When reading Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s Flee From Heresy: A Catholic Guide to Ancient and Modern Errors, I was reminded of a shameful act from my youth. My then six-year-old younger sister complained to me one day about a boy in her class she said was harassing her at school. I was immediately filled with a brotherly sense of chivalrous outrage and so I dutifully sought out the lad and roughed him up a bit, which was not difficult since I was four years his elder and a towering 4’4’’, 90lb, behemoth. It wasn’t horrible—no blood was shed. However, and herein is the lesson, I had brutalized the wrong kid, who had the simple misfortune of possessing a superficial resemblance to the real offending marauder. And my sister was not at all happy since the boy I had accosted was a friend of hers!
Scattered attacks
This episode came to mind because Bishop Schneider begins his book by spelling out his rationale and motivations for focusing on heresy and other doctrinal errors. He makes it clear that his attacks on the various theological errors he lists in the book are motivated by a sense of charity and, indeed, even a sense of knightly chivalry:
The one who truly loves, living by authentic charity, will combat whatever comes between him and the object of his love. The knight fights valiantly to save his bride, the mother protects her child, the soldier defends his homeland.
Unfortunately, in his rush to defend doctrinal truth from error as he sees it, Bishop Schneider often misidentifies various theologians and theological schools of thought as doctrinally erroneous when in fact they are deep allies of the theological orthodoxy he claims to be defending. As in my narrative of youthful chivalry, he has misidentified as enemies those who could be his theological friends. But he roughs them up all the same since his barometer for what counts as doctrinal truth is a purity test for orthodoxy drawn from a narrow reading of Neo-Scholastic texts–the kind of reading that gives Neo-Scholasticism a bad reputation–and which he wields in unnuanced and unsophisticated ways.
And in so misidentifying theological friends of orthodoxy as enemies, he undercuts his entire project by engaging in an indiscriminate and scattershot blunderbuss-like attack on everyone standing in the room after 1962.
Just like the blunderbuss, his book is accurate at short range with easy to identify heresies, but wildly inaccurate the further away his target is standing from the putative doctrinal errors he falsely ascribes to them. As with his previous book Credo (an unfortunate attempt at undermining large chunks of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I reviewed in these pages) this latest book is just fine when dealing with obvious heresies like Arianism and Docetism (easy close-up targets).
But it is much less so when he starts to identify modern theologians with whom he disagrees as purveyors of dangerous doctrinal errors. Sometimes he hits the right targets. But often he does not, and this changes the entire tone and tenor of the text from a laudable attempt at defending doctrinal truth into a polemic against any theology that pushes beyond the categories–both theological and liturgical—of Baroque Tridentine Catholicism.
Sloppy condemnations
In this regard, the title “Flee From Heresy” could be more aptly re-titled “Flee from the Nouvelle théologie, the Vatican II Church, and its Papal Promoters”. Because in the midst of his entirely correct criticisms of errors including religious relativism, moral relativism, gender ideology, progressive Catholic heresy, and so on, Bishop Schneider unwisely and unfairly targets ressourcement theologians such as Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac as purveyors of doctrinal error. Further, he goes on to claim falsely that Pius XII condemned the whole movement in Humani Generis in 1950.
Pope Pius XII never mentions a single theologian by name, nor does he ever refer to “the Nouvelle théologie”, although he implies it indirectly. But his reticence to name it explicitly is important since it indicates a certain reserve on the part of Pius in a manner very common to papal condemnations. To wit, he names an error but then leaves it open for others to adjudicate the question of to whom the errors might be attributed.
Pius was well aware of the debates between Thomists like Garrigou-Lagrange and theologians like de Lubac on the issue of the proper relationship between nature and grace. Pius’s concern in this debate was with making sure that Thomistic principles be given pride of place since so many of the Church’s doctrines make use of Thomistic categories in their formulations. He was also rightly concerned with certain tendencies among some theologians toward an exaggerated immanentism, subjectivism, and historicism.
But he also clearly does not want to put his papal thumb too heavily on one side of the scales in the dispute between Lagrange and de Lubac, nor does he condemn de Lubac or the Nouvelle théologie explicitly, leaving it to others to decide if the “new theology” falls under his various warnings or not. Was Pius XII “suspicious” of the “new” theology? Yes, he most certainly was. But a pope’s private suspicions are not magisterial teaching. It is wrong to accuse, as Bishop Schneider does, the Nouvelle théologie and theologians like de Lubac of having been explicitly condemned by Pius XII. Because they weren’t.
But this example from his book is indicative of the superficial and careless nature of this text, in which theologians of enormous stature and proven depth are just summarily dismissed as error factories unworthy of further consideration. It is indeed true that Pius XII, in Humani Generis, condemned a few very specific theological propositions. But what is condemned, as any careful scholar will tell you, are positions not held by de Lubac, Balthasar, or any of the other leading lights of the ressourcement movement. To accuse de Lubac, Balthasar and a host of other fine ressourcement theologians of being advocates of an illegitimate and runaway immanentism, historicism, and subjectivism is absurd.
