At first glance Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s new Credo: Compendium of the Catholic Faith raises no eyebrows. Framed in the time-tested question and answer format of older catechisms of happy memory it lends itself to an easy reading for any lay person interested in learning more about the basic teachings of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, it does not tax the mind with overly complex theological explanations and quite frequently answers the questions with a simple “Yes” or “No” followed by a short summary of the Church’s teaching on the topic.
Credo vs. Catechism of the Catholic Church?
“Credo,” says the publishers, “is the most complete and coherent guide to authentic Catholicism today, and is sure to be a classic for generations to come.” However, despite such strong superlatives, an immediate question needs to be raised. Why a new universal catechism at all? Do we not already have the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church (henceforth designated as CCC) put out during the papacy of John Paul II in 1992? The CCC had its origins in a decision reached at the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops which met in order to put forward an official magisterial interpretation of the texts of Vatican II. The bishops requested that Pope John Paul set up a commission to produce a universal catechism precisely in order to solidify for the faithful the teachings of the Church in the light of a proper interpretation of the texts of Vatican II. It is not a stretch at all to say that in many ways the CCC is the official, magisterially sanctioned, “Catechism of Vatican II”.
There is nothing wrong, of course, with a bishop deciding to issue a new catechism. In fact, the CCC itself encourages the production of local catechisms in order to apply its teaching to the unique cultural circumstances of various countries. Therefore, the CCC states that it is intended to serve as a “point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries” (#11). However, it also goes without saying that the purposes of a universal catechism are undermined if a local catechism departs from the teachings of the CCC or calls them into question.
But when we take a close look at Credo we see that it does not present itself as a local supplemental catechism to the CCC, meant primarily for the people of Bishop Schneider’s Kazakhstan. It has been translated into English and presents itself as a kind of universal compendium of the faith in its own right. Nor is there any mention made of the local needs or unique cultural realities of Kazakhstan to which it then applies the teachings of the CCC. Furthermore, in a few key places it criticizes the CCC and the Council that inspired it as containing certain doctrinal “ambiguities” which it seeks to “correct”.
Therefore, it is hard to view Credo as anything other than a proposed “rival” to the CCC. It is clearly being marketed as a new universal catechism that “finally” gives us the “pure doctrine” of the Church in contradistinction to the CCC and Vatican II with their alleged doctrinal ambiguities. Its intended audience therefore seems to be those “traditionalist” Catholics who are in search of a catechism that they can call their own and who are dissatisfied with both Vatican II and the CCC. Therefore, in many ways Credo can be viewed as what some people have called a “Tradichism”. As such it is an important new part of an ongoing and troubling development of a kind of “parallel Church” that pits a “faithful remnant” against the “mainstream Novus Ordo Church” of Vatican II. And now this “remnant” has “their catechism”.
It is exceedingly difficult therefore to view Credo as a text that will promote the ecclesial unity it claims to seek via the path of such corrections. Rather, it directly undermines the Roman magisterium of Pope John Paul II as well as the magisterial authority of Vatican II, not to mention the very possibility of a universal catechism as such. This, in my view, is a fatal flaw that can only serve to deepen our ongoing ecclesial divisions.
This opposition between Credo and the CCC is implied as well in promotional blurbs where the common denominator is that this new catechism is most timely since it gives us pure doctrinal clarity in an era of confusion. It is presented as a beacon of light in an otherwise dark Church devoid of proper doctrinal and catechetical clarity. The message is loud and clear: here at last we have a catechism that does not flinch in the face of doctrinal truths and which unambiguously puts forward “pure” Catholic teaching in a manner that no other modern catechism has done before now.
The matter of Catholicism and other religions
The irony in all of this is that Credo itself suffers from some deep ambiguities on key issues. For example, Bishop Schneider calls into question the teachings of Vatican II and the CCC on the issue of religious freedom. He also calls into question the teachings of Vatican II on the possibility that there might be some truths about God in the non-Christian religions of the world. This ambiguity also extends to the ongoing validity of God’s covenant with the Jewish people. There are also some ambiguous comments about the nature of the innate human dignity of the non-baptized.
Regarding non-Christian religions, Bishop Schneider states, “all other religions are inherently false, and their forms of worship pernicious, or at least unavailing for eternal life” (p. 34, #200). There is a sense in which this is correct so long as we focus on the phrase “inherently false” since it is indeed true that, in their essence, they begin from fundamentally flawed theological premises. But there is also a lack of nuance here, and therefore a calculated ambiguity, especially when he summarily dismisses their forms of worship as “pernicious” without qualification.
This lack of nuance is perhaps grounded in an equally lacking distinction he makes between the innate religious sense of all human beings which are expressive of a certain “natural religion” grounded in reason and the natural law, and the various mythopoetic religious constructions that have arisen from this religious sense. He says that any salvific truth that non-Christians might reach on their own without Revelation is the product of this natural religiosity, but then distinguishes this truth very sharply from the religious constructions that have arisen out of it (p. 33, #’s 193ff.). He is correct that natural religion is not sufficient for salvation, but his labeling of all other religious constructions as “pernicious” drives too neat a distinction between the virtue of religion and the mythopoesis that arises from it, implying that there is simply no truth to be found there at all that isn’t so bound up with error as to be useless. In fact, he quotes in this context Psalm 95:5, “All the gods of the Gentiles are devils” (p. 35, #211).
This underscores the essentially reactive nature of this catechism since his approach is motivated by a legitimate desire to condemn religious relativism but then overreacts to its ubiquitous presence in the world today by denying that any real truth about God can be found outside of Catholicism. And this overreaction extends as well to non-Catholic Christians who he says should not even be described as “Christians” and are instead to be labeled as products of “heresies or schisms”. (p. 34, #203). This blanket condemnation with its mention of “schisms” would seem then to include the Eastern Orthodox as well.
As for Judaism, Credo states that modern rabbinic Judaism is not really a legitimate form of Judaism at all since it lacks the identifying historical markers of “temple, priesthood, and sacrifice” (p. 34, #204). But this ignores the historical fact that during the time of Jesus the Judaism of the synagogues, with their worship centered on the Tanakh and led by rabbis (often pharisees) was indeed a legitimate form of the Judaism of that time, which quite often existed in a kind of theological tension with the Temple cult of the Sadducees. But Bishop Schneider seems oblivious to this fact and goes on to conclude that “modern Judaism as a whole exists as a rejection of God’s calling” since it denies the full truth of God’s Revelation in Christ. As a whole? Does he mean by this that modern Judaism is to be defined through and through by the category of “rejection of Christ” without remainder? It would seem so.
To say that such statements are tone deaf to the sensitivities surrounding the history of Christian anti-Semitism is a gross understatement by several orders of magnitude. And it once again underscores the essentially reactive nature of Credo in general. Bishop Schneider rightly fears a theology that would state that Jews do not need the salvation brought by Christ, but then overreacts by ignoring the complicated theological question of the ongoing validity of God’s covenant with the sons and daughters of Israel.
This is, once again, a movement away from Vatican II, which in Nostra Aetate (#4 & 5), and following St. Paul, says that God has a special love for the people of Israel that he will not abrogate. The Council states, “As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize God’s moment when it came (cf. Lk. 19:42). … Even so, the apostle Paul maintains that the Jews remain very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made”. The Council further affirms that Christians and Jews share a common spiritual “heritage” which imposes upon us an obligation to pursue ongoing relations with Judaism within the spirit of charity.
Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are also treated by Bishop Schneider in equally unnuanced and dismissive categories. He criticizes Vatican II when it says in Nostra Aetate (#2) that Hinduism includes a “supernatural contemplation of the divine mystery” and that Buddhism seeks a “supreme illumination and liberation from evil.” In both cases Bishop Schneider dismisses such claims on the grounds that Hinduism’s origins are in shamanism and polytheism and that it tends toward pantheism, and that Buddhism proposes a path of “self-extinction”.
All of that is true to an extent, except that it is simplistic to reduce the various forms of Buddhism to this one form and it is also simplistic to reject tout court the entirety of modern Hinduism based on an account of its origins. Furthermore, it ignores what it is Vatican II is actually teaching here and makes it seem as if the Council is embracing these religions as containing pathways to God on an equal footing with Christianity. And, in keeping with his scorched-earth approach, Bishop Schneider refuses to honestly portray what Vatican II is really saying, which is merely an affirmation that the mythopoetic constructions of these religions, though containing deep flaws, and lacking the full truth of God as revealed in Christ, nevertheless have some salutary elements. Because it is true that Hindus have a deep belief in supernatural realities and take them seriously, and it is also true that Buddhism at least acknowledges the reality of human suffering and seeks to overcome it through a kind of apophatic ascesis of the mind – a path within which even many orthodox Catholic monks and mystics have found some affinities with Christian ascesis.
He further accuses Lumen Gentium (#16) and the CCC (#841) of creating doctrinal ambiguity with regard to the nature of true religion when it states that Muslims adore with us “the one merciful God”. He rejects this conciliar teaching on the grounds that Muslims specifically reject both the Incarnation and a proper trinitarian profession of God’s nature. By implication, by the way, this would include those Jews (which is almost all of them) who also explicitly reject the trinitarian nature of God. He claims that Jews, at least, looked forward in their worship to the day when God would send a redeemer. But in no way did most Jews anticipate the Incarnational or the trinitarian conception of such a redeemer. And so their monotheism should also be rejected as false by Bishop Schneider’s own stated criteria.
I can understand his reluctance to say that Jews, like Muslims, worship a “different” God than Christians. After all, he does not want to drive too neat a wedge between the Old and New Covenants, and he certainly wants to avoid the charge of Marcionism, but if he is going to be theologically consistent here then he needs to admit that if the monotheism of Muslims is false simply because their conception of the one God involves an explicit rejection of Christ and trinitarianism, then he needs to apply that criterion to Judaism as well. But perhaps he does.
Further problems and failures
But surely neither the Council nor the CCC are asserting here an equivalence of theological conceptions. They are instead merely pointing out that there are analogical points of theological congruence in the various forms of Abrahamic monotheism. Bishop Schneider, once again, is to be commended for fighting against religious relativism. But given all of the conciliar statements about the absolute centrality of Christ, and similar emphases within the CCC, one can only see in the conciliar affirmation of certain affinities between the various strands of monotheism the kinds of religious relativism that Bishop Schneider fears if one reads the statements out of their full conciliar context and in a spirit lacking in charity toward a wholistic reading of the texts.
In short, the entirety of Bishop Schneider’s approach here flies in the face of the patristic development of the concept that there are “logoi spermatikoi” scattered around the world and that these “logoi” constitute a kind of religious “spoils of Egypt” that the Church can indeed embrace even as it purges paganism of its errors. There is also the example of St. Paul at the Areopagus where he pointed to the pagan worship of the “unknown God” as a kind of preparation for the Gospel of Christ. (Acts 17:22-23) Indeed, he says to the Athenians, “What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.” And this statement comes right after St. Paul commends the Athenians for their deep religiosity. And notice what St. Paul does not say. He does not say that their “worship” of the unknown God is, without qualification, simply “pernicious”.
Bishop Schneider acknowledges that there can be “logoi spermatikoi” of the true religion found outside of the Church (p. 36, #213), but rejects any idea that these seeds of truth can be found in the religious constructions of non-Christian faith systems as such. He says that all false religions “arise from the deception of the devil, sin, and ignorance” (#214). But St. Paul at the Areopagus says explicitly that the Athenians have been “worshipping” Christ implicitly—albeit in an ignorant and confused way. That implies that there has been some movement of grace within them precisely in and through their worship. And even if it is true, and it is, that the devil is at work in many false religions, and even if it is true that their distortions often arise from sin and ignorance, it does not follow that therefore there can be no “seeds of the Word” to be found anywhere in their various religious formulations. This would seem to further imply a total depravity within the human religious sense to such an extent that absent Revelation human mythopoesis is nothing but error all the way through and that it hinders the path to salvation in an unqualified sense.
