Saint Thomas Aquinas

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

A Voice Crying in the Wilderness: Bishop Athansius Schneider

In recent times we are aghast at what many bishops and priests say and do throughout the Church. It is however unfortunate that we do not take enough time to recognize those bishops who do speak out against many of the atrocities going on in the Church. Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan is one of the true warriors in the Church that is willing to speak up. His recent interview which focuses on abuses in the Mass is worth reading and passing along to your fellow brothers and sisters in the faith. His book on Holy Communion is also worth having in your library. There is a light shining in the darkness!


 


23 comments:

Catholic Mission said...

Bishop Athanasius Schneider contradicted by Catholic religious

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/bishop-athanasius-schneider.html

Matthew Bellisario said...

And what does this have to do with price of tea in China?

Catholic Mission said...

It's expensive and when it is expensive it will not be bought willingly.

Ask a good question and ....

Matthew Bellisario said...

My point exactly. Post a response related to the post and...

Catholic Mission said...

Bishop Athanasius is the common subject.
Do you agree with the message of the post?

Matthew Bellisario said...

The message of which post?

Catholic Mission said...

Bishop Athanasius Schneider contradicted by Catholic religious

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/bishop-athanasius-schneider.html

Matthew Bellisario said...

What is the point of the post you linked to? That some religious disagree with him on the ambiguity of the VCII docs? If you read my post it is about his recent interview, and your liked post has no relation to my post. In my post he is talking about marriage and the Eucharist.

No one in their right mind would dispute that the VCII docs are ambiguous. That is a given. The fact that some people disagree with him is no ground shaking news. So I fail to see the relevance of this in relation to my post.

Catholic Mission said...

Matthew:
What is the point of the post you linked to? That some religious disagree with him on the ambiguity of the VCII docs?

Lionel:
No.
I am saying that he made a factual error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
He assumed that all salvation mentioned or alluded to in Vatican Council II ( NA 2 etc) is VISIBLE on earth instead of being INVISIBLE for us. Since it is VISIBLE for him NA 2, UR 3 etc become EXPLICIT exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.

Matthew:
If you read my post it is about his recent interview, and your liked post has no relation to my post. In my post he is talking about marriage and the Eucharist.

Lionel:
Yes but the same good bishop was wrong about salvation, other religions, ecumenism, religious liberty etc.

Then I have quoted you an Archbishop and priests who say that Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So this is not just an opinion of mine.
The good bishop, whom I admire otherwise, has made an objective mistake.

Matthew:
No one in their right mind would dispute that the VCII docs are ambiguous. That is a given.

Lionel:
If you assume that those saved with ' a ray of the Truth'(NA 2) are VISIBLE on earth.The Council has to then emerge non traditional.That's a given.

Matthew Bellisario said...

In reading that post, it has not proven that the bishop is in error. The author of the blog saying so does not make it so. In reading through that website, there seems to be a lot of claims being made with no substantiation. I pay little attention to that type of drive by blogging.

Matthew Bellisario said...

This post again was about the bishop's interview. If you want to discuss his interview on this blog post then that is great. If you want to take it off on another subject, this post is not the place to do that. We are not discussing 'no salvation outside the Church' anywhere in this post.

Catholic Mission said...

Matthew:

We are not discussing 'no salvation outside the Church' anywhere in this post.

Lionel:
Yes but the same good bishop was wrong about salvation, other religions, ecumenism, religious liberty etc.

And you have nothing to say?

Matthew Bellisario said...

That is the claim you are making. I have nothing to say on it because I am not at the present time investigating your claim. Just because you say the bishop is in error does not make it true.

Catholic Mission said...

Matthew:
That is the claim you are making. I have nothing to say on it because I am not at the present time investigating your claim. Just because you say the bishop is in error does not make it true.

Lionel:
The bishop has said that Vatican Council II is ambigous. For you also this is a given.

For you Nostra Aetate 2 ' a ray of the Truth', for example, would contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

It would contradict the Catechism of Pope Pius X which says :
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?

A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.-Catechism of Pope Pius X 1905,Rome.

It would contradict the traditional teaching which says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

Would it or would it not for you?

It would for Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

Why?

Since he ( and probably you too) assume that all who are saved with ' a ray of the Truth' are VISIBLE for us. They can be seen in the flesh.
So they are explicit exceptions to the dogma on salvation and Tradition in general.

If you reasoned rationally, NA 2 would be INVISIBLE for us.So it could not be an exception. It would be a possibility of salvation but not an exception.

So my claim, based on simple reasoning, is that you both have made a mistake.

Vatican Council II is traditional without the false premise of being able to see on earth, salvation in Heaven.

This is my claim. can you refute it?

Matthew Bellisario said...

Right at this moment I don't have time to dig through your claims. Your writing style is not the clearest and you do not distinguish very well in your points. If I have time in the near future I will check it out and respond. As I have said several times now, this is NOT the topic I posted on.

Catholic Mission said...

What I have written is simple .
Is ' a ray of the Truth' visible to you ?
Can you see someone saved as such?
Do you know of someone who will be saved as such?

Yes or No?
And if you cannot see any person saved as such in 2014, is Nostra Aetate an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
Yes or No.

I have claimed that for you and Archbishop Schneider NA 2 refers to visible cases.You have not denied it.

Catholic Mission said...

What I have written is simple .
Is ' a ray of the Truth' visible to you ?
Can you see someone saved as such?
Do you know of someone who will be saved as such?

Yes or No?
And if you cannot see any person saved as such in 2014, is Nostra Aetate an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
Yes or No.

I have claimed that for you and Archbishop Schneider NA 2 refers to visible cases.You have not denied it.

Matthew Bellisario said...

I don't know what you are talking about. NA 2 says nothing about "seeing" any visible ray of truth of people in other religions as being "saved." You are reading into the text. The text is ambiguous and seems to say that the truth that other religions have in them are some of the same truths that can be found in the Catholic faith. Thus the text says, "..though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men." The text says nothing of their salvation.

What you should be concerned with is #3 where it says, "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth." The Church has never held the Moslem faith in high esteem and in fact they do not worship the same God. This text is seriously problematic. Perhaps you should worry about that.

Catholic Mission said...

Matthew:
I don't know what you are talking about. NA 2 says nothing about "seeing" any visible ray of truth of people in other religions as being "saved."

Lionel:
For you and Bishop Athanasius and the SSPX and the pro-Freemasons, NA 2 is a break with Tradition.For you being saved with ' a ray of the Truth' is AN EXCEPTION to the dogma on salvation.It's a given.

Is it not?

If it is an exception then you all imply that it refers to a known case. Only if the case was VISIBLE to you in 2014 would it be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.

So when you say that Vatican Council II is ambigous, it is, YOU who imply that those saved with ' a ray of the Truth' are VISIBLE in real life.
The text does not say it. I agree with you here! Vatican Council II does not say it! This is the point I make too.

It is the wrong inference, to claim that NA 2 etc are exceptions to tradition. It is also irrational. Since it implies we can see the dead-saved.

This is what you and Bishop Athanasius imply.

Matthew:
You are reading into the text.

Lionel:
Yes, if you say ' a ray of the Truth' contradicts Tradition then you are inferring this is explicit for us.
On the other hand for me ' a ray of the Truth' is visible to God only and INVISIBLE for me. So NA 2 is not a break with Tradition.
There is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.

Matthew:
The text is ambiguous and seems to say that the truth that other religions have in them are some of the same truths that can be found in the Catholic faith. Thus the text says, "..though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."

Lionel:
If it is said in a hypothetical way then it is acceptable.In the sense 'Yes there could be a good person in another religion. Yes there could be some things which are true, some aspects of the Truth' etc.Theoretically O.K.
Then it does not contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. The teaching still is every one needs to convert and there are no exceptions.Theoretical cases are not exceptions.

Matthew:
The text says nothing of their salvation.

Lionel:
Precisely!
And yet in general traditionalists and pro-Freemasons, project Nostra Aetate 2, Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 ( imperfect communion with the Church), AG 11 ( seeds of the Word) etc as contradicting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Catholic Mission said...


Matthew.
What you should be concerned with is #3 where it says, "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.

Lionel:
We are asked to love all people, even those who are oriented to Hell. It is possible they may convert before death and save their soul.

Matthew:
They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth."

Lionel:
Like us Catholics they believe in one Creator, subsisting in Himself, Merciful and all powerful.

Matthew:
The Church has never held the Moslem faith in high esteem

Lionel:
Their religion is not a path to salvation. ( CDF, Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.J, 2001,Dominus Iesus 20 etc.)

Matthew:
and in fact they do not worship the same God.

Lionel:
There is only true worship in general in the Catholic Church which has the 'fullness of the truth'.However it is possible that God may hear them and the Holy Spirit could also guide them.
The Holy Spirit could use the good things in their religion to lead them to the Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation; there are no known cases of salvation outside the Church in 2014.

The good things in their religion would be prayer, fasting, following the moral commandments of Moses, the emphasis on purity, modesty,sin etc.

Matthew:
This text is seriously problematic. Perhaps you should worry about that.

Lionel:
It is not problematic once you made the distinction between VISIBLE and INVISIBLE when referring to salvation.


'the Church is the new people of God'- Nostra Aetate 3.

Matthew Bellisario said...

If you agree with me on No2 then why bother me on this post? I have never held the position that you claimed I held in your fanatical accusations. I have pointed out that the text does not speak of salvation. So quit bothering me with this.

No3 is problematic since the Church has NEVER held Islam in high esteem. This has nothing to do with visible/invisible. The Moslems do not worship the same God, period. If you had done any real research on Islam you would know this. They do not worship God the Father. Why don't you read up on Islam before making such statements. Are you telling me that God is pleased when a Moslem fasts? A yes or no answer is sufficient.

Catholic Mission said...

Matthew:
If you agree with me on No2 then why bother me on this post?

Lionel:
I do not agree with you in as much as you consider ' a ray of the Truth'(NA 2) as VISIBLE to us on earth.
If you say it is an exception then this is what you infer.

This is inferred also by Bishop Athanasius Schneider and the SSPX among others.For them Vatican Council II is ambigous too.

For me ' a ray of the Truth' is INVISIBLE. So NA 2 is not an exception to the dogma on salvation.

Matthew:
I have never held the position that you claimed I held in your fanatical accusations.

Lionel:
If you say that there are exceptions then this is what you infer.Thid is what you imply whether you realize it or not.

Are you saying there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

Matthew:
I have pointed out that the text does not speak of salvation.

Lionel:
I have mentioned that I agree with you here.
However inspite of the text not mentioning it, it is being inferred by you that there are VISIBLE cases. Since if there are exceptions, it implies there are VISIBLE in the flesh cases for you in 2014.

Would this not be the inference?

Matthew:
So quit bothering me with this.

Lionel:
To claim that there are known exceptions to a defined dogma is heretical and a sin.
_________________________

Matthew:
No3 is problematic since the Church has NEVER held Islam in high esteem.

Lionel:
Ad Gentes 7 indicates all Muslims and others need faith and baptism for salvation.
So they have some good things in their religion 8 along with errors, deficiencies and superstition), we love them because Jesus asks us to do so, we tell them the truth and we know they are oriented to Hell if they do not convert into the Catholic Church.

Matthew:
This has nothing to do with visible/invisible.

Lionel:
Yes in a sense.

Matthew:
The Moslems do not worship the same God, period.

Lionel:
If you are referring to God as Creator, it is the same God. There is only One God.
If you are referring to God as Father amd Triune, it is not the same God.
There is one God but Hell exists.

Matthew:
If you had done any real research on Islam you would know this. They do not worship God the Father. Why don't you read up on Islam before making such statements. Are you telling me that God is pleased when a Moslem fasts? A yes or no answer is sufficient.

Lionel:
Yes if it leads him to God in the one true Church founded by Jesus.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Look, you are the one making inferences here. I have spoken plainly and have not held any teaching against the Church. What is sinful here are to make such accusations.

The Church and Popes throughout the ages have taught that Islam is an "abomination". That is the opposite of holding the man made religion in "high esteem." It is simply not so,and any fasting done outside of the one true faith is done in vain. This post is now closed for further comments.