De Lubac himself said he agreed with the condemnations in Humani Generis and that none of them were applicable to his theological views. And the fact that in little more than a decade after this encyclical he will be a key theologian at the Council on the orthodox side of the aisle, and that after the Council he was a strong critic of the progressive wing of the Church that was misinterpreting the Council, is indicative of the fact that he was anything but a purveyor of the doctrinal errors about which Pius was concerned.
The deeper question, which Bishop Schneider ignores, is whether the determination of what counts as orthodox theology had not been overly narrowed in very constricting ways in the previous three centuries in the Church. Therefore, theologians like de Lubac—and, later, no less a light than Joseph Ratzinger—were thoroughly justified on theological grounds for pushing back against this sclerotic constriction of theological orthodoxy. This further explains why they met resistance from some in the hierarchy until it became abundantly clear that their theology was not only thoroughly orthodox, but actually one of the greatest theological achievements of our time. And that Vatican II must be read as a ressourcement Council in order to avoid the misrepresentations of it that came later–misrepresentations vehemently opposed by de Lubac, Ratzinger, Balthasar, and others.
One can cast a jaundiced eye at all of this, as Bishop Schneider clearly does, but to lump these theologians together with the “modernists” is inaccurate and unfair. Furthermore, his inattention to their theology causes him to underestimate both the ongoing significance of Vatican II and its achievements.
This highlights an inherent flaw in Flee From Heresy since it is, like Credo, in an “interview” question-and-answer format, with the Bishop offering up short and breezy summaries of every error he can think of, from serious heresies like Arianism, to things that are not at all heretical like praying Mass in the vernacular with the priest facing the people. It reads like a simple listing of every theologian, theological school, liturgical practice and pastoral decision by the modern Church with which he disagrees. That is his right. But, once again, and to put it bluntly, it is overall a hot mess of indiscriminate blunderbuss scattershot targeting of everything dancing in the ecclesial ballroom for the past sixty years.
The attack on Hans Urs von Balthasar
This tendency to impute doctrinal error to theologians with whom he disagrees is no more apparent than in his treatment of Hans Urs von Balthasar. He takes issue with Balthasar’s now famous assertion that we can at least hope for the salvation of everyone. Balthasar’s entire theological work was massive and truly one of the greatest theological achievements in the entire history of the Church. It was not without reason that he was a close friend and collaborator with Joseph Ratzinger and greatly admired by Karol Wojtyla. Balthasar’s founding of the journal Communio with Ratzinger (along with de Lubac and a few others) in order to combat the theological progressivism swamping the Church in the late Sixties is further testimony to his enormous stature. Which is also why, as I can personally attest to as a doctoral student fighting to write a dissertation on Balthasar at a very Rahnerian Fordham Unversity in the early 1990s, Balthasar was attacked and dismissed by the theological guild as a hopeless theological reactionary.
Despite all of this, for Bishop Schneider “Balthasarianism” is a doctrinal error meriting only one sentence of descriptive condemnation. He states tersely: “Named for Swiss priest Hans Urs von Balthasar (+1988), entertains hope for universal salvation, and that hell is empty.” Which directly implies that for Bishop Schneider hoping for the salvation of all is a doctrinal error, a fact he makes clear when he later states there can be no “reasonable” hope for the salvation of all since Christ gives us an eschatological census (apparently) in Matthew 7:14 and lets us know that most folks are going to hell. If Bishop Schneider wishes to hold a very narrow view of salvation and to believe that the vast majority of people are going to hell, that is his right. But he is wrong to equate that view with “orthodoxy” as such and to hold that more expansive views of salvation are unorthodox.
In that same section he also lumps together, unfairly and uncritically, the Balthasarian view about hope with the theology of apokatastasis. I say that this is unfair because in Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved“, his book on the topic, Balthasar explicitly rejects apokatastasis as heretical and theologically untenable. He also explicitly rejects universalism as a dogmatic proposition. It is therefore deeply uncharitable of Bishop Schneider, intellectually speaking, to imply that Balthasar’s hope is just a closeted universalism and a veiled endorsement of apokatastasis, when Balthasar himself gave very strong arguments in this book (and elsewhere) against both of those views, deliberately positioning his own views in direct contrast with them.
This is simply not how one does theology. This is instead how one does polemic, and sadly, the book is marred throughout by this kind of superficial rhetoric and analysis. Which means that Bishop Schneider’s primary complaint with Balthasar should not be that he teaches heresy, but that he teaches something on a point of theology with which Bishop Schneider disagrees. Because the Church clearly does allow us to hope for the salvation of all. Indeed, she enjoins us to pray for the same. Why would she ask us to pray for something that is a dangerous and erroneous hope?