But Vatican II says otherwise: grace builds on nature, and if the religious eye were not already sunlike, it could never see the Son.
All of this emphasis in Credo on the falseness of all other religions, and even his refusal to grant to non-Catholic Christians the title of “Christian”, becomes even more problematic when we see Bishop Schneider’s accusation that Dignitatis Humanae is guilty of “ambiguity” on the topic of religious freedom. He explicitly rejects the notion that there is an inherent right to religious freedom for all human beings. He makes the contradictory claim that “While everyone has the natural right to not be coerced to practice a religion, no man has the right – even a merely civil right – to offend God by … practicing or promoting religious error” (p. 104, #747). Can you follow that? No man is to be coerced, apparently, until he is. This is simply incoherence of the highest order through an act of linguistic legerdemain that takes away the very thing it putatively grants.
He then goes on to explicitly reject the teaching of Dignitatis Humanae (#2) that all human beings do possess a right to freedom of religion and immunity from civil coercion grounded in their dignity as human beings made in God’s image. It goes without saying that he also rejects the teaching of the CCC on these matters. He states flatly and forcefully:
Although such affirmations have been made even by Church authorities in our time, no one has a universal, positive, and natural right to practice whatever he perceives as ‘religion.’ Any civil rights to the same are likewise a grave error, as all ethically valid civil laws must be in harmony with the positive divine will … Civil laws promoting the liberty to offend God through the propagation of false religions cannot be a valid expression of or rooted in human nature. (p. 104, #748)
He states that this teaching is the that of the “perennial magisterium of the Church”. And he is correct about that to a great extent, except I would question just how “perennial” the teaching was. This is clearly a swipe at Dignitatis Humanae, and indeed all of the post-conciliar pontificates who endorsed its teachings. Clearly, Vatican II was developing the Church’s doctrine here. And clearly, this development has been controversial among traditionalists. But, just as clearly, all modern popes have endorsed this development and it has been almost universally received and accepted by the worldwide episcopacy as well. Therefore, there is a clear dissent in Credo from the full weight of modern magisterial developments on this topic which only adds further evidence to the charge that this new catechism is self-consciously proposing itself as an alternative to the teachings of an ecumenical council, the CCC, and all modern popes and most modern bishops.
When you combine these and similar statements in Credo with its denial that non-baptized human beings possess a full God-given dignity in an unqualified sense (p. 37, # 224ff.) you have a recipe for a return to the restorationist fantasy land of “error has no rights”. And that those unbaptized people who are wallowing in such errors have no rights of any kind in the religious sphere and may legitimately be coerced out of those errors. Bishop Schneider does grant that all human beings have a God-given dignity but only in a “qualified” sense since sin robs us of that dignity and we can only restore our full dignity via baptism. Left unanswered is whether the baptized who fall into mortal sin also lose their innate dignity in an unqualified sense until they go to confession. He further affirms that only the baptized are true children of God. There is a sense in which this latter statement is perhaps true, but it is misleading in the extreme since it implies that our Heavenly Father is not really the Father of us all in some universal sense, which he is, no matter how attenuated by sin.
The caveat that these distinctions are made necessary in order to avoid a false humanitarianism grounded in Enlightenment notions of a purely secular human fraternity also falls flat in my view. Because such distinctions will be lost on those not possessing the necessary theological acumen to make such Thomistically proper adjudications. This is a catechism, after all, and not a theology text. He might in the end have a small theological point. But there are better ways in a catechism to combat a false modern humanitarianism than by doubling-down on an idea fraught with so-many potential misunderstandings.
The ironies of ambiguities
Some of the book’s defenders have leapt into the breach and offered up some lengthy academic styled essays, which are designed to prove to the world that the real ambiguities of Bishop Schneider’s catechism can be explained and shown to be thoroughly in keeping with standard Thomistic doctrines. For example, on the issue of whether the non-baptized have full human dignity Dr. Peter Kwasniewski has come to Bishop Schneider’s defense and shown us that, despite appearances to the contrary, the good Bishop is really doing nothing more than making the fine Thomistic distinction between the “unqualified dignity” of the baptized and the “qualified dignity” of the unbaptized. Perhaps Dr. Kwasniewski’s essay should be added to the end of a new edition of Credo, like Paul VI’s nota praevia was appended to the end of Lumen Gentium.
And I am sure we will also soon see defenders of Bishop Schneider’s ambiguities on the issues of God’s covenant with the Jews, or with religious freedom in Catholic confessional States, and with similar lengthy explanations as to why we must not read this new catechism as condoning anti-Semitism or draconian civil coercion in religious matters.
But how “clear, pure, and a renewal of the form” is any catechism that is so ambiguous on some very important matters–matters which have been magisterially settled now for sixty years–that it requires article length “clarifications” that read like doctoral dissertation proposals? The irony here is palpable. Traditionalists have been arguing for a long time now about the alleged numerous “ambiguities” in the texts of Vatican II and in the CCC. And they have further alleged that it is precisely these ambiguities that led to most of the theological and liturgical problems of the post-conciliar era. They even go so far as to claim that many of these ambiguities were deliberately placed in the texts in order to exploit them later for all manner of ecclesial shenanigans by nefarious agents.
But now we have a catechism that is clearly being marketed to this same traditionalist wing of the Church and/or to those conservative Catholics who are sympathetic to their claims about conciliar ambiguities. And yet that same catechism presents us with ambiguities that could easily be exploited by anti-Semitic Catholics, or Catholics who want the State to coerce non-Catholics into the fold, or Catholics who think Vatican II erred on the question of religious truth in other religions in a Dogmatic Constitution (Lumen Gentium), and so on.
I am sorry, but the razor of misinterpretation of ambiguities cuts both ways and we therefore cannot “cut Bishop Schneider some slack” simply because he “means well”. Credo is a deeply flawed text designed as a weaponized response to Vatican II and the CCC. As such, and despite the fact that much of it is perfectly fine, it should not be promoted by those in the Church who should know better.
Credo: Compendium of the Catholic Faith
By Bishop Athanasius Schneider
Sophia Institute Press, 2023
Hardcover, 402 pages
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Spot on Dr. Chapp. Spot On.
It is important to note the fact that The Vatican II conciliatory documents were, in some respects, ambiguous to the point that there became a majority within the hierarchy of The Catholic Church, who refused to apply The Charitable Anathema, which has always existed for the sake of Christ, His Church, All Who Will Come To Believe, Including Those, Like The Good Thief, Who, At The Hour Of His Death, Recognized Christ, In All His Glory, And Came Late To The Fold, And The Multitude Of Prodigal Sons And Daughters, Who, Hopefully, Will Return To The One Body Of Christ, Outside Of Which, There Is No Salvation, Due To The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
How else could there possibly be “The Two Catholic Religions In The Same Church Face Off In The Raging Global Revolution”, unless those who deny The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, and thus the fact that“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost” (Filioque), For “It Is Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost”, that Holy Mother Church, outside of which there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque ) exists, have been permitted to remain physically present in Christ’s Church, while no longer present in The Spirit?
The denial of The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, is the source of all heresy leading to Apostasy.
Thus we can know through both Faith and Reason,
The Catholic Church does not subsist within The One Body Of Christ; The Catholic Church Is The One Body Of Christ, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost.
Have a Blessed Christmas and a wonderful New Year!
God Bless!
Sure buddy whatever.
Spot on?
The distinction Dr. Chapp overlooks is between what is true simply speaking and what is true only when considering one aspect of reality while overlooking the rest.
Simply speaking, Islam is false, as is Judaism. Simply speaking, humans after the fall lacking sanctifying grace do not have an actual dignity. In fact, they are “enemies of God”. Simply speaking, they are not children of God.
However, if one only pays attention to one aspect of reality e.g. the monotheism of Islam and Judaism, the nature – and the not the person – of fallen humans, etc. then certain statements could be true: Islam is true, insofar as it acknowledges one God. Etc. Even enemies of God are children of God (at least potentially) etc…
Credo states clearly what is simply speaking true. And THAT is not ambiguous. But to state what is only true in a certain respect, without elaborating on how the statement only considers one aspect of reality while overlooking the rest, is ambiguous. For the most part, the passages that Credo cites in the conciliar documents and the teachings of post-conciliar popes fit this last category.
In a Catechism, simple statements of simple truths is sufficient, and good. Let the good bishop go into detail in other works.
One more note: Dr. Chapp is not being fair to the author. He writes that the Bishop denies “that any real truth about God can be found outside of Catholicism.” Well, he doesn’t deny that. One can truly claim that a religion is false if only one tenant of that religion is false, just like one can claim a story is false if one part of it is false. This is the same for everything. A house without a roof is a false house, even if it has true walls and a true foundation. A false part makes the whole false. And because of this, saying that the whole is false is NOT the same as saying each part is false. Only one part has to be false.
I have a downloaded copy of Bishop Schneider’s catechism but have not yet begun to read it so cannot comment on its merits.
I will say this about the CCC promulgated under the papacy of Pope St. John Paul: I have read it and used it for RCIA classes I conducted in my parish. It is a very thorough and well-laid out document. In spite of this, I would suggest that in its almost thirty years of existence it has seemingly had a negligible effect on the lived faith of Catholics. How else could you account for the fact that among Catholics belief in the Real Presence, knowledge about the kerygma, and frequent use of the Sacrament of Penance are at an all-time abysmally low level?
But that’s not really relevant: there are lots of books out there stating the truth of things, from theology to physics, yet most people remain ignorant of them. It never seemed to me that the new catechism was an evangelical document (I’m not certain I’m using the right adjective), rather than a reference document.
Not really relevant????
I thought the intent of all catechism s was to instruct the faithful in the teachings of the Catholic Church and to promote orthopraxy. Tell me if you think that the lived experience of faith among Catholics is more enlivened today than 30 years ago when the CCC was disseminated. I’m NOT suggesting a ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ situation. Perhaps things would be even more dire in the Church than they are now if the CCC had never been issued. I do think that the Church has degenerated into far too many petty quabbles. We have major problems in the Church and we seem to be expending a lot of sacral energy on whether the knives go on the left of the plate or the right side.
Come on now. Let’s not make simple thinking mistakes. The JP II Catechism has had an ENORMOUS effect on Catholics. Now, any parishioner who finds their priest teaching false things has a ready, church approved reference. He may go to the priest, (or his bishop) and point out EXACTLY how the priest is not in accord with Catholic teaching. This was impossible before. You complain that a massively secular society is losing the faith, and you want to blame the Catechism for that? Come on, there are so many things affecting people’s faith these days (atheistic schooling, culture that is degenerate) and you think the excellent JP Catechism should have stopped all that? Come on.
I always respect your comments, but really, we orthodox Catholics know that sociological or historical events, good or bad, in themselves, can’t be expected to re-engineer the human condition. That would be purely secularist.
