Bishop Schneider Exposes Himself As a False Traditionalist
By: Eric Gajewski
Schneider: “Lefebvre would have accepted the ecclesiastical structure offer by Rome”
The original article appears the end of this blog
Following up one day after exposing Cardinal Burke and his false traditionalism I now have to tackle fellow pseudo traditionalist Bishop Schneider. Yes, the same Bishop Schneider who has labeled people like me as uncharitable. The same Bishop Schneider who is asking for a reclarification on Vatican II (which is not resistance therefore not sufficient). In one of his latest interviews he tackles some of the questions being asked on the SSPX and once again demonstrates that he simply doesn’t get it. He is a yet another false traditionalist “conservative” type which Catholics cannot follow as an example. He is yet another prominent figure in the false traditionalist movement yet who doesn’t see clearly as an eagle for our times. We must continue to pray for him and the other pseudo traditionalists but nevertheless let us dive into this interview and break it down.
Apparently, he has not read Archbishop Lefebvre. We see this constant “spinning” of who Lefebvre actually was by these false traditionalists who "water down" Lefebvre and his principles. They use old quotes from the 70’s and enjoy going to the public trying to persuade other “traditionalists” that this is actually who the Archbishop was (as he left things). Not hardly. Archbishop Lefebvre was adamant that Rome had lost the Faith altogether in the late 80’s so how does one assume that he would have accepted any ecclesiastical structure from Modernist Rome? He stated (while recognizing they were the legitimate authorities) that we needed to keep our distance from them until they converted and finally “got it” lest WE be poisoned ourselves. This includes prelates like Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider. To take that one step further it is clear that Lefebvre said “no practical agreement with Modernist Rome until they converted (repented of Vatican II wholesale)" “We cannot work with them" he said. He did not say give me some inclusion into your Conciliar Church (as is). Bishop Schneider misleads here as he does several times in the article.
Has Bishop Schneider repented of his errors? Absolutely not and thus like Cardinal Burke we cannot follow them. They are still teaching Vatican II and not rejecting the New Mass therefore it useless into trying to work together with them. The Conciliar Church is heretical and in material schism and soon a formal schism will arrive in Rome. It does not make sense to be included into something that doesn’t represent Catholicism and yet as we shall see in a little bit Bishop Schneider suggests “we have the same Faith!” This is terrible for Vatican II is not our Faith nor our gospel!
Merciful gesture on Francis. Anyone who has studied Pope St. Pius X’s writings on these modernists know how deceiving they are. We must remember that even Vatican II has texts which indicate the “Church” is a sign or symbol of the whole human family! Really? So everyone is in the Church already? This is purely Masonic and obvious heresy. So what’s the problem? Why do I need some formal recognition by Rome who already teaches the whole human family is in the Church? It is better said those will be in the “Church” who accept the New Religion of Vatican II. They are very cunning indeed. The reality is that Francis is not being merciful but very cunning. I believe he very much knows what he is doing as a high-ranking Mason and who can argue against that with all the vomit he has been spewing lately. Certain prelates in the Church have very openly said the goal was to convert the SSPX to Vatican II not the other way around so how is this merciful? Cardinal Muller indicated that he thought Bishop Fellay would cave in and accept the heresies of Vatican II. How stupid do you have to be to think that these people are merciful and of character? They are wolves and need to be told that to their face. I have no problem doing that I assure you.
Archbishop Lefebvre on the Conciliar Church:
|We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar
Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong.
That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with
the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new
priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already
condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive....
The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical.
This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church...
|In so far as the new Church separates itself from the old Church we cannot follow it. That is the position, and that is why we maintain Tradition, we keep firmly to Tradition; and I am sure we are being of immense service to the Church.|
Conciliar Church has the same Faith? Yes, this is what Bishop Schneider suggests. He states that Vatican II was pastoral which is true but doesn’t at all indicate that there are heresies which Catholics can’t accept. The Conciliar Church DOES NOT have the same Faith as Catholics and therefore this is exactly why Archbishop Lefebvre wouldn’t have accepted ANYTHING from Rome. In fact it has got a lot worse. Francis is complete loony tunes with the things he says then we have the false traditionalists thinking that Francis IS the problem not them too. This IS the bigger problem. Bishop Schneider is every bit of the problem as Francis is and a lot of us would argue more dangerous. Why? Because he gives the impression that what he stands for is the measure of Catholicism and it is not. What he says and stands for doesn’t correspond to the reality of this crisis. Archbishop Lefebvre has said that and it wouldn’t be any different today. Thus, we have Bishop Fellay a cloaked pseudo trad trying to cunningly move his people in that direction. Remember Catholic Pope Paul 6th in 1965 said Vatican II was representative of the cult of man (FreeMasonry). If you want to be a part of that go for it! You have not “left the Church” because you refuse to go into compromised and/or heretical buildings. The pastoral teachings of Vatican II have changed the doctrines into new doctrines as admitted by John Paul II and very much represent an entirely different modernist faith.
Lefebvre would have accepted the ecclesiastical structure offer from Rome. Here comes the propaganda and brainwash. You hear this nonsense from the pseudo traditionalists. Lefebvre called the VII popes “antichrists” and said Rome had lost the Faith and now in used car salesman fashion you want to suggest that he would have been fooled by FrancisMercy? My goodness folks!. This is what I am talking about with these blind conservative types. They are the false right crowd who think they can have one foot in the New Religion and one foot outside “asking questions” (not resisting). Do not get me wrong the MAJORITY are confused which is why I open up my time into talking with people to answer their questions. You will not arrive at the same conculsiona s me by only studying this crisis a few weeks nor will you every arrive at our conclusion bopping from OnePeterFive to Remnant to Father Z then to ChurchMilitant TV all of who (to some degree) are poisoned and simply don’t get it.
SSPX shouldn’t be so demanding. That sums up Bishop Schneider. Truth demands it be accepted upfront. What is worse coming out of the mouth of Bishop Schneider in closing is this. He suggests “things wont happen overnight” therefore not to be so demanding upfront. How about no? truth is truth take it or leave it. If you don’t want the Truth then we won’t form any sort of alliance. By you still clinging t the Council we do not hold the same Faith so why do these pseudo trads keep implying that? Did Jesus work with devils? Did Catholics before Vatican II “work” with heretics? No, therefore, why should it be any different now. Your “reclarificationism” thesis is not the same as Resistance. There is a huge difference and as Archbishop Lefebvre said “one side would have to cave in”. So who is caving in? It has always been the conservative N.O. types and now sadly Bishop Fellay is doing the same. So quit it with the whole “we are being uncharitable” routine those who have eagles eyes to see are not fooled by this suggestion. I pray for Bishop Schneider but unfortunately this is another prelate who simply doesn’t get it. God opens eyes with the Rod of Correction and my good friends it is coming and coming soon. Pray very much, Ave Maria!
Original Article in Question:
Bishop Schneider: SSPX Personal Prelature Would Redress “Unjust” SuppressionBishop Athanasius Schneider has given another interview of importance, this time to a French traditional Catholic journal, Présent. In this new interview, Bishop Schneider makes some politely discerning remarks about the currently considered, formal re-integration of the Society of St. Pius X, and then says that the recognition of the SSPX is an act of “rendering justice – belatedly – for the injustice done to the Society [of St. Pius X] in 1975 on the part of the Holy See.”
In the following, I present a translation from these especially important parts of that French interview – as it has been posted by the website Le Forum Catholique – along with the questions posed to Schneider, which are now placed in italics:
The Sovereign Pontiff has now extended the possibility [for the faithful] to confess [in sacramental penance] with priests of the Society of St. Pius X beyond the limits of the Year of Mercy. Does this seem to you to be an important decision?
Yes, of course, and I am very happy about it! This is a very pastoral gesture, very merciful, and in my eyes one of the most important gestures of the pontificate of Pope Francis which helps the process of canonical re-integration of this ecclesiastical reality which has existed for 50 years and which is producing obvious spiritual fruits. Many young families assembled around the Society of St. Pius X love the Church, pray for the pope, as their forebearers have done before them. The Church contains different houses, different spiritualities. Only those ecclesiastics who are hostile toward the Society present it with exaggerated demands. John XXIII as well as Paul VI always insisted upon the pastoral character of the [Second Vatican] Council. If the Society has difficulties in accepting certain documents of Vatican II, one has to place that into the context of the pastoral objective of the Council. The Dogma has not changed. We have the same Faith. Thus, there is no problem to integrate canonically the Society of St. Pius X.
You have been one of the Churchmen sent by the Vatican to visit the seminaries and priories of the Society. Which solution do you think is possible for resolving its controversial position?
The personal prelature is a position that is very fitting for the reality of the Society of St. Pius X and its mission. I am convinced that Monsignor Lefebvre would have accepted voluntarily and with gratitude this proposed official ecclesiastical structure, the recognition of this apostolate by the Church. This would only be an act of rendering justice – quite belatedly – to the unjust suppression of the Society in 1975 on the part of the Holy See. At that time, Monsignor Lefebvre had also presented a [canonical] recourse. The establishment now of a prelature would in some way accept this canonical recourse after a delay of some 40 years. On the other side, the Society must not demand guarantees of 100% which would be entirely unrealistic. We are still on earth, not in Heaven! It [such an inordinate demand] would be a gesture that would reveal a certain lack of confidence in Divine Providence.