Ironically, on this point, it is Bishop Schneider who is in danger of falling into doctrinal error. The Church herself, in her Eucharistic liturgy and in the Liturgy of the Hours, asks us in places to pray for the salvation of all. I do not see anywhere in the rubrics where there is an asterisk next to those prayers indicating that they are in vain and that we should pray them with deep mental reservations and our fingers crossed. What are all of those prayers of intercession for in the Good Friday liturgy where we pray for the conversion everyone? Can we dispense with the tedium of all of that and cut it down to a few prayers indicative of a more provisional and “eschatologically realistic” hope of mass damnation? Why does St. Paul ask us to pray for the salvation of everyone? Was he a closeted crypto-Balthasarian? Why does Our Lady ask us to pray at the end of each decade of the Rosary, “lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy”? Was she just having a bit of cheeky fun with us here? Was she in effect saying, “pray for all that all may go to heaven, but don’t get your hopes up because my Son has already stated that this is false.”
Further problems
Bishop Schneider says things as well that come dangerously close to the idea one must have explicit faith in Christ and be an explicit member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved. In answer to the question “Is explicit faith in Jesus Christ necessary for contemporary Jews to be saved?” he answers: “Yes, the same as with all men” Two pages later, he states it is necessary to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved, saying,. “This is the meaning of the affirmation often repeated by the Church Fathers, popes, and councils: extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”
But this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. While it is true there is today a dangerous religious relativism and a presumption of heaven, it is not at all true the Church teaches that extra ecclesiam nulla salus means one must be an explicit member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved. This would, for example, come as a big surprise to Pope Benedict XVI, who stated in Spe Salvi (46-48) his opinion that the damned will be few and that most folks will probably have to pass through purgatory. But then again, perhaps Pope Benedict is also a suspicious modernist for Bishop Schneider.
Bishop Schneider also accuses Vatican II of teaching error in the matter of religious freedom (the great bogeyman of the so-called traditionalists) and that the assertion in Lumen gentium (a dogmatic constitution, by the way) that Muslims are in the theological stream of Abrahamic faith, is an error. He finds nothing of value in the “false religions” of the world and seems to reject the patristic notion that one can find the logoi spermatikoi and the “spoils of Egypt” in places outside of the Church. He says flatly that there is no way that these false religions can be vessels of grace in any way at all. But this excludes the view they can be vessels of a kind of “preparatory grace” by which the Spirit operates outside of the Church to “prepare the soil” in some real way for conversion.
He affirms that people have a “natural right” not to be coerced in matters of religious conscience by the State, but then states that people do not have a natural right to advocate for their false religion in the civic public square. But what if the religious faith in question here places moral obligations on its adherents precisely to promote its views in the public sphere? In such a case, the government does indeed have an obligation, according to Bishop Schneider, to “coerce” such individuals into silence and to force them to choose between their civic well-being and their moral conscience.
Therefore, it would seem that for Bishop Schneider the only kind of non-Catholic religion that is “allowable” is an utterly privatized one, which is a view representing a serious curtailment of the importance of the “religious sense” in human beings. In so limiting the religious sense to inner private “feelings and beliefs” one establishes a thoroughly modernist view of religion, including the Catholic Faith, as an essentially private affair. The only difference being that Catholicism is recognized by the State as “true” and imposed from above through various means of coercion. Is it any wonder then that it is precisely countries such as Ireland and Spain who have had a long history of existing as Catholic confessional States which secularize and spiritually unravel the fastest once those religious establishments are dissolved?
Furthermore, and in line with the above, Bishop Schneider sets himself against Vatican II’s treatment of non-Catholic religions as vessels of preparatory grace. For that matter, it would seem he also would have to pull St. Paul aside after his speech about the “Unknown God” at the Areopagus and correct him for seeing in the false gods of the pagans anything of preparatory value. Because in Bishop Schneider’s book, there is no nuance in these matters. Grace is either salvational grace or it is not at all. Religions come in only two varieties: utterly false, bordering on the demonic, and Catholicism.
The great Anglican scholar C.S. Lewis, in his wonderful Mere Christianity, states that one of the ways God gets his divine revelation across to us is in what Lewis calls “good dreams”. By that he means the entire realm of human mythopoesis, and the territory of what Luigi Giussani termed “the religious sense”. Certainly, there is much error in the world’s various mythic and religious constructions, and the gospel needs to correct those. But the gospel also takes what is good in our religious sense and lifts it up and transforms it into a moment wherein conversion to Christ becomes possible.