The author of this article makes interesting points worthy of further discussion, if not ‘clarification’, but his tone, in places, is somewhat unfortunate. I think his conclusion, in the final paragraph, is exaggerated. I hope that Bishop Schneider will respond to Dr. Chapp, in due course. We should remember that Vatican II is not ‘superdogma’ which erases everything that went before it – the phrase is Joseph Ratizinger’s. I think that Dr. Chapp, with great respect, suffers a bit from this notion which affects many Catholics today, which, to put it another way, is ‘the Church then’, and the Church ‘now’, ‘post-Vatican II’, etc. One should tread very carefully in the interpretation of the documents of Vatican II, and not give them all an equal status, doctrinally speaking, which they do not have, in fact, or exaggerate the doctrinal significance of certain statements to the detriment of others. Prudent judgments are also another matter. Bishop Schneider has done a great service in facing up to any difficulties that may have arisen from the Council. We should be courageous enough to see what the difficulties are. A bishop once said to me that the text of the document on the priesthood in Vatican II could have been written better, for example. In any case, criticisms of ‘Credo’ should not be allowed to cloud the merits of this catechism, or the initiative which led to publish it.
Rev. Dr, Gribbin – Thank you for expressing so well my thoughts on this. I am a Catholic who first acquired my faith from a saintly mother, but then from Catholic religious instruction in Catholic grade school and Catholic high school in the 1950’s, followed by four years in a Catholic university, 1960 to 1964, which practically speaking was pre-Vatican II. As such I relate to your statement, “We should remember that Vatican II is not ‘superdogma’ which erases everything that went before it…” It is almost as though those of us who lived and acquired our faith prior to Vatican II were like the Jews prior to Jesus – Yes, we had the faith, but not the fulness of the faith.
One additional item – I do not see how the Vatican II statement that the Muslims adore the one true God can be accurate. Many pagans adored one god, Zeus, Mars, etc. But the key word in the V II statement is THE, The one god, indicating it is the same God that we adore. The Muslim god however has very different characteristics, beyond the trinitarian issue – i.e. kill the infidel (us), provide a heaven of 72 virgins for suicide bombers, etc.
Rev. Dr. Gribbin,
Most excellent and erudite comments. Thank you.
There is a bit of an irony here in that your comments provide more insights into some of the motivations of Dr. Chapp (also recently revealed in his disrespectful criticism of Bishop Joseph Strickland and what he has pejoratively referred to as Strickland’s “brand of tradition”) than Dr. Chapp’s much longer (and problematic in many respects) article purports to provide about Bishop Schneider’ motivations.
Although some people like Dr. Fastiggi have also gushed that Dr. Chapp has provided a fair-minded review of Bishop Schneider’s text, the reality is that he has not been very fair-minded at all, and this becomes readily apparent very early on in his article. A key fact is the following:
Bishop Schneider’s text is not offered as a universal Catechism as Dr. Chapp and others wrongly claim, but it specifically and clearly and accurately represents itself as a COMPENDIUM (summary) of the Catholic Faith. This being so, Dr. Chapp’s “Why a new universal catechism at all?” falsely portrays Bishop Schneider’s text, which is rightly seen as a supplement to the Church’s universal catechism and not meant as a replacement for it. In fairness, Dr. Chapp later in the article does mention one time that Bishop Schneider’s text is a “kind of universal compendium,” but throughout the remainder of his article he continues to falsely label Bishop Schneider’s compendium as a catechism in opposition to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican II simply because the good Bishop calls into question and criticizes some elements of both (primarily a few problematic texts of Vatican II) that all honest theologians recognize as deserving of legitimate criticism. Chapp also pontificates that Bishop Schneider goes too far by not writing a text only for people in Kazakhstan because he believes that the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s reference to how it can be used should serve as a kind of rule that must be followed, which is not the case. This is simply Dr. Chapp revealing a personal disgust with the kind of Compendium that Bishop Schneider has written primarily because it contains some sections that challenge Chapp’s worship-like promotion of Vatican II.
Refuting all of the misstatements and mischaracterizations in Dr. Chapp’s article needs much more than can be presented in a few comments, so perhaps I and/or others will provide such in a future article. For the present, I quote this superb revelation in Rev. Dr. Gribbin’s comment above that illustrates an inherent bias in Dr. Chapp that prevents him from writing an objective review of Bishop Schneider’s Compendium in many respects:
“We should remember that Vatican II is not ‘superdogma’ which erases everything that went before it – the phrase is Joseph Ratizinger’s. I think that Dr. Chapp, with great respect, suffers a bit from this notion which affects many Catholics today, which, to put it another way, is ‘the Church then’, and the Church ‘now’, ‘post-Vatican II’, etc. One should tread very carefully in the interpretation of the documents of Vatican II, and not give them all an equal status, doctrinally speaking, which they do not have, in fact, or exaggerate the doctrinal significance of certain statements to the detriment of others.”
I recently obtained a copy of Bishop Schneider’s compendium, and I have reviewed many sections of this overall fine work. There are some statements that can be legitimately questioned/challenged for further clarification from Bishop Schneider, but the way that Dr. Chapp presents some of Bishop Schneider’s statements on Jews, Muslims, and so on are not accurate and/or they leave out some further explanation that are provided by Bishop Schneider in his compendium that Dr. Chapp ignores.
On the whole, Bishop Schneider’s “Credo: Compendium of the Catholic Faith” is solid work of a faithful son of the Church who wholeheartedly embraces perennial Catholic teaching as presented by the Church throughout the ages. And as a compendium, it provides solid catechesis that can benefit all Catholics who also embrace the entire 2000 year-old-Church, a Church that did not gain significantly more wisdom only between 1962 and 1965 as lesser lights maintain.
You are completely wrong. Bishop Schneider is a very arrogant person, who appears to believe that he has his own magisterium. It is beyond bizarre for a man who is a rather small Auxiliary Bishop to presume to develop his own Catechism which CONTRADICTS Catholic teaching, as explained in the official Catechism of the church. His actions border on schism, or at least a schismatic attitude. And let us think. Who are the ones most admiring of Bishop Schneider, almost treating him as a prophet or a god? Why it is the schismatic SSPX types, the Taylor Marshall bandits, all those who reject Vatican II. In fact, no Catholic may reject Vatican II, and it appears that Schneider does exactly that in places. And that is not justified in ANY sense.
Give this web page a read:
https://www.wordonfire.org/vatican-ii-faq/
What exactly is Catholic in believing that human being occur in “types”? If you have no coherent specifics, you need not take refuge in creating crude caricatures.
The website you linked makes this statement right up front:
“Cardinal Francis George, the grandfather of the Word on Fire movement, used to characterize the Second Vatican Council as a missionary council. Its purpose was to clarify the Church’s understanding of herself through doctrinal definition and creating a platform for renewed evangelical vigor.
This great vision remains largely unrealized. In the decades following the Council, the teachings of Vatican II were distorted or simply ignored. Its robust documents, produced by the cream of the Catholic intellectual crop, gave way to a debilitating anti-intellectualism; its definition of the Eucharist as “the source and summit of the Christian life” was met with a dramatic decrease in Mass attendance and belief in the Real Presence; its goal of awakening the biblical consciousness was restrained by a widespread ignorance of Scripture; and its call to read “the signs of the times” was taken up as the motto of a beige Catholicism. Of course, none of these effects were due to the conciliar texts themselves, which promoted just the opposite.“
And this is the crux of the problem. Many faithful Catholics do not reject the Council or its documents. However, the fruit of the Council did not ripen. It’s 60 years now, and what we see almost worldwide is wreckage- vocations in free fall, closed schools and parishes, disheartened priests, mass attendance plummeted, Catholics abort at same rate as secular society, etc. A weak case can be made that this drastic loss is due to the rise of militant secularism. But nearly all serious Catholics also know that the hierarchy failed to implement the Council properly, and worse- they utterly failed to discipline errant priests and bishops who permitted or even participated in clown masses and other liturgical abuses. The distortions that the link identifies remain uncorrected. No sustained universal attempt was made to correct errors in interpretation or application of the Council documents. By the mid 1970s the Church was in a theological crisis which necessarily mushrooms into a pastoral crisis. Belief in authority died- because authority was not exercised to defend the Church, protect the faithful. We all mourn SSPX as a division among us, but in fairness, this would not have happened had the Novus Ordo been properly implemented. It would not have happened had discipline been applied to erroneous theologians. The failure isn’t addressed even today, 60 years hence. What must happen, do we suppose, for the needed corrections to be made? What will inspire Catholics return to Mass, to practice their faith again? To build schools and fill parishes? What will it take for the Council to finally fulfill the vision of Council Fathers as a “platform for renewed evangelical vigor?”
I’m late to this discussion, but I hope these questions as regards Credo and how to realize the “great vision” of the council will continue to be examined in CWR.
It is deplorable that hard radical traditionalist Catholic media marketing promotions are not forthright. Contrary to the impression it projects by its general silence, Athanasius Scheneider is not the ordinary Bishop (head shepherd of a diocese) but an auxiliary Bishop (assistant to the ordinary Bishop) only, of not a European or North American diocese, but of the Archdiocese of Astana in the former Soviet Central Asian nation of Kazakhstan.
In another matter, those who miss the Q & A format of old catechisms and so would like Schneider’s catechism should instead consider taking up and using the “Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” This catechism launched by Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 presents the fundamental and essential elements of the Catholic faith synthesizing and keyed to the CCC in precisely the beloved Q & A format.
CCCC is sure a more orthodox vademecum of the Catholic faith than Schneider’s Credo.
“Contrary to the impression it projects by its general silence, Athanasius Scheneider is not the ordinary Bishop (head shepherd of a diocese) but an auxiliary Bishop (assistant to the ordinary Bishop) only, of not a European or North American diocese, but of the Archdiocese of Astana in the former Soviet Central Asian nation of Kazakhstan.”
*****
Ours is a universal Church. Why should the location of Bishop Schneider’s archdiocese signify considering that?
Bishops from Austria who somehow end up in places in Muslim countries where there are very few Catholics are not generally sent there because they are the best bishops available.
I had once thought it odd that Bishop Schneider was assigned to that remote part of the world but he actually was born in Kyrgyzstan, not Austria . His parents were Black Sea Germans.
Schneider was born in Kyrgyzstan to ethnic Germans who had been deported there.
I believe that the Black Sea Germans were invited by Russia to settle there. Not only Catholics, but Mennonites took that opportunity.
I’m not familiar with Bishop Schneider’s personal family history, but as I understand it, German speaking Black Sea settlers were invited to come, not deported.
Those who miss the question & answer format should read a book without anything related to a question and answer format?
Is there something intrinsically wrong about that format that requires the squashing of any preferences toward it?
Thank you very much, Dr. Chapp, for this excellent and fair-minded review of Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s new catechism. I have met Bishop Schneider, and he is a sincere, intelligent,and gracious man. This, of course, does not mean he is beyond criticism. With regard to the worship of God by Jews and Muslims, it’s worth noting that theologians way before Vatican II recognized that they worship the one true God.
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), in Book III, chapter 10, of his Controversy on the Word of God (de Verbo Dei), writes: “Jeremiah foretold the future: that in the time of the New Testament all men will know the one God, which is certainly now fulfilled. For the Gentiles have been converted to the Faith, and also the Jews and the Turks, who, although they are impious, still worship the one God” (tamen unum Deum collunt).
The Jesuit, Francisco Suárez (1548–1617), believed that Christian rulers could allow the infidels freedom of worship within their realms as long as their forms of worship were not opposed to the natural law. Thus, he thought that religious rites that were not intrinsically evil or contrary to natural reason could be tolerated. Among these, he says “are the Jewish rites and perhaps even many rites of the Muslims and similar non-believers, who adore only the one true God”[ut sunt ritus Judaeorum, et fortasse multi etiam ritus Sarracenorum, et similium infidelium, qui unum tantum verum Deum adorant] (De fide. disp. XVIII, sect. 4 n. 9 in, Opera omnia, Vol. XII, p. 451).
Thanks Robert! At last we agree on something! Have a great Christmas.
About Suarez and “… religious rites that were not intrinsically evil or contrary to natural reason could be tolerated.” Yours truly has a question without offering an answer…
About ten years ago Cardinal Pell wrote an article in “First Things” that Islam worshiped the one God, but he made this concession “grudgingly” (or a similar word). This continues to perplex me. CAN WE ASK: What if a religion refers countless times to the Law of Moses regarding the natural law, even repeated the first four affirmative Commandments, BUT then never actually lists the last six prohibitive commandments (“Thou shalt not…”)?
Are such silent OMISSIONS “contrary to natural reason”? As far as I can tell, this profile describes the Qur’an (perhaps a CWR reader can supply possibly overlooked citations). And, what if the omissions are then replaced, in effect, by instructions (“dictated” by Allah) toward violence (Q 2:187/191, 8:34, 9:5, 47:4). Even if abrogated, a bit, by other verses (surah) from possibly earlier in the life of Muhammad (Q 2:193/256, 8:39, and 60:8-9).
(An ASIDE: Are we almost reminded of some plastic inserts into progressive SYNODALITY [2023]? Corrected as these inserts are, already [!], regarding moral absolutes as in the sidelined Veritatis Splendor [1993], e.g., nn. 52, 56, 90,95, 115. And even the Catechism [1992], e.g., sexual immorality: nn. 2352, 2353, 2356, 2357, 2370, 2380, 2381)?
So, acknowledging that worship of the same self-disclosing God is always intermingled with elements of homegrown religion—which need to be inculturated and purified—HOW MUCH can we historically or progressively edit God and his words/Word before we have constructed an alternative God? As with the, yes, monotheistic Qur’an—but deified as the “word made book” versus the superseded “Word made flesh”? Do we still have the same God or kind of God? My QUESTION without an answer.
Now, on favorable behalf of so many individual “followers of Islam,” we also historically have such as this, from one Oliverisu Scholasticus, a member of a defeated Frankish army during the Crusades:
“Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity came from God. Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger, and showered us with kindness even while we were in their power” (Friedrich Heer, “The Medieval World,” 1963).
“And, what if the omissions are then replaced, in effect, by instructions toward violence.”
One would be guilty of exchanging God’s Truth with a lie, for one cannot change The True Essence Of God Who Is The Communion Of Perfect Love.
At the end of The Day, it may still remain a Great Mystery, but Catholics affirm that we exist because God, Who Is Perfect Love, Exists.
This essay review of an excellent new text, ‘Credo’, a catechism which has excellent purposes and intentions, and which is (clearly!) having an excellent result, incontrovertibly demonstrates that Modernism, as specifically condemned by Pius X, is clearly alive and well in the Church. I eventually managed to obtain a copy after a fellow priest had finished its reading and handed it to me – otherwise it remains sold out at the current time and is likely to go through successive reprintings in consequence. One recent – and important – interview relating to this new text is found at the link provided here – a conversation between Bishop Schneider and the former Anglican (now Catholic) theologian Dr. Gavin Ashenden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAuP-GDcQfw&ab_channel=DrGAshenden Far from ‘Credo’ being ” … a weaponized response to Vatican II and the CCC”, the essay review above clearly represents a weaponised attack against a saintly bishop whose only concern is to correct the doctrinal errors that aim to pollute the Depositum Fidei, and which errors seem to me to have been fully embraced by the essay review’s author. I exhort the faithful to purchase this book, or otherwise obtain it, and study it very carefully – in doing so they will draw nearer to the Truth, and not risk falling away for it.
Kudos to you, Father Andrew Gregory. Thank you.
Unfortunately, some hold a clinging type of prejudicial bias and almost obsessive dislike against certain aspects of the traditional faith and those holding it. This trait stinks to high heaven, but many contemporary Catholic theologians seem to be awash in it while thinking their spewings make the room smell good.
I am currently making my way through my copy of “Credo”.
My initial reaction is one of gratitude to Bishop Schneider for his efforts, care and concern for not only his flock, but for the well being of the universal Catholic Church and the Church Militant to which we, the living, all belong. I find spiritual comfort and clarity in what Bishop Schneider writes, unlike the never-ending divisive, judgmental and far out of the realm of his expertise proclamations of one, PF.
If it weren’t for the malevolent novelties of PF, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The bottom line – who is more adherent to, and working toward promulgating and defending the true Magisterium of the Catholic Faith – PF or Bishop Schneider?
For each of us, our choice is between continuing to follow the blind man into the ditch or, alternatively, consider grabbing hold of the hand of someone truly working to help others stay on the right path.
For the moment, sheath your swords and listen to what Bishop Schneider and those like him, e.g., Bishop Strickland & Cardinal Burke, have to teach us.
The problem is that some who claim the title “traditionalist” are actually Protestants, and have rejected the Catholic church. This is very clear now, after we have gotten the FULL story of the schismatic tendencies of some traditionalists, who seem to worship a man who had to be excommunicated called Lefebvre.
I am not a traddie, nor am I dissatisfied with Vatican II or the awesome CCC promulgated by a great, great saint.
I AM very, very, very dissatisfied with the implemention (non-) of the real, true Second Vatican Council. And I am ever-apalled by the spineless, cowardly, un-fatherly, un-catechized, wordly, effeminate “leadership” of our non-Christocentric politician bishops.
I find it incredible that such an article can be printed in CWR.
Bishop Schneider’s catechism is a literal Godsend of unambiguous reality.
As shown throughout the history of the Church, one does not need advanced degrees to know Him, or to know The Faith. The great Mother Angelica was an obvious contemporary proof of this truth. In the experience of His poor flock today, we can only judge that advanced degrees are rather a hindrance.
We need leaders, spiritual fathers, men, who eunuchs not for the world, but again for the Kingdom of God. Men transformed through union with Him into CREDIBLE successors of His holy apostles.
Your assertions in the above article are…not credible, not in line with the life of the Church, not in line with the teachings and lives of His saints.
His are.
Read and listen to saints. Not those who try to get around His Word by saying esoteric things like “2+2=5”.
Saints? Was it not Saint John Paul II that gave his approval to the 1994 Catechism?
Amazon has the book.
Nonsense. You like a Catechism that contains ERRORS and departs from the Catholic faith. I feel sorry for you.
How about, “Read and listen” to the decrees of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council?!
Mr Chapp’s article is not an honest one and he seems to have an agenda of his own. Two examples will suffice: 1. The CCC can no longer be a deposit of faith if the Pope can make up into down, right into wrong, and that’s what he’s done in regard to capital punishment. 2. The Jewish view of God is not the same as the Muhammadan view: the first is historical and contains elements that allow for a nuanced view, such as theophanies and the use of plurals Inthe singular; Muhammad took this and just copied it with error, eliminating all nuances. For historical Christianity, Judaism is a true religion, albeit incomplete; Muhammadism is a heresy, as Dante understood, and has no place as a religion in and of itself. It is not incomplete; it is a perversion.
Why a new universal catechism at all? Do we not already have the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church (henceforth designated as CCC) put out during the papacy of John Paul II in 1992?
I’ll leave others to respond to your latest controversy, but Credo is not a universal catechism, it is a local one. (Another local catechism, for example, is the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church expressly calls for the creation of such catechisms.
“A time is coming when men will go mad,
and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying:
You are mad; you are not like us.”
— St. Antony the Great
Substitute “ambiguous” for “mad” and you have the essence of Dr. Chapp’s essay here.
Well that was an angry and uncharitable rant. Caveat emptor when reading Larry chapped.
Says a guy who names himself after a wacko book by a wacko author who makes up all sorts of things.
This review comes on the day of Pope Francis’s Declaration Fiducia supplicans confirming that SSM persons in a relationship may receive blessings. I can think of no more logical outcome of Vatican II’s ecumenism. If JPII could kiss the Koran, and receive blessings from Hindu priestesses and engage in thousands of bizarre interreligious events over his long papacy then by what logic cannot we not also “bless” SSM. Surely there are “logoi spermatikoi” in any relationship qua relationship right? Is that we are blessing here?
Sorry, bud, but Pope Francis’s actions have nothing at all to do with Vatican II. Sadly, it seems those most in favor of this Catechism of errors seem to understand the least about the church.
PseudoISE: 100% accurate assessememt. After JPII’s pontificate publicly and blatantly violated the foundational 1st Commandment it was inevitable, as Archbishop LeFebvre had prophetically warned JPII and everyone else, that all the other 9 Commandments would eventually be violated and disregarded also.
Thank you for this.
I, too, was rather disturbed by Schneider’s discussion of Judaism (when a friend sent it to me). That (among many other areas) seeems to be in strong disagreement with with Saint John Paul II.
Does Bishop Schneider “overreact” to certain ambiguities of the day, OR does Chapp overreact to Schneider’s alleged overreactions?
I have not yet read Schneider’s new catechism, but am motivated to order a copy with questions such as the following in mind. (Sorry about the length; as Mark Twain said, “I’d make it shorter but I don’t have the time!”)
________________________
FIRST, does Schneider really rival/reject the Council and the official Catechism (CCC) on the issue of “religious freedom,” when he simply underlines what the Council itself promoted: “This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion [!] on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power…” (Dignitatis Humanae, nn. 1,2). A distinction misunderstood by many even in high places.
SECOND, on non-Christian religions, and Buddhism for example, what does Schneider say that is any different from what Pope St. John Paul II also said (yes, in a private writing): “Buddhism is in large measure an ‘atheistic system [italics]. We do not free ourselves from evil through the good which comes from God; we liberate ourselves only through detachment from the world, which is bad” (“Crossing the Threshold of Hope,” 1993…the year after the CCC was published).
THIRD, about the embryonic truth, yes, of natural religion (as with St. Paul: ““When the Gentiles who have no law do by nature what the Law prescribes, these having no law are a law unto themselves […] written in their hearts,” Rom 2:14-15)….After St. Paul’s failed harmonization in Athens, he proceeded to Corinth to decisively preach only “Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23). Not to fully discount the religious sense of natural religion—even found in the “fitrah” of Islam (another story and about which Kazakhstan’s Schneider surely has “concrete” knowledge.)
FOURTH, Schneider is quoted: “no man has the right – even a merely civil right – to offend God by … practicing or promoting religious error” (p. 104, #747). We are asked if we “follow that”….Well, is Schneider challenging the state-imposed religion of Secular Humanism? And, now, the civil right [!] of gay “marriage” and mainstreamed sodomy? Is he even shining a light on, say, the intrusion into the Church itself of radical secularism, through der Synodal Weg and its gangrenous tentacles throughout the post-Christian West?
FIFTH, Chapp’s most compelling critique is Schneider’s possible overreach in labeling natural religions as eventually (?) “pernicious;” and Protestants as less than “Christian”—since rooted in “heresies and schism.” (At our precarious moment in history, what are the promises and pitfalls, both, of historical amnesia, of engaging but broad-brush “fraternity,” and of an ambivalent “pluralism” of religions?)
SIXTH, withholding judgment on whether Chapp is still correct in his summary of this part of Schneider’s work: “This would seem to further imply a total depravity within the human religious sense to such an extent that absent Revelation human mythopoesis is nothing but error all the way through and that it hinders the path to salvation in an unqualified sense.” This gets us into the false question whether there really is such a thing as the natural man…somewhere in the Vatican Documents is wonderment at the generous movement of grace in “a way known only to God.”
________________________
IN BROAD SUMMARY, WE READ: “As such [Schneider’s Catechism] is an important new part of an ongoing and troubling development of a kind of ‘parallel Church’ that pits a ‘faithful remnant’ against the ‘mainstream Novus Ordo Church’ of Vatican II. And now this ‘remnant’ has “their catechism”.
OR INSTEAD, is Schneider simply challenging the ambiguities promoted and expanded by a big-tent, uniformitarian faction (the “spirit of Vatican II”) that claims itself exclusively to be the “universal” Church?
The extinction of reasoning within Islam was reinforced by a sequence of polarizing tomes. Al-Ghazali (1058-1111) wrote the “Destruction of Philosophy.” Then came the “Destruction of the Destruction” by Ibn Rushd (Averroes). This was followed by the “Destruction of the Destruction of the Destruction” by Hodia Zada following the successful siege of Constantinople in A.D. 1453 (W.H. McNeill, the Rise of the West, 1963).
Yours truly does agree with Chapp’s (and others’) central point, that to be avoided within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is such a round of circular Russian roulette. For us, decked out in red hats (and now ties and pantsuits?) rather than turbans.
Newman’s position on natural religion sets a standard. It seems that Chapp or Schneider’s labelling natural religion “pernicious” does injustice to the concept if either of them has done so without qualification or explanation.
With regard to protestantism, Ratzinger’s book on Christian Brotherhood qualifies the idea, arguing the notion of “sisters in Christ” is more precise and truthfully descriptive for Catholic-Protestant relations. Ignatius Press published the book, penned in 1960. Drawing on Balthasar as well as Barth, Ratzinger concludes that the ‘heresy’ category is of little value when applied to today’s Protestants, claiming the term includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church. But is this result not a consequential and effectual truth of being Protestant?
Nevertheless and in spite of all that, Ratzinger also concludes that those who do not accept Christ in the Eucharist are not rightly Christ’s brothers. The theology of Barth and Balthasar only took Ratzinger so far.
The ‘heresy’ label may in fact work to the good of the Church.
“In 1839 while studying the Monophysite Controversy Newman was struck by the idea that if they were heretics then the equally schismatic Protestants and Anglicans of his day must be as well (Apologia chapter 3 esp. 97-99). Soon after, he began to wish for Anglican reunion with Rome (Apologia 102). Despite his newfound misgivings about schism, Newman remained true to his Church and set out to show that the Church of England was in fact not at odds with Rome at all. In 1841 Newman “discovered” that Protestants of his day were analogous to Arians of the Patristic Period, Anglicans to semi-Arians, and that “Rome was now what it had been then;” the True Church had been and still was the Roman Church (Apologia 114-115)”
~Notes on Newman from Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia.
Peter Beaulieu and Meiron,
Dr. Chapp quotes Bishop Schneider in Credo as stating “’All other religions are inherently false, and their forms of worship pernicious, or at least unavailing for eternal life’ (p. 34, #200).”
The quotation is accurate, but some context is left out that is important to consider, and which weakens Dr. Chapp’s criticism that ignores some of the context.
Question 200 of Section 1 in Credo reads as follows:
“Are all religions, with their respective forms of worship, equally pleasing to God?”
In response and just prior to the sentence quoted by Dr. Chapp, Bishop Schneider correctly states “No. Only the religion established by God and fulfilled in Christ, with its divinely revealed worship, is supernatural, holy, and pleasing to God.” After making this accurate statement, Bishop Schneider then adds that “All other religions are inherently false, and their forms of worship pernicious, or at least unavailing for eternal life.”
The word “pernicious” means highly injurious or destructive, and so what Bishop Schneider points out is correct since he is speaking about false religions in general whose forms of worship contain many errors, some more than others, thereby making them highly injurious or destructive to the truth while leading many people away from the truth.
Also note how Dr. Chapp claims that Bishop Schneider’s statement contains some truth, “But there is also a lack of nuance here, and therefore a calculated ambiguity, especially when he summarily dismisses their forms of worship as ‘pernicious’ without qualification.”
First, the claim of a lack of nuance in a compendium is often problematic on its face, but mind reader Chapp then claims that the lack of nuance as he perceives it is a “calculated ambiguity” chosen by Bishop Schneider to apparently fulfill some kind of an evil intention. Dr. Chapp’s disdain for Bishop Schneider pours out once again in the mere assertion that Bishop Schneider is malevolently being ambiguous, which just ain’t so. Remember to keep the entire response of Bishop Schneider to question 200 of section one in mind to maintain the proper context. Then focus on the last part of Bishop Schneider’s response to the question wherein he sets forth a qualification ignored by Dr. Chapp and claimed by him to not to be provided by Bishop Schneider: “All other religions are inherently false, and their forms of worship pernicious, or at least unavailing for eternal life.” An honest reading of the statement illustrates that Bishop Schneider is correctly stating that some forms of worship are injurious or destructive, but others may not be as bad, yet they are weak sauce and will not be helpful to them. Absolutely spot on.
As a brief but still insightful response in his compendium, Bishop Schneider has made a truthful and unambiguous statement about the reality confronting false religions and some of their practices. His statement also accurately represents perennial Church teaching on this matter, and for those who truly want to help others worship Our Lord as He demands to benefit their souls, proclaiming this truth is the medicine they need instead of providing them some hallucinatory drug that makes them believe that what they do in opposition to Our Lord’s demands is just fine.
Thank you, TDV. You’ve clarified; we agree.
This ain’t the first time Chapp’s cracked lips have shown themselves in need of healing. Repeatedly, they seem to beg benefit of soothing salve.
I also appreciate Paul Rasavage’s remark following mine above. Spot on.
Blessings of Advent.
“Nor is there any mention made of the local needs or unique cultural realities of Kazakhstan…”
**********
My guess is that the good people of Kazakhstan probably have a better grasp on the Faith than many of their Catholic counterparts in the declining West do.
The comments within this forum do more to emphasize the fog that permeates the Church the cultural divide between the progressive and the orthodox…”Truly I say to you heaven and earth shall pass away but My Word shall never pass away”.
The author seems to criticize this new catechism largely for its “tone” and “nuance,” because these have become all-important in this age of ecumania. Oh, and this catechism takes a “swipe” at two of the more ambiguous texts of Vatican II! I do not possess a copy of Bishop Schneider’s text, but this review inclines me to obtain a copy. It sounds excellent.
Great point, the great theologians of old came out with guns blazing and never considered the implications of things they said. In addition, they tried at every opportunity to insult people who disagreed with. “Tone” and “Nuance” were invented by Marxists in the 19th century!
Yes. Tone and nuance vs. dogma and the faith as taught and practiced for all those years prior to The Council.
A neighboring parish is having a study on this very book in January. I may sign up.
I don’t doubt, Dr. Chapp, that your fine essay here will wear out your welcome among some of the commenters here. But I appreciate your willingness to call it as you see it. The pseudo-magisterium of much contemporary theology on the left has its counterpart on the right, and I’m afraid that Schneider (though not as much as Vigano) has gone in for a radical reinterpretation of the Church’s perennial teaching as authoritatively articulated by the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent magisterium.
and I’m afraid that Schneider (though not as much as Vigano) has gone in for a radical reinterpretation of the Church’s perennial teaching as authoritatively articulated by the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent magisterium
Have you read a single word of +Schneider’s catechism, brave anonymous?
And I’d be curious to see where and when the fathers of Vatican II claimed they set out to reinterpret Church teaching.
I did not say that the Second Vatican Council “reinterpreted” the teaching of the Church (although, in a way, that’s true). Still, I can see how my formulation was imprecise.
I haven’t read Schneider’s catechism, no. I’ve read some of his work, and he comes in on the hard right of the Church and seems to evince a fairly shallow understanding of the Church’s tradition. I suspect that his catechism is much of the same. But I don’t know if you’ll go in for that.
You’re saying Schneider is “radical” and “hard right” but he is neither.
What this does though, is, it says some things about stances you have.
Including – you use Schneider in this way to stake out VATICAN II incompletely.
You’re hard to follow that’s for sure.
https://www.ncregister.com/interview/bishop-schneider-says-his-new-compendium-aims-to-expel-the-darkness-of-relativism-and-ambiguity-in-doctrine
Bishop Schneider and Larry Chapp’s response extract a requisite awareness that the Catechism and Vat II express an intellectual refinement of complex doctrine that the average joe cannot penetrate; and as such, walks away with false impressions. Dignitatis humanae fails to address the coercive nature of revelation, for example the Credo we repeat on Sundays. Nor does the Catechism coherently address the complexity of mitigation of sin [particularly an inflated notion of the habitual practice of sin] tending to eradicate the permanence of sin by creating what John Paul II warned as a separate category.
Whereas Prof Chapp adroitly assesses the recognition of the good found in other religions. God’s grace is always at work in all wherever their spiritual sentiments take them. No one can convince me that an elderly Methodist couple that parked their camper behind my pickup at night on a remote forest road to assist me in changing a tire were not angels sent from heaven.
Bishop Schneider’s Catechism does serve a worthy purpose in correcting certain misleading ambiguities in the official Catechism and V II. His effort at orthodoxy can be balanced with the compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an address of Benedict XVI June 2005.
“… the Catechism and Vat II express an intellectual refinement of complex doctrine that the average joe cannot penetrate.”
What specifically and exactly is that intellectual refinement and what is the complex doctrine which the average joe cannot penetrate?
An issue is mitigation due to habitual practice of a sin in 2352, in this instance masturbation. “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability”. Penitents abound who have expressed belief that their habit is excusable. Similarly many penitents cite the same article 2352 regarding pornography believing their habit is non culpable. Most will refer to a priest who informed them that masturbation is not a serious sin based on 2352. In most instances youth as well as adults have a persistent habit largely influenced by their opinion regarding mitigation.
Insofar as forming an equitable judgment of the subject’s moral culpability priest are confessors, not professional psychiatrists. We do gain knowledge by experience and reading although our judgment in that dimension of knowledge is limited. Our judgment is largely focused on manifest behavior, taking age in consideration and those with evident psychiatric impairment.
I’ve mentioned several times on CWR that in line with the thought of John Paul II we shouldn’t create a new category in respect to mitigation, John Paul warned of the diminishment of culpability and reality of sin. Insofar as masturbation, pornography these habits in themselves are sinful. For example if a person masturbates once he likely commits grave sin. If he/she decides to continue would that decision of itself lessen their culpability even to zero as the Catechism states? There are likely very rare instances of zero culpability. Many are misled by lack of intellectual penetration of mitigation as it’s briefly addressed in the Catechism. There are other areas for improvement in the Catechism. For example the death penalty and inadmissibility. Inadmissibility admits to admissibility. Whereas some believe that inadmissibility is equivalent to an intrinsic evil.
Fr. shan’t we affirm that the blessing (in FS, etc.), as, embarkation, is a plan to sin and not a slip? – and not a habit! Therefore naming it “innovation” would be inversion of meanings (mounted up again).
Consider then carefully these inversion. We are being told that the blessing harkens to the good in there and the beginnings they betoken and the promise in such things.
Original fallenness entails all kinds of prelediction against nature (and against God). The fact (such as it may be) of being born inclined to homosexuality is a proof of sin and disorder not naturalness. Hence why we speak at all of nature and naturalness and Natural Law that bring out the situation for our own sakes as individuals and as communion.
Then are we not are visited again by John the Baptist who accused Herod of the adultery against his brother.
Elias it does appear this innovation is intended to advance the normalization of disordered sexual behavior. And you’re correct that prelediction [I believe you meant predilection] toward that disorder followed the fall from grace with Original Sin. It also may account for physical abnormality that in rare instances contributes to that disorder. It is however primarily an elective disorder as indicated historically.
Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross [Edith Stein] made an interesting observation that the original fall from grace was not simply an act of disobedience. Meiron quoted the saint’s opinion on the consequences of original sin, “The direct consequence of original sin gives a clue as to what they [man and woman] may be held accountable for: the consequence was that man and woman saw each other with different eyes than they had previously; they had lost innocence of interchange with one another. So the first sin may not only be considered as a purely formal one of disobedience to God. Rather it implied a definite act which had been forbidden and which the serpent presented enticingly to the woman and then the woman to the man. Indeed, the act committed could well have been a manner of union which was at variance with the original order” (Woman, p.64, Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1996 in CWR St Teresa of Avila, Spouse of Christ Oct 12 2023).
Card Athanasius Schneider does indeed seem a type of John the Baptist.
Yes I meant to type prediliction.
Interestingly, Fr., with the Pope and one’s own bishop at the lead -hiding in the background for more than 10 years before 2013. Now telling people to legalize homosexual civil union “because it is a sin not a crime; and come and get baptized too, because you’re welcomed”. The entrapment didn’t work.
God made fig leaves and loin cloths for the man and the woman, so as to look after their dignity before Him. And this is now being destroyed.
Edit: predilection not “prediliction”
As to V II documents Dignitatis humanae stands out. Fr Courtney Murray SJ the primary contributor essayed a fine document in defense of religious freedom within the state. Fr Murray however omitted the coercive dimension of our faith both in respect to the state, even if theoretically within a pluralistic society, but more importantly in respect to the individual Catholic conscience.
Whereas we have the innate capacity of free will, we as Christians are indebted to believe in the Word made flesh, who reveals the Father to us. Although what Murray says is correct, that omission was taken to suggest that we are free to reject aspects of faith as held by the Church, or in a radical sense belief itself. That revelation of God in the Son, the epiphany of his nature as Love itself is the supreme Truth to which all truth, all reason must acquiesce as is contained in the Catechism. Reason, the measure of that truth, which is the Rule, follows that act of faith in the Word made flesh with our rationale for believing.
And yes. A blessed Christmas to you Meiron, and to all in CWR.
No offense to any one but if I saw anyone with ‘Credo’, I would immediately assume them to be a loser. Even as someone who has no problem with the SSPX, what are we even doing with ‘Credo’ lol. If you don’t trust the CCC, just get a Baltimore Catechism or some intro to Aquinas and you’ll get the same exact information without looking a culture war clown.
What’s more interesting to me is the “at odds” nature of the contents of ‘Credo’ that I don’t think would have been considered “at odds” at any point prior to this era. Again, I don’t like ‘Credo’ and I actually like a lot of what VII/ Nouvelle Theologie / Reconsidering the role of scholastic theology(or at least de-emphasizing Aquinas. Suarez gang rise up) and all that. It has something to say – I just don’t think it’s fundamentally “in line” with the Church of old.
The Benedict XVI hermeneutic is compelling (the actual one, minor ruptures with underlying continuity) but that has never been how the Church presented herself. It was almost always “this is totally in line with what came before.” That’s most certainty untrue but it makes me think we’re looking at the emperor with no clothes for the first time. It’s not very comforting.
Well, you got me. On the third reading, your comment makes no more sense than it did on the first.
TLDR: That the modern Church is at odds (on some points) with the non-modern Church. That’s fine because it’s what we expect. Except the Church has never expressed that expectation and has always claimed “total continuity”. The hermeneutic of BXVI is compelling but still alien. Therefore, we’re forced to look at the emperor and realize he has no clothes. It’s not comfortable.
How did you not get that lol
“…a kind of apophatic ascesis of the mind – a path within which even many orthodox Catholic monks and mystics have found some affinities with Christian ascesis.” I have only read this far (on a work break!) But isn’t this the crux of the problem. I am not a “traditionalist” (although I do respect them unlike Pope Francis), but I do take issue with the wishy-washy ecumenism we have suffered since Vatican II. First Eastern ascesis, then Eastern meditatio and contemplatio – and we know that this sort of syncretizing is going on in dioceses and parishes without any strong response by the post-Vatican II bishops. (It’s a bit of the “blinders on” too, to not see how the kataphatic springs up in today’s ecumenism). If this Credo is an over-correction, then at least it is a correction. Those able to understand its content will see through any oversteps. We might think of this too as a pressure valve allowing a voice to those who might otherwise pop over the long and lazy implementation of Vatican II precepts (especially in its slothful oversight of the Sacred Liturgy in parishes). However, the Hegelians in the Church should welcome it at least: as an antithesis to their progressive thesis.
I love you Dr chapp but in reading your criticism I see a straining at gnats and swallowing camels….to me the b ottom line is the question of salvation which all the world needs….is that only through the salvivic work of christs death burial and resurrection ..as a recognition of our sins that separate us from God’s eternal plan or is it not…are you a Christian by baptism or not ??….therefore all other religions are false…I understand the universal desire which is innate in every human person born ..but a choice has to be made when the gospel is presented to them….those that reject God will be judged according to their hearts…therefore the saying there is no salvation outside the church is true…I have noticed a lack of preaching the gospel to the non-catholic due to the belief that all paths lead to salvation in god…and not just pointing towards god…ie read the teachings of Richard rohr who I believe to be a false teacher…we don,t present the repenting gospel anymore because of the ambiguity presented by modern scholastica that bshp Schneider is trying to address…he could clarify more I agree but so should you Dr chapp though you have been fair to some of what the good bishop is trying to do…I as a convert disagree with the bishop about non catholic Christians as you do they are just not receiving the fullness of the catholic faith but are still bound for heaven like us bought and bloodwashed believers in our lord and savior Jesus Christ….
Thank you Peter d ….you said what this poor non theologian was trying to say….
I’m only part-way through this essay.
I’m also only part-way through the CCC. I’m indebted to Fr. Mike Schmitz for his follow-up to his Bible in a Year. The CCC is actually more coherent than that other Text and doesn’t require cut and paste in order to make it palatable.
P.S. In a recent Catholic Unscripted podcast, (former Anglican priest) Gavin Ashenden asked why Catholics don’t have Bible study and Catechism study. Why, indeed?
Any Catechism that can just be changed to fit the preferences of the sitting Pope, as opposed to reflecting unchanging beliefs, is sadly not worth the paper it is printed on.
I also find that the trad porridge of Bishop Schneider is too cold. But at least it’s edible. The Vatican too much porridge of Pope Francis is as hot as Hell. We were spoiled by the porridge of Sts. John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII and (subito!) BXVI.
Praying the next Pope knows how to cook. I’m hangry.
Sounds like the three bears & Goldilocks. As I remember she got rather a rude awakening.
🙂
The issue with Dr. Chapps’ problems with Credo, is simply that Bishop Schneider reiterates what has been found in the previous historical teachings of the popes, Doctors, and Fathers of the Church. Several of the Sainted Fathers of the Church were positively anti-Jewish. I trust them and him more than I trust whatever comes out of the mouth of Rome since Vatican II, especially when Bishop Schneider has corrected Pope Francis on the plurality of religions from heresy to what the Church has always taught. In light of acts previously considered to be apostasy by Popes John Paul II and Francis by participating in Pagan ceremonies following Vatican II with a lack of public repentance by either, I trust neither to propagate the faith, only apostasy.
I’ll go with the traditional understanding of the faith as articulated by the Saintly Doctors of the Church before I hand on modern claptrap to my children.
Then you’re a Protestant. C. S. Lewis was exactly right about the vision of faith articulated by the Church (which he refused to accept): it is accepting not just what a man has said, but what he will say in the future. If some of the Fathers and Doctors were anti-Jewish, then, depending on their teachings, they were wrong. Me? I’ll stick with the Catholic Church, thank you very much, just as the Fathers and Doctors would.
C.S. Lewis is hardly a trustworthy source on Catholicism and hence not completely trustworthy on Christianity. You have no Catholics with which to make your argument which makes it laughably weak. If you want to accept the “teachings of the day” interpretation of the papacy, you have subscribed to an aspect of Modernism specifically condemned in Pascendi Dominici Gregis by Pope St. Pius X. I’ll cite a Catholic pope to make my argument. Perhaps you should too. Else, I can point out that you are simply the Protestant pot calling the kettle Protestant.
And it’s not just some Doctors, Fathers and Saints, I have yet to find one that does not condemn Judaism as a self-contradictory heresy (until Vatican II). Sure, that doesn’t justify ill-treatment of Jews (as they are still made in the image of the God they reject). However, that’s also constant teaching by successive popes, saints and doctors of the Church.
At the moment, the hardcover book Credo is sold out, even on the publisher’s website. You can buy an ePub version for $9.99 and read it with either the Kindle app or Apple Books here:
https://sophiainstitute.com/product/credo/
If you have an Apple computer, I suggest using the Apple Books app, because the support for copying text in the new Kindle 7.0 version is wretched, and the “upgrade” from what is now being called Kindle Classic for Mac does not preserve your notes and highlights (!). I was surprised to see that Apple Books, unlike Kindle, allows you to open two books at once, so you can, for example, compare translations.
The book is available through Amazon.
Despite any potentially valid critique of, “Credo”, it is interesting that CWR and Dr. Chapp highlight it on the day that the DDF issues its first declaration since the year 2000. It seems the Vatican feels a deep need to express their love for the sexual revolutionaries, the Fr. James Martins and Sister Gramicks of the world, just before the birth of the Christ child. I’d be curious to know if Dr. Chapp believes that Tucho Fernandez and the Pope actually want priests and bishops to be careful to avoid scandal and the appearance of blessing same sex unions and lifestyles. Personally, I think both are delighted that opposite will occur, and that heteropraxy will become the norm. Against that backdrop, it seems like, “Credo” is among the Church’s smallest problems at the moment. It might even be a needed antidote to the decay and confusion engulfing the post-conciliar Church.
Yes, it is interesting, but it’s purely coincidental: this essay was posted hours before the new “Declaration” was released.
“Credo” has received a lot of attention and is the sort of work that someone like Dr. Chapp is well suited to review. Dr. Chapp’s critiques of this papacy are easy to find here and elsewhere.
Anyone who believes that the deity worshipped in Islam is the same divine being at the core of Catholicism has not read the Qur’an. The deity of Muhammad is very much a demanding desert god. This false equivalence is the result of acceptance of the notion that there are three co-equal «Abrahamic faiths».
Even contemporary forms of Judaism are problematic in perceptions of the divine.
Jesus Christ the Redeemer, the God Man born of a human mother, who rose from the dead, Second Person of the Trinity is light years away from the modern Jewish and Muslim notions of the divine being who is unequivocally «one» and totally transcendent.
Does that include Pope St. Gregory VII?
From Letter XXI of Pope St. Gregory VII (†1085) to the (Muslim) King of Mauritania:
“[F]or Almighty God, Who desires that all men shall be saved and that none shall perish, approves nothing more highly in us than this: that a man love his fellow man next to his God and do nothing to him which he would not that others should do to himself.
“This affection we and you owe to each other in a more peculiar way than to people of other races because we worship and confess the same God though in diverse forms and daily praise and adore Him as the creator and ruler of this world. For, in the words of the Apostle, ‘He is our peace who hath made both one.’
“This grace granted to you by God is admired and praised by many of the Roman nobility who have learned from us of your benevolence and high qualities.
[. . .]
“For God knows our true regard for you to his glory and how truly we desire your prosperity and honor, both in this life and in the life to come, and how earnestly we pray both with our lips and with our heart that God Himself, after the long journey of this life, may lead you into the bosom of the most holy patriarch Abraham.’
I would agree with you but from a strict lens, the Catholic Church and Islam do worship the “same” being insofar as all that means is “The One” in Platonic/ Aristotelian terminology. They both worship the Un-Moved Mover, for lack of a better word. I think that’s a meaningless distinction but I’m not a scholastic (which is the more or less official theology of the Church. For better or worse).
Judaism and Islam are well able to defend their corners without help from well intentioned Christians. The historic «essence» of Catholicism has been post Council rather diluted in the quest for a «soft» dialogue with Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims atheists etc. a procédure which confuses and obscures rather than enlightens.
Its effect on the faithful is patently visible in the decline in Catholic practice in the historically Christian countries and the rise of a secularist indifferentism with regard to religion, a term often applied with undue thought to all belief systems.
The marks of Christianity are as tangible as the wounds of Christ. They cannot be obscured with cosmetic.
As a Syriac Catholic born during the «liberation» of Iraq I have some acquaintance with the hard reality of a culture manifesting a different worldview.
Bishop Schneider from Kazakhstan will be well acquainted with that difference.
Very good review. But…
At a point in time, when Rome is forbidding the Latin mass and affirming, gay partnerships, in ambiguous language, I’m not sure it’s fair to accuse the bishop of “weaponizong” things. I think that charge is more accurately placed against official Rome.
Meanwhile, I’ll stick with the CCC. It’s great.
Thank you, Dr Chapp, for this superb review. Auxiliary Bishop Schneider clearly has an agenda, in opposition to Vatican II, as evidenced by his numerous writings,videos, and interviews. This “catechism” is simply a continuation. He does not merely correct the “excesses” of some implementations of the Council. He pretty much rejects it tout court. A catechism should not be a personal project, with the type of tendentious invective that Dr Chapp has simply quoted. Unfortunately, today’s document from the Vatican on “blessings” will only grow Schneider’s following. It’s analogous to the Donald Trump effect in American politics. Saints preserve us. And may the next Papacy unify the Church again in conformity with the legacies of St John Paul and Benedict XVI.
May God bless good bishop Schneider. Vat II or its ill begotten spirit has certainly led the Roman Catholic Church into a tragic downward spiral. I recall how excited the Teaching Sisters of Notre Dame were in anticipation of the Council. This was going to free them from the patriarchal tyranny of that awful and rigid Fr Meyers who was always correcting certain behaviors. All the ones young enough left their vocations in the wake of the breeze coming in the windows opened to the world. All the nasty popes who have defied Fatima seemed to be sainted now. Sexual sin is not only abolished but, hearken trads, blessed by god( BAAL one may assume?). Christus Vincit wrote the good Bishop. The young priests are heroic, devout, faithful and courageous in upholding the traditional deposit of Faith. We can hardly wait for all those old pervs to go to their just reward.
I agree with some of Chapp’s critiques, especially those dealing with Schneider’s ambiguities regarding religious freedom and the human dignity of non-Catholics. Regarding Judaism, however, I agree with Schneider that “modern Judaism as a whole exists as a rejection of God’s calling.” Nostra Aetate actually supports this position by acknowledging that “the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ.” The Jewish authorities of today and those who follow them are no less hostile towards Christ, as evidenced by the Israeli military’s bombing of churches and the Talmud’s horrific blasphemies against Christ. The basis of the modern Jewish religion is therefore the rejection of Christ in favor of Barabbas, the rejection of a Savior of souls in favor of political utopian messianism. Not all people of Jewish descent follow the Jewish authorities, however, and it is these Jews who are not responsible for the death of Christ and the ongoing Jewish atrocities against Christians. Nostra Aetate also rules out the possibility of an ongoing validity to God’s covenant with the Jews by saying that God “concluded the Ancient Covenant.” Therefore, Vatican II seems more in line with Schneider on this issue. Chapp’s remark that this is insensitive due to “Christian antisemitism” ignores the fact that Christian hostility towards Jews has always been provoked by Jewish misbehavior of some kind, whether usury, or coin-clipping, or the current Zionist genocide of the Palestinians.
The contents of any catechism are declarative of truth with respect to what the Catholic Church believes and teaches or they do not in which case they’re heretical.
The religion of Islam was founded by a man who knew much of Christianity, but founded his own religion on the specific denial of Jesus Christ Lord God of all, on denial of God’s revelation that He is Triune, on the denial of God our Father’s fatherhood, on the denial of Mother Mary being the mother of Jesus Christ Who is true God for His Person is Divine even though He took on human nature, and more.
The religion of Judaism was founded by God Himself, Who chose a people for Himself, Who did send His only begotten Son, the Messiah, in the fullness of time. At the Last Supper, Jesus declared the New Covenant, and gave to us His Body to eat and His Blood to drink, which action today can only be done by the successors of the Apostolic priesthood.
True Judaism does worship the one true God, but is in error where still awaiting the coming of the Messiah, for He has come.
God our Father founded Christianity through His Son Jesus Christ, for our Father revealed to St. Peter Who Jesus was, and our Father chose a married man to be the first Pope. See 1 Corinthians 9 that Perer’s wife lived and many of the other Apostles and more had their wives with them.
John Paul II said that salvation is not found in Islam. And, he did give honor to the Koran by bowing before it. There is much online of him giving praise to Islam, very sad indeed. Many, and perhaps most, muslims mean to be worshipping the One True God, and when Jesus Christ is revealed to them, they will accept Him as their Lord, and Saviour, and God.
But how are they to know Him if their religion of Islam is said to worship the One true God? Why change??
Jesus said that He did not come to bring peace, but a sword. The Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword to the dividing of joints and marrow, soul and spirit. We are called to give the Good News that our Saviour has come, has taught us, has suffered and died for us, and is Risen from the dead. No more equivocations. Recognize that witnessing to Jesus may well entail persecution and maybe martyrdom if God allows, for Jesus said that If they persecute Him, they will persecute His followers also. Be prepared by coming to know, love, and serve God our Father as Jesus did, in and
through His Son Jesus Christ, led of and by the Holy Spirit.
God bless, C-Marie
Mr. Chapp’s criticism is itself based upon some faulty presuppositions, such as the superdogma that Vatican II is beyond criticism and all or even any great amount of its contents are binding upon the faithful. Also implicit is a hermeneutic of rupture, which has unwittingly been adopted even by orthodox conservatives, i.e. that VII is the ultimate reference by which to judge thoughts and viewpoints which do not necessarily reflect it/precedes it, is incorrect or at least suspicious. It’s also perplexing to still insist that some council docs have no ambiguity and do not admit of problems, when the likes of then Cardinal Ratzinger criticized multiple docs, including even G. et Spes.
There is thus also a failure to distinguish between the pastoral/prudential nature of just about all of the contents, including the docs on religious freedom and non-christian religions. The council itself declared such, e.g. the secretary for the Unity of Christians said on November 18, 1964 in the Council Hall about Nostra Aetate: “As to the character of the declaration, the secretariat does not want to write a dogmatic declaration on non-Christian religions, but, rather, practical and pastoral norms.” Also, the General Secretary of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici, statesd on 16 November 16, 1964: “This holy synod defines only that as being binding for the Church what it declares explicitly to be such with regard to Faith and Morals.”
Pastoral and practical norms admit of disagreement and contrary views. Such documents were clearly historically conditioned by modes of thought at the time. A new generation of scholars on such subjects now tends to be rather critical of the thought of John C. Murray, for example, and as it found its way into the council document.
Such considerations are also what led the last head of the ecclesia dei commission to say that groups like the SSPX would not need to accept such documents as a pre-condition for full reconciliation. Then Archbishop Guido Pozzo said, “They (N. Aetate, U.Redintegratio, and D. Humanae) are not about doctrines or definitive statements, but, rather, about instructions and orienting guides for pastoral practice. On can [thus legitimately] continue to discuss these pastoral aspects after the [proposed] canonical approval [of the SSPX], in order to lead us to further [and acceptable] clarifications;” “Nostrae Aetate does not have any dogmatic authority, and thus one cannot demand from anyone to recognize this declaration as being dogmatic;” “There is no doubt on the fact that the teachings of Vatican II have a degree of authority and a constraining character that is extremely variable according to the texts…the declarations on religious liberty [Dignitatis Humanae], on non-Christian religions [Nostra Aetate], and the decree on ecumenism [Unitatis Redintegratio] have a different and lesser level of authority and constraining character.”
One could thus say that the criticisms of Schneider’s catechism suffering from ambiguities is almost a straw man- only if one (falsely) takes the pastoral nature of the VII statements as dogmatic.
I’m with Joe M. above.
I’ll stick with the CCC. It is impressive and I’m embarrassed that it took me so long to discover it. (I am bothered by Pope Francis’ unilateral move to change it on the issue of capital punishment).
Absolutely! What can the solo theological capability of Astana, Kazakhstan Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider writing “Credo” compare to the combined theological expertise of a commission of 12 Cardinals and Bishops headed by the then Doctrine of Faith Prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger writing and editing the “CCC”? Consider taking up and also using the CCC’s summary synthesis version in Q and A format, the “Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
The Church “then and the church “now” is an interesting way of speaking about the Catholic Church “today.” The church “then” saw the congregation pray the sacred liturgy in Latin and sing sacred music. After the service, they gathered in the millions in Nuremburg, Munich and Vienna and adoringly shouted “Heil Hitler!”
I have found that most people who oppose Vatican II have not read the documents. They have been brain-washed by the Traditional Catholics who attend mass in Latin and still pray for those faithless, decide Jews. The document, “Nostra Aetate” clearly states Jews should not be held responsible for the crucifixion of Christ or as people cursed by God. No Catholic priest on Good Friday has ever reminded parishioners that God freely accepted his death for the sins of mankind or that he forgave his executions. Instead the priest encourages the congregation to loudly proclaim, “Let His blood be upon us and our children and “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” This is in addition to the Stations of the Cross” that shamelessly depicts Jews nailing Christ to the Cross when the Bible clearly states that Pilate handed Jesus over to the SOLDIERS to be crucified. No priest on Good Friday reminds the congregation that when Pilate asked the Chief Rabbi and elders as to why they couldn’t take Christ, a Jew, and deal with Him according to their own laws. They replied,. “We are not allowed to put anyone to death!”
Is it any wonder, that to this very day, we have synagogues vandalized, Jewish graves desecrated and Jews hunted down like animals and murdered?
When we think of Jews being forced to wear the Star of David on their clothing, we think of Hitler and the Nazis. It wasn’t them. It was during the fourth Lateran council of 1215 A.D. that the Catholic Church unleashed its terror and horrors on the Jews.
Catholics are generally supposed to be of the viewpoint of “both, and”. It is other faiths that get hung up on “either, or”.
Our chap, Mr. Chapp, has thrown down the gauntlet of “either or” in mistakenly claiming that Bishop Schneider’s book, Credo, is intended to replace and/or supersede:
A) the CCC of Pope St. John Paul II,
B) the Compendium of the CC of Pope Benedict XVI,
C) the traditional magisterial teaching of the CC.
In fact, Credo, is none of these.
Items A, B and C were codified before the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.
Since that resignation, the CC hierarchy, beginning w/PF, has been hell-bent introducing elements of confusion, ambiguity, and plain error into the traditional magisterial teaching body of our Catholic faith. Bishop Schneider’s efforts are solely focused on addressing and clarifying traditional Catholic teaching in contrast to those elements of confusion, ambiguity and overt error introduced subsequent to the quasi-election of PF.
Bishop Schneider is no threat to Vatican II, the CCC, the Compendium of the CCC or to the traditional magisterium of the CC. His only focus is in saving souls from falling into the confusion and contradiction of one, PF.
Has the author of CREDO responded with specific “rebuttals”?
By the way, Bp Schneider makes it clear [ preface ?? ] that
CREDO was N O T his inspiration or “project”. HIS OWN FLOCK
REQUESTED IT !
Chapp’s thesis has 3 fatal flaws. Here are 2 of them.
1. Local catechism content can qualify for universal teaching.
2. CREDO strikes against minimalism and this is presently needed.
The ad hominen or personal qualifiers on Schneider, running through this page, do not add up to anything and waste a lot of time. But Chapp is always likeable, easy to read and informative or smartly discursive and an attraction at CWR. We won’t leave for either. And he gets people like Fastiggi to sound off and this is good too.
I made you wait for the third fatal flaw.
3. Local catechism is a wild issue going to get worse!
Another great article. I really like the Catechism in a Year. Why go with the interpretation of just one bishop, when you can have the universal Catechism which makes broad use of Scripture, Tradition and the writings of many saints and the Church Fathers?
BTW has anyone noticed that Bishop Schneider seems to be everywhere BUT his actual diocese? I’m sure he’s a good man but that does raise red flags for me.
I might remind you that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome yet he’s a globetrotter. Does being the bishop of Rome require a trip to the mideast or anywhere else for that matter.
The Pope is the universal pastor of the Church. His flock is the world. A bishop’s flock is his diocese. It’s like a Dad who never home.
About the jousting match between ambiguity versus clarity, not yet addressed by either Bishop Schneider or Dr. Chapp is the partial truth found even in Hinduism…
…and whether Bishop Athanasius (!) Schneider and his “Credo” are actually the reincarnation of St. Athanasius and his “On the Incarnation” from the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325?
Perhaps Synod 2024 can include this question (inclusiveness!) among the “relevant concerns” to be homogenized prior to the Year-2025 anniversary (the 1700th) of Nicaea?
Regardless of what the periti of Vatican II thought, or what any theologian or pope believes today, it is simply false to proclaim that Christians and Muslims pray to the same God. Anyone who makes such a claim has either never read the Quran, or completely failed to understand it. Islamic scholars know this perfectly well. They vehemently deny any relationship between Allah and God the Father.
As best as I can tell, Muslims believe in an omnipotent, omniscient divinity who made the universe and everything in it. And the similarities end there.
The Church’s Magisterium applies to Faith and morals, not to the nuances of the contents of various false religions.
Muslims claim, rightly so, to be children of Abraham by way of Ishmael. Christians and Jews also claim to be children of Abraham, by way of Isaac. Either way, Abraham worshiped the one true God to the point of being willing to sacrifice his son, Issac, simply because the one true God told him to.
Islam chokes on the concept of the Holy Trinity, saying that Christians worship three gods. Unfortunately, all of Islam is painted into the corner of the 7th century. Muhammed left no room even for discussion much less development in understanding of what actually constitutes the absolute reality of Abraham’s one true God. Thus, Islam is a case of being locked into a world view of “either / or” taken to its absolute extreme.
While there are no small number of inter-religionists and ecumaniacs who would contradict this, I would say that while without doubt Jews and Christians do worship the One and Same God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Most Holy Trinity – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – the same cannot be said of Allah.
Christians and Jews of sincere and authentic faith worship God made known through salvation history in the revelations of the Old Testament, and brought to its completion in the New Testament in the person of God Incarnate, Jesus Christ. There is no revelation after Jesus Christ.
Islam was not the result of God’s revelation, revelation having been brought to completion in Jesus Christ, but is a confection by Mohammed, a maniac imperialist, in order to unify rival tribes into a horde for conquest. He crafted ideas from Judaism, Arianism and tribal religions for an integrating ideology. It sadly succeeded in giving them the territory and power they hungered for. We and they live with the catastrophe today.
As Saint Augustine said, the Old Testament anticipated the New, the New fulfilled the Old. The succeeding covenants – an ever deeper intimacy between God and humanity – from Adam, through Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, to the supreme Covenant in the person of Jesus Christ – living and efficacious, in His very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity – renewed and re-presented at each Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He shared in our humanity that we may share in his Divinity.
There is no revelation beyond this.
The only reason for the existence of Judaism is surely the rejection of the Messiah the OT waited for. Let’s not mince words. “Judaeo-Christianity”, that term invented in the US after WWII to obviate any talk of the country as a Christian society, has no sense in itself.
Jesus Himself was/is a member of the Jewish race and arose from within that religious tradition. The first Christians were Jews. The term Judaeo-Christian” was NOT invented in the US after WWII. (See the Bible re the idea and concept. See Wikipedia for secular use of the term in the early 1800s).
For those who believe in the God of Revelation, the reason for the existence of Jews and Judaism is perfectly and fully known only by God. To proclaim “The only reason for the existence of Judaism is surely the rejection of the Messiah” is to claim the sole certainty of God for oneself.
Our Lord and the first Christians were not Jews in the sense of Judaism, the religion that exists today, only members of the Hebrew people. Jews can, and do, forsake their religion, like anyone else. The sine qua non of Judaism today is the non-acceptance of Our Lord. Judaism plus recognition of the Messiah are contradictory. Nor was the religion of the OT what is today known as Judaism, minus Christ.
Given the undeniable fact that the papacy is presently not serving as the locus of unity for Catholicism across the spectrum of rites it is to be expected that alternatives will arise. Is this a fault of any conscientiously orthodox Catholic who emerges or the fault of the occupant of the Chair who delights in performing as the contrarian?
So much more could be said, but if you aren’t serving your sole purpose then step aside and allow a faithful cleric takeover. Performance over wordsmithing is the standard.
That’s tidy. But whose sole purpose is it to discard the Redemptrix and change Jesus’ own words in the our Father.
The See of Rome will bear witness to Christ till the end of time, defined Vatican I. As a Catholic, pray for a good Pope, but please don’t forget the Catholic faith.The Church has seen it all before.
The Church has not seen the occupant of the Chair of Saint Peter fiddle with Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium. Pope Bergoglio stands alone in history. Do not provide yourself an erroneous misreading of ecclesiastical history. You are quite mistaken, and very seriously so.
Whatever he’s done, it does not amount to renouncing Christ or the faith. Many Popes throughout history have been weak, followed the world and its ideas, been embroiled in political factionalism. No, this Pope has a lot of company among his predecessors. One thing in his favour is his antipathy for United States conservatism, political and religious. It almost, but not quite, absolves the silliness with which he IMITATES his immediate predecessors in considering Vatican II the Church’s Year Zero. I notice that so many conservative US Catholic commentators base their opposition to Pope Francis on Vatican II and its Episcopal Collegialism. Many of them have turned this into renewed Gallicanism and Concilliarism. They’d better get their act together or they’ll fall well and truly outside the Church, with the Pope inside it, as always.
“whatever he’s done ….. ” has a lot of bad to it he has to set aside and confess in penance. That it is “not renouncing Christ” is not the all.
You speak as if the intention is to condemn irretrievably. Everyone has done bloopers. Let him admit his bloopers and renounce them; and reverse the public ones. He must stop standing at the precipice every dawn to jump off and catch the blooper that will pass by just for him to grasp it.
It is not given to the Holy See to have everyone exactly replicate the Pontiff of today and then the Pontiff of tomorrow and later on the Pontiff of the next day after that. This is an abnormal behaviour and is a made up piety combined with intellectualist pedantry. Behaviourism. Actually, it is a well-honed practice where I live in an attitude to the Archbishop that developed long before Bergoglio became Pope. It could be a more widespread faux among Latin American clericalists and sextants who take themselves as unique and special up-to-date communion of New Testament presbyters.
I believe that the Sankt Gallen Mafia and Bergoglio fell upon it and became much enamoured by it in the kind of “favours” it has been expressing towards them bowing and bending low everywhere or, as we say in our country, dribbling and drooling all over them.
It is not given to the Holy See to deny Redemptrix and change up the our Father. It is given to affirm Redemptrix and uphold the our Father.
Don’t you dream of an elder brother? Christ our Divine High Priest became man deigning to be our infallible elder brother, the Son of Man.
My heart is enthralled!
Elias, you’ll have to hang on to these treasures of advice for the Pope if he comes to you for confession. In the meantime, the issue at hand is that he has not renounced the faith. Life goes on for the Church and the See of Rome that cannot die or fall away (Vatican I).
p.s. The Saint Gallen Mafia doesn’t exist. That was a joke by a modernist prelate. The reality of what goes on in the Church is quite bad enough – no need for fiction. Any real conspiracies, though, we almost certainly don’t know about, but the Faith being the Faith, it doesn’t much matter. Isn’t it wonderful belonging to a Church where nobody needs any secret knowledge.
Miguel Cervantes, if he came to me for confession, I could forgive him on my own account but it would not be a grant of sacramental absolution as I am not a priest. He would just be speaking with sincerity about whatever it is and deciding he could confide it with me.
All I said was, there are some things he has to reverse, like “discard Redemptrix” and “do not abandon us in temptation”. For that matter, also reverse the “obligation” to get vaccinated. And other things -the point is neither to embarrass him nor to feel I have it over him: they’re wrong.
So should he come to me, sir, ….. that’s what he’ll hear.
About the “joke by a modernist prelate,” thou surely refer to the one-time sexual-abuse coverup artist, Cardinal Danneels, who invented (yes, jokingly) the term “St. Galen Mafia,” and who later curiously was seen standing beside Jorge Mario Bergoglio at the Vatican window when he (Bergoglio) first appeared as the new Pope Francis. Francis-sycophant Ivereigh insists that the rules for the conclave were not violated by the joke and the fact (both) of the St. Galen Mafia.
For one account of the mafia, we turn to the fifth gospel of truth, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Gallen_Group
And here, too, a link to a credible 2021 author interview re the mafia: https://edwardpentin.co.uk/the-st-gallen-mafia-is-the-skeleton-key-helping-to-unlock-many-riddles-of-the-francis-pontificate-says-author/
For a very long time before his stealing became known, Judas never “formally or materially” in anyone’s hearing contradict Jesus. Later he just betrayed Jesus to death. Already in John 3 through 6, Jesus is speaking to Judas telling him what is wrong in his heart and letting the Apostles know He knows who it is that wants to kill him. And I am not the only one to notice this, Fr. Gorman C.P. speaks of it in his book, The Last Hours of Jesus.
It is possible that among those who conspired against Jesus, there could have been one or two who relayed some information back to John, at some time in the 2 years preceding the betrayal. Whether that occurred or not, John, looking back, did not miss the impact of what Jesus had been saying in those earlier days; and his Gospel makes the unfolding process clear.
Hello Peter. Colleagues in liberalism or modernism are not necessarily a mafia or a lodge. Things are exactly as they appear to be, and not much more. Bad, and good, and indifferent. Welcome to the world as it’s always been. Let’s pray for a good Pope to put things right and do what we can in the meantime. There’s no other way in the Catholic Church. NO other way.
You can deny the existence of things inside your head and the pages of CWR all you want. It does not change what is really connecting outside and this reality will continue to be subject to probe. Incidental heretical coincidence can be as devastating as deliberate cooperation and the Church will deal with it as it deserves.
Run scared! A promised day of reckoning is sure to befall.