority of the Church – Has the Right to Dispense People from Other Religions from the Explicit Faith in Jesus Christ": Bishop Schneider

"In this way they easily deceive the simple-minded and the heedless. Again, as all who offer themselves are received whatever may be their form of religion, they thereby teach the great error of this age, that a regard for religion should be held as an indifferent matter, and that all religions are alike. This manner of reasoning is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions." Leo XIII, Encyclical Humanum Genus

Three Bishops of Kazakhstan Make a “Public Profession of the Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage”

• Let us thank God that there are still pastors faithful to the Doctrine of Christ and who are not afraid to defend it.

They do it 'in the face of the remarkable and growing confusion in the Church'. They are Tomash Peta, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Mary Most Holy in Astana, Athanasius Schneider, his auxiliary bishop, and Jan Pawel Lenga, Bishop Emeritus of Karaganda, the other Diocese of the country.

The bishops of Kazakhstan - a country where 70% of the population is Muslim, and in which Catholics are a minority (the archdiocese of Mary Most Holy – in Astana - has a population of almost 4 million inhabitants, among which there are only 55,000 Catholics) - the archbishop of Mary Most Holy in Astana, his assistant, and the bishop emeritus of the only dependent diocese, have closed 2017 with a 'public profession on the immutable truths about marriage', something that they considered necessary 'in the face of the remarkable and growing confusion in the Church 'following the publication of Amoris Laetitia and its many contradictory interpretations throughout the Catholic world.

As an example, while the Polish Bishops reiterate the Church's tradition of access to Communion for divorced people who live 'more uxorio', some Cardinals and Bishops assure (against the true Catholic doctrine) ) that the doctrine has changed (dogmatic doctrine cannot be changed even by the Pope), and that they can receive Communion, 'if they feel at peace with God'.

They began 2017 by making a 'call to prayer for Pope Francis to confirm the invariable practice of the Church on the truth of the indissolubility of Marriage', and after a year of trouble and the publication of the Pope's letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires in the AAS, the bishops of Kazakhstan closed the year with a public profession of the immutable Truths regarding sacramental marriage.

In their letter, the bishops regret the dissemination of standards, within the Church itself, which provide for people called "divorced and remarried" to receive the sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion, despite continuing to live normally and intentionally more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse. They also regret that some of them "were even accepted by the supreme authority of the Church," Pope Francis.

In the opinion of the prelates, the aforementioned pastoral norms are revealed in practice and in time as a means of spreading the “plague of divorce”, and 'have caused a notable and growing confusion between the faithful and in the clergy; confusion that touches central manifestations of the life of the Church, such as sacramental Marriage that is the source of the family, the domestic church and the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist.’

On the danger of the confusion caused, the bishops bring up an admonition of Pope John Paul II: “The confusion, created in the conscience of many faithful by the differences of opinions and teachings in theology, in preaching, in catechesis, in spiritual direction, about serious and delicate questions of Christian morals, ends up by diminishing the true sense of sin almost to the point of eliminating it” Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitenia, 18).

For all this, they reiterate in their letter seven immutable principles of the Catholic doctrine on marriage and Eucharist:

• ·         Sexual intercourse between persons not bound by a valid marriage — which is the case of “divorced-remarried” — is always contrary to the will of God and is a grave offense to God. 

• ·         No circumstance or finality, not even a possible diminution of accountability or guilt, can make such sexual relations morally positive or pleasing to God. This applies to all other negative precepts of the Ten Commandments of God. Indeed, “there are acts which, by themselves and in themselves, independently of the circumstances, are always seriously unlawful, because of their object.” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio and paenitenia, 17) 

• ·         The Church does not possess the infallible charism of judging the internal state of grace of a believer (see Council of Trent, sess. 24, ch. 1). The non-admission to Holy Comunion of “divorced-remarried” is not therefore to judge their state of grace before God but to judge the visible, public and objective nature of their situation. Because of the visible nature of the sacraments and of the Church itself, the reception of the sacraments necessarily depends on the corresponding situation, visible and objective, of the faithful. 

• ·         It is not morally lawful to have sex with someone who is not the rightful spouse in order to avoid another sin. Indeed, the Word of God teaches that it is not lawful to “do evil so that good may come” (Rm 3:8). 

• ·         The admission of such persons to Holy Communion can only be permitted when, with the help of God’s grace and individualized and patient pastoral accompaniment, they sincerely propose to stop such sexual intercourse and avoid the scandal. In this way, true discernment and authentic pastoral accompaniment have always been expressed in the Church. 

• ·         People who have nonmarital sexual intercourse violate this indissoluble marriage relationship and lifestyle with their lawful spouse. For this reason, they are not able to participate “in spirit and in truth” (Jn 4:23) at the eucharistic wedding meal of Christ, according to the word of the rite of Holy Communion: “Happy guests at the wedding feast of the Lamb!”, 

• ·         To fulfill the will of God, revealed in His Ten Commandments and in His explicit and absolute prohibition of divorce, is the true spiritual good of the person here on earth and will lead to true joy of love in salvation for the sake of eternal life.

Next, the letter made public by the bishops of Kazakhstan, under the title: 

Profession of the Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage:

After the publication of the Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia” (2016) various bishops issued at local, regional, and national levels applicable norms regarding the sacramental discipline of those faithful, called “divorced and remarried,” who having still a living spouse to whom they are united with a valid sacramental matrimonial bond, have nevertheless begun a stable cohabitation more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse.

The aforementioned rules provide inter alia that in individual cases the persons, called “divorced and remarried,” may receive the sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion, while continuing to live habitually and intentionally more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse. These pastoral norms have received approval from various hierarchical authorities. Some of these norms have received approval even from the supreme authority of the Church.

The spread of these ecclesiastically approved pastoral norms has caused a considerable and ever increasing confusion among the faithful and the clergy, a confusion that touches the central manifestations of the life of the Church, such as sacramental marriage with the family, the domestic church, and the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist.

According to the doctrine of the Church, only the sacramental matrimonial bond constitutes a domestic church (see Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 11). The admission of so-called “divorced and remarried” faithful to Holy Communion, which is the highest expression of the unity of Christ the Spouse with His Church, means in practice a way of approving or legitimizing divorce, and in this meaning a kind of introduction of divorce in the life of the Church.

The mentioned pastoral norms are revealed in practice and in time as a means of spreading the “plague of divorce” (an expression used by the Second Vatican Council, see Gaudium et spes, 47). It is a matter of spreading the “plague of divorce” even in the life of the Church, when the Church, instead, because of her unconditional fidelity to the doctrine of Christ, should be a bulwark and an unmistakable sign of contradiction against the plague of divorce which is every day more rampant in civil society.

Unequivocally and without admitting any exception Our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ solemnly reaffirmed God’s will regarding the absolute prohibition of divorce. An approval or legitimation of the violation of the sacredness of the marriage bond, even indirectly through the mentioned new sacramental discipline, seriously contradicts God’s express will and His commandment. This practice therefore represents a substantial alteration of the two thousand-year-old sacramental discipline of the Church. Furthermore, a substantially altered discipline will eventually lead to an alteration in the corresponding doctrine.

The constant Magisterium of the Church, beginning with the teachings of the Apostles and of all the Supreme Pontiffs, has preserved and faithfully transmitted both in the doctrine (in theory) and in the sacramental discipline (in practice) in an unequivocal way, without any shadow of doubt and always in the same sense and in the same meaning (eodem sensu eademque sententia), the crystalline teaching of Christ concerning the indissolubility of marriage.

Because of its Divinely established nature, the discipline of the sacraments must never contradict the revealed word of God and the faith of the Church in the absolute indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage. “The sacraments not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it; that is why they are called “sacraments of faith.” (Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 59). “Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1125). The Catholic faith by its nature excludes a formal contradiction between the faith professed on the one hand and the life and practice of the sacraments on the other. In this sense we can also understand the following affirmation of the Magisterium: “This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age.” (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 43) and “Accordingly, the concrete pedagogy of the Church must always remain linked with her doctrine and never be separated from it” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

In view of the vital importance that the doctrine and discipline of marriage and the Eucharist constitute, the Church is obliged to speak with the same voice. The pastoral norms regarding the indissolubility of marriage must not, therefore, be contradicted between one diocese and another, between one country and another. Since the time of the Apostles, the Church has observed this principle as St. Irenaeus of Lyons testifies: “The Church, though spread throughout the world to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the Apostles and their disciples, preserves this preaching and this faith with care and, as if she inhabits a single house, believes in the same identical way, as if she had only one soul and only one heart, and preaches the truth of the faith, teaches it and transmits it in a unanimous voice, as if she had only one mouth” (Adversus haereses, I, 10, 2). Saint Thomas Aquinas transmits to us the same perennial principle of the life of the Church: “There is one and the same faith of the ancients and the moderns, otherwise there would not be one and the same Church” (Questiones Disputatae de Veritate, q. 14, a. 12c).

The following warning from Pope John Paul II remains current and valid: “The confusion, created in the conscience of many faithful by the differences of opinions and teachings in theology, in preaching, in catechesis, in spiritual direction, about serious and delicate questions of Christian morals, ends up by diminishing the true sense of sin almost to the point of eliminating it” (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitenia, 18).

The meaning of the following statements of the Magisterium of the Church is fully applicable to the doctrine and sacramental discipline concerning the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage:

• “For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient doctrines faithfully and wisely, which the faith of the Fathers has transmitted. She strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning” (Pius IX, Dogmatic Bull Ineffabilis Deus)

• “With regard to the very substance of truth, the Church has before God and men the sacred duty to announce it, to teach it without any attenuation, as Christ revealed it, and there is no condition of time that can reduce the rigor of this obligation. It binds in conscience every priest who is entrusted with the care of teaching, admonishing, and guiding the faithful” (Pius XII, Discourse to parish priests and Lenten preachers, March 23, 1949).

• “The Church does not historicize, does not relativize to the metamorphoses of profane culture the nature of the Church that is always equal and faithful to itself, as Christ wanted it and authentic tradition perfected it” (Paul VI, Homily from October 28, 1965).

• “Now it is an outstanding manifestation of charity toward souls to omit nothing from the saving doctrine of Christ” (Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae Vitae, 29).

• “Any conjugal difficulties are resolved without ever falsifying and compromising the truth” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

• “The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm [of the Divine moral law]. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

• “The other principle is that of truth and consistency, whereby the church does not agree to call good evil and evil good. Basing herself on these two complementary principles, the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio etPaenitentia, 34).

• “The Church’s firmness in defending the universal and unchanging moral norms is not demeaning at all. Its only purpose is to serve man’s true freedom. Because there can be no freedom apart from or in opposition to the truth” (John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 96).

• “When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the ‘poorest of the poor’ on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality, we are all absolutely equal” (emphasis in original) (John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 96).

• “The obligation of reiterating this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is required for genuine pastoral care and for an authentic concern for the well-being of these faithful and of the whole Church, as it indicates the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are always invited by the Lord” (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration on the admissibility to the Holy Communion of the divorced and remarried, 24 June 2000, n. 5).

As Catholic bishops, who — according to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council — must defend the unity of faith and the common discipline of the Church, and take care that the light of the full truth should arise for all men (see Lumen Gentium, 23 ) we are forced in conscience to profess in the face of the current rampant confusion the unchanging truth and the equally immutable sacramental discipline regarding the indissolubility of marriage according to the bi-millennial and unaltered teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. In this spirit we reiterate:

• Sexual relationships between people who are not in the bond to one another of a valid marriage — which occurs in the case of the so-called “divorced and remarried” — are always contrary to God’s will and constitute a grave offense against God.

• No circumstance or finality, not even a possible imputability or diminished guilt, can make such sexual relations a positive moral reality and pleasing to God. The same applies to the other negative precepts of the Ten Commandments of God. Since “there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).

• The Church does not possess the infallible charism of judging the internal state of grace of a member of the faithful (see Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1). The non-admission to Holy Communion of the so-called “divorced and remarried” does not therefore mean a judgment on their state of grace before God, but a judgment on the visible, public, and objective character of their situation. Because of the visible nature of the sacraments and of the Church herself, the reception of the sacraments necessarily depends on the corresponding visible and objective situation of the faithful.

• It is not morally licit to engage in sexual relations with a person who is not one’s legitimate spouse supposedly to avoid another sin. Since the Word of God teaches us, it is not lawful “to do evil so that good may come” (Romans 3, 8).

• The admission of such persons to Holy Communion may be permitted only when they with the help of God’s grace and a patient and individual pastoral accompaniment make a sincere intention to cease from now on the habit of such sexual relations and to avoid scandal. It is in this way that true discernment and authentic pastoral accompaniment were always expressed in the Church.

• People who have habitual non-marital sexual relations violate their indissoluble sacramental nuptial bond with their life style in relation to their legitimate spouse. For this reason they are not able to participate “in Spirit and in Truth” (see John 4, 23) at the Eucharistic wedding supper of Christ, also taking into account the words of the rite of Holy Communion: “Blessed are the guests at the wedding supper of the Lamb!” (Revelation 19, 9).

• The fulfillment of God’s will, revealed in His Ten Commandments and in His explicit and absolute prohibition of divorce, constitutes the true spiritual good of the people here on earth and will lead them to the true joy of love in the salvation of eternal life.

Being bishops in the pastoral office, who promote the Catholic and Apostolic faith (“cultores catholicae et apostolicae fidei,” see Missale Romanum, Canon Romanus), we are aware of this grave responsibility and our duty before the faithful who await from us a public and unequivocal profession of the truth and the immutable discipline of the Church regarding the indissolubility of marriage. For this reason we are not allowed to be silent.

We affirm therefore in the spirit of St. John the Baptist, of St. John Fisher, of St. Thomas More, of Blessed Laura Vicuña and of numerous known and unknown confessors and martyrs of the indissolubility of marriage:

It is not licit (non licet) to justify, approve, or legitimize either directly or indirectly divorce and a non-conjugal stable sexual relationship through the sacramental discipline of the admission of so-called “divorced and remarried” to Holy Communion, in this case a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

By making this public profession before our conscience and before God who will judge us, we are sincerely convinced that we have provided a service of charity in truth to the Church of our day and to the Supreme Pontiff, Successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth.

31 December 2017, the Feast of the Holy Family, in the year of the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima.

+ Tomash Peta, Archbishop Metropolitan of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

+ Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop of Karaganda

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

Source: Gabriel Aiza – Infovaticana