Conservative favourite Bishop Athanasius Schneider launched a barrage of caricatures at ‘sedevacantism’ in a recent Ad Vaticanum interview. Here is the reply that Ad Vaticanum declined to run.
But isn't the whole subject a bit "academic" until all the bishops are finished picking which jersey to wear... that is, a bifurcation that is something even the "idiocracy" can see and must respond to...
1. The WM Review's style conventions state: "We usually refer to others with the title by which they are commonly known. Use of a surname without a title is a standard convention after the first mention, and as such carries no subtext or disrespect to the person."
2. Our readers should be quite familiar with the plate of spaghetti you're dishing up there, regarding the lineage! See below:
AdVaticanum is explicitly a ‘recognize-and-resist' pro-SSPX publication which has publicly strawmanned and derided the sedevacantist position (which is typical and par-for-the-course for many of such inclination).
I’ve unfollowed/unsubscribed from after the July 1 consecrations.
Noted. I had hoped Ad Vaticanum would do the decent thing and run a right of reply when the editor said he'd consider the piece. Readers can read the article on Integrity and consider whether the problem was with the piece, or something else.
Do were need to jettison the term "sedevacantism" if it is so poorly defined? It already has a lot of baggage attached to it. Should we simply be stating that the Holy See has not been occupied by a legitimate successor since 1958? Would this be any more acceptable to opponents of the truth? What would one call this position?
At what point must we begin to ask whether Bishop Schneider knows perfectly well that what he is saying is untrue, yet persists in saying it anyway?
Schneider is no uninstructed layman. He is a bishop, a published theologian, and a man thoroughly acquainted with the controversies surrounding Vatican II. Yet he repeatedly attributes to sedevacantists positions they explicitly reject, substitutes caricatures for their actual theological arguments, and then has the audacity to accuse them of dishonesty in their study of Church history.
What makes this particularly damning is that Schneider himself has acknowledged doctrinal errors in Vatican II, only to reduce the sedevacantist objection to a dispute over mere ambiguities when it suits his polemical purposes.
There comes a point when persistent misrepresentation by a man of such learning and ecclesiastical standing can no longer be comfortably excused as innocent ignorance. Whether Schneider knowingly asserts what he understands to be false is ultimately a question of conscience. But his repeated failure to represent his opponents accurately raises that question with increasing urgency.
A bishop who publicly lectures others on intellectual honesty ought first to demonstrate some of his own.
Agree. He is not a spring chicken and has a history of publicaly tripping over V2 heresies and having to ‘correct’ its ‘Magisterium’, while promoting the heretics' authority. Schnieder is a V2 victim which, necessarliy, makes him a double-minded, and therefore fork-tongued, de facto Modernist. Schnieder isn’t suffering for Truth, he is bowing to lies and presenting as a 'credible' mouth-piece in the guise of a bishop - which makes him a practical instrument of belial. The gaslighting against sedevacantism is necessary for a fake church trying to sell their CEO anti-Christ layman in a costume as anything Catholic in order to deceive the unfortunate souls who have more fear of V2 and its anti-Christ dictators than they do Holy Fear of God and a love of His True Church.
Schneider was consecrated in '78 by the late Cardinal Sodano, erstwhile Vatican City Secretary of State who himself was ordained in 1950. Schneider's new ordination was in 1990 was by a bishop consecrated in '78, ordained '52. It is possible with Papal permission for a priest to ordain a priest (it happened for some isolated religious houses in mediaeval English and some sort of case that the new rite of ordination could work if the bishop had sound orders). but it's all highly doubtful. Instead of a life of an eternal book tour, perhaps Schneider might provide some sort of ministry to the Catholics of Astana. Better still Schneider should look honestly at the crisis in the Church. His words seem like an unexamined stream of words that parody what a 'sedevacantist' holds to. In contrast, Mr Wright answers the case in a respectful way and Integrity deserve thanks for publishing your reply.
But isn't the whole subject a bit "academic" until all the bishops are finished picking which jersey to wear... that is, a bifurcation that is something even the "idiocracy" can see and must respond to...
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Besides being a Vatican 2 company man, is Schneider even a priest, let alone bishop?
Rather than provide the answer, I encourage folks to look up his pedigree.
Paul VI's 1968 Episcopal Consecration rite for Western Catholic bishops is of doubtful validity.
If he was consecrated in that new rite, his episcopacy is doubtful.
How about the validity of the fellow that ordained him? If doubtful, even Schneider’s priesthood is doubtful.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, lead us to all Truth!
Thanks Ademar. Regarding this:
1. The WM Review's style conventions state: "We usually refer to others with the title by which they are commonly known. Use of a surname without a title is a standard convention after the first mention, and as such carries no subtext or disrespect to the person."
2. Our readers should be quite familiar with the plate of spaghetti you're dishing up there, regarding the lineage! See below:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/spaghetti-bolognese-a-novus-ordo
AdVaticanum is explicitly a ‘recognize-and-resist' pro-SSPX publication which has publicly strawmanned and derided the sedevacantist position (which is typical and par-for-the-course for many of such inclination).
I’ve unfollowed/unsubscribed from after the July 1 consecrations.
Noted. I had hoped Ad Vaticanum would do the decent thing and run a right of reply when the editor said he'd consider the piece. Readers can read the article on Integrity and consider whether the problem was with the piece, or something else.
Do were need to jettison the term "sedevacantism" if it is so poorly defined? It already has a lot of baggage attached to it. Should we simply be stating that the Holy See has not been occupied by a legitimate successor since 1958? Would this be any more acceptable to opponents of the truth? What would one call this position?
I have mixed feelings about it. I'm content to use scare quotes for now.
At what point must we begin to ask whether Bishop Schneider knows perfectly well that what he is saying is untrue, yet persists in saying it anyway?
Schneider is no uninstructed layman. He is a bishop, a published theologian, and a man thoroughly acquainted with the controversies surrounding Vatican II. Yet he repeatedly attributes to sedevacantists positions they explicitly reject, substitutes caricatures for their actual theological arguments, and then has the audacity to accuse them of dishonesty in their study of Church history.
What makes this particularly damning is that Schneider himself has acknowledged doctrinal errors in Vatican II, only to reduce the sedevacantist objection to a dispute over mere ambiguities when it suits his polemical purposes.
There comes a point when persistent misrepresentation by a man of such learning and ecclesiastical standing can no longer be comfortably excused as innocent ignorance. Whether Schneider knowingly asserts what he understands to be false is ultimately a question of conscience. But his repeated failure to represent his opponents accurately raises that question with increasing urgency.
A bishop who publicly lectures others on intellectual honesty ought first to demonstrate some of his own.
Agree. He is not a spring chicken and has a history of publicaly tripping over V2 heresies and having to ‘correct’ its ‘Magisterium’, while promoting the heretics' authority. Schnieder is a V2 victim which, necessarliy, makes him a double-minded, and therefore fork-tongued, de facto Modernist. Schnieder isn’t suffering for Truth, he is bowing to lies and presenting as a 'credible' mouth-piece in the guise of a bishop - which makes him a practical instrument of belial. The gaslighting against sedevacantism is necessary for a fake church trying to sell their CEO anti-Christ layman in a costume as anything Catholic in order to deceive the unfortunate souls who have more fear of V2 and its anti-Christ dictators than they do Holy Fear of God and a love of His True Church.
Schneider was consecrated in '78 by the late Cardinal Sodano, erstwhile Vatican City Secretary of State who himself was ordained in 1950. Schneider's new ordination was in 1990 was by a bishop consecrated in '78, ordained '52. It is possible with Papal permission for a priest to ordain a priest (it happened for some isolated religious houses in mediaeval English and some sort of case that the new rite of ordination could work if the bishop had sound orders). but it's all highly doubtful. Instead of a life of an eternal book tour, perhaps Schneider might provide some sort of ministry to the Catholics of Astana. Better still Schneider should look honestly at the crisis in the Church. His words seem like an unexamined stream of words that parody what a 'sedevacantist' holds to. In contrast, Mr Wright answers the case in a respectful way and Integrity deserve thanks for publishing your reply.
OK. Will keep that convention in mind.