Indeed, where Bishop Schneider errs in his scorched earth approach to non-Catholic religions is in his failure to recognize a simple reality. Which is this: unless there is always already something in the human religious sense that is a truthful and existentially valid anticipation of Christ, even if just in an inchoate and confused way, then there would be no way for us to recognize the truth of Christ when he presents himself to us. He would instead appear to us as something utterly foreign and alien. This is just as our eyes need to have the capacity to see light in order to see the sun.
Conclusion
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not point out that Bishop Schneider states the Pope has no authority to abrogate the old Mass and therefore that the faithful are under no obligation to obey any papal decree which does so. I can sympathize with what motivates this view, as I think Traditionis Custodes was a pastoral mistake, and I think the Novus Ordo has liturgical deficiencies that need reforming.
But to say the pope has no power over this liturgy and that the faithful can essentially do as they please in this regard is not true. It is a dog whistle and a piece of red meat directed at the most radical elements of the traditionalist movement. I fail to see how such an approach to papal authority does not itself fall under the category of doctrinal error. One can disagree with a papal decision without denying the authority of the pope to make the decision and our obligation to follow it. Therefore, one should “flee” from Bishop Schneider’s views on papal authority over the liturgy.
I could go on with further examples, but will forego them. It has pained me to write this review since I wanted very much to like Bishop Schneider’s book. There is a need these days for sound and clear articulations of the Catholic Faith. Sadly, this book is not that. This book is instead, like Credo before it, a thinly disguised attack on Vatican II, the theology that inspired it, and the post-conciliar papal magisteria of several popes. It is, I think, a hyper-traditionalist revisionist reading of Catholicism that mistakes theological friends of Tradition–the ressourcement theologians—as enemies of the same. It is therefore a missed opportunity and will be of little value outside of traditionalist circles.
Flee From Heresy: A Catholic Guide to Ancient and Modern Errors
By Bishop Athanasius Schneider
Sophia Institute Press, 2024
Hardcover, 272 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.
A dispassionate treatment of the Bishop’s point of view. Civil discourse is appreciated.
Thank you. I agree with your analysis. Am praying that Sophia Press improves its theological discernment.
Bishop Schneider reminds me of a grade school kid being bullied. We can understand when he starts swinging in every direction with his eyes closed. Holy Mother Church will sort out the mess.
What I can’t figure out is why Bishop Schneider never seems to be in his actual diocese.
Thank you for sharing this Mr Chapp.
Ive never studied theology and can’t explain these things as well as you. Just speaking as someone in the traditional Catholic trenches I’ve been increasingly uneasy with the tone of what I hear from acquaintances and even priests.
I know from years of Catholic homeschooling, preparing my 8 children for the Sacraments, and working in a Catholic school that some of what I’ve heard is not Catholic teaching.
If we spent more time reading the Bible and the Catechism and less time on decisive, conspiracy ridden websites we’d do our souls some good.
One of the reasons I read CWR and have supported it is because it doesn’t go the clickbait route.
Sorry, *divisive* websites, not decisive. Need to clean my reading glasses more often…
So you disagree with the Christian obligation to be divisive?
The word diabolical comes from a Greek term meaning to split apart as I understand it.
No I don’t ever feel that need as a Christian. And certainly not when it creates revenue.
Mr. Chapp you write like you are still in a graduate classroom but this ain’t so.
Keep it simple and short, KISS, and maybe add in some Humility.
Hmmm, agree. Grad school tone.
I stand with the good Bishop Schneider.
Hah!
Dr. Chapp,
What exactly are the achievements of Vatican 2? I can think of none, frankly.
The fruits though are quite rotten:
1) Nearly 90% apostasy is once-Catholic countries.
2) Nearly universal heresy for Mass-attending Catholics on sexual ethics… these are people that go to Mass.
3) Nearly complete refusal, even of pew-sitters, to follow the yearly precept of confessing one’s sins.
Why don’t you sit down with Bp. Schneider and hammer out all your claims of flaw and error. I am sure he would talk to you as he found a few minutes to speak to my wife and I.
You would find out that your relation with him is exactly that you accuse him of: you are actually friends and very close theologically and should unite, discuss, and seek to wear the same uniform of orthodoxy. Y’all are not enemies.
Bp. Schneider knows that the average obedient orthodox Catholic will not even finish your verbose diatribes. However, if you and the good bishop sat down and discussed the modern developments in theology and their effect on the faithful, I would watch and so would many others.
Rather than attack, why don’t you sit down and talk to him?
Ave Maria!
Very Well ASrticulared, Mr. DeLisle.
Not many people alive today will have clear memories of the condition of the Catholic Church JUST BEFORE the Second Vatican Council. Churches were full. Most city and suburban churches offered five crowded Masses every Sunday. Saturday Confession lines were tediously long. Parishes were well staffed with pastors and curates. Parishioners followed the Sunday (and daily) Mass attentively with their Latin/vernacular missals. Seminaries were full. Catholic grