Daily Archives: December 11, 2016
I have already published a blog post about the talk given by Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the 5th of December.
Bishop Schneider states the following:
A pastoral accompaniment and discernment that does not communicate to the adulterous person, the so-called divorced and remarried, the divinely-established obligation to live in continence as a sine qua non condition for admission to the sacraments, exposes itself in reality as an arrogant clericalism, as there does not exist any clericalism so pharisaical as that which arrogates to itself rights reserved to God.
We see here a theme mentioned very often: that what is clearly a scandalous adulterous relationship is fine if continence is given (and, I add, necessarily made public).
I always found such affirmations “off”, and – perhaps because of the times we live in – more than a tad stinking of Vatican II. According to this thinking, it appears that two old people could live together in what appears to be, for all the world, an adulterous relationship, with the addition of the obvious fact that they have no sex and they, duh, admit it. But you see, I though the adultery consists in the way of life, not in the accidental circumstance than one or both the adulterers happen to be impotent, or not interested in sex. This, leaving aside what must be, in very many cases, the obvious provocation of the couple who is in an age where sexual activity is to be assumed but tell you the “brother and sister thingy” because hey, we don’t want to give scandal, do we now?
I have asked before, and ask again, help from my readers in finding statements supporting this “brother and sister thingy” before the age of Vatican II. I never could find any, hence my detecting the pungent smell of V II.
Interestingly, in the already linked interview Bishop Schneider also states the following:
One of the most ancient and unequivocal testimonies of the immutable practice of the Roman Church of rejecting adulterous unions by way of the sacramental discipline–unions of members of the faithful who are still linked to a legitimate spouse in a matrimonial bond—is the author of a penitential catechesis known by the pseudonymous title of the Shepherd of Hermas. The catechesis was written, in all probability, by a Roman priest at the beginning of the second century, as indicated by the literary form of an “apocalypse” or account of a vision.
The second dialogue between Hermas and the angel of penance who appears to him in the form of a shepherd, demonstrates with admirable clarity the immutable doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church in this area: “What, O lord, will the husband do if his wife persists in this lust of adultery?” “Separate from her and the husband remains on his own. If after having left his wife he marries another woman, he also commits adultery.” “If, O lord, the wife, after she has been abandoned, repents and wishes to return to her husband, will she not be restored?” “Yes, he says, and if the husband does not receive her he sins and becomes guilty of a great fault. He should, instead, receive the one who has sinned and has repented. . . . Because of the possibility of such repentance, the husband should not remarry. This directive applies both to the wife and to the husband. Not only is there adultery if one corrupts one’s own flesh, but also the one who acts similarly to the pagans is an adulterer. . . . For that reason it was ordained that one remain alone, for both the woman and the man. One can repent . . . but he who has sinned must not sin again” (Shepherd of Hermas, Fourth Commandment, 1).
See? Second century, and no brother and sister thingy to be seen absolutely anywhere. “Remain alone” cannot mean anything else than “remain alone”. The point is also forcefully made that every spouse must be ready to readmit the other in the family life. It seems difficult to reconcile this with what we hear today: the children would be oh so horribly traumatised, and the like. Did they not have children in the Second Century?
It seems clear to me that what is required is that no alternative family is created, period. No “brother and sister” thingy, and no “let’s think of the children” thingy. It is not clear to me what part of
For that reason it was ordained that one remain alone, for both the woman and the man
I have not understood.
Once again, I am grateful for every authoritative statement in this regard from pre-Vatican II times. As it stands now, it seems to me that the matter is not being appropriately dealt with, and that it was exactly this “brother and sister thingy”, together with the bringing of children into the equation, that created the slippery slope that ends up with…
Kasper and Francis.
The extremely obese human being of (probably) female sex at the start of this video has already been hosted on this little effort. It was cringe worthy, but very funny.
Now, others are trying to steal her crown.
Personally, I think the woman in the car crying “rape” gets the biscuit; but I must admit that the “stalking postman” act was a tough one to beat.
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Save a prayer, and a laugh, for these poor deluded people.
Eight years of hell await them.
As we get into the Third Sunday of Advent, I have a clear feeling this Christmas will see us more optimistic for the future than any Christmas since 2012.
Some of you will have read that Bishops Schneider and some others met in Rome on December 5 and discussed the matter of the Dubia.
The full text of Bishop Schneider’s talk has now been released, and it is a full declaration of war on heresy. I invite you to read this lengthy talk in its entirety.
The main points that Bishop Schneider wants to make are, in my opinion, the following:
- This is not the first time in the history of the Church that weak prelates cave in to the desire of powerful others (Kings and Emperors in the past, Kirchensteuer-payers and public opinion today) to have God’s law set aside. Nihil sub sole novi, cowardice and threats included.
- Faithful prelates will tolerate no compromise with the Heresy of Kasper (and Francis). That door is shut. Francis can forget it just as well as Napoleon had to, though Francis will certainly be able to count on the complicity of many cardinals, just as Napoleon did.
The talk is momentous. There is no way the Four Cardinals do not approve every word, and it is apparent Schneider speaks on their behalf to his audience. The best evidence of this is a lenghty quote from the absolutely brutal statement from Cardinal Brandmueller (one of the Four)
“In the case we have examined, this means that that, regarding the dogma of the unity, of the sacramentality, and of the indissolubility of a marriage between two baptized people, there is no way back if not – inevitable and therefore to be rejected – of considering it to be an error which must be corrected. The way of acting of Nicholas I in the dispute regarding the new marriage of Lothair II, as conscious of principle as it was inflexible and fearless, constitutes an important milestone on the road to affirming the doctrine regarding marriage in the Germanic cultural context. The fact that this Pope, like various of his successors on similar occasions, proved himself to be the advocate of the dignity of the person and of the liberty of the weak – in general they were women – has made Nicholas I worthy of the respect of historiographers, of the crown of sanctity, and of the title of ‘Great.’”
Cardinal Brandmueller makes two points here: the first is that there is no other way out from this situation than for Francis to a) retract or b) be corrected. The second is a contrast between a courageous Pope of the past and a cowardly, heretical Pope of the present.
And concerning the heretical Pope of the present, please look at the tone of Bishop Schneider, who openly mocks the heretics of our day ( for example when he states: “Perhaps they did it for pastoral motives and for advancing the possibility of a pastoral accompaniment and discernment”) in a way that is the nearest to accusing Francis, short of a direct shot.
I can’t see how there can be any retreat from Schneider & Co now. I trust even Francis will have the brains to get that, if it is explained to him slowly a couple of times.
This does not look like an attempt to find a compromise. The terms chosen are such that not acting on them would cause the most grievous loss of face for the party of the Four Cardinals.
If Francis had illusions that this matter may deflate from itself, he can abandon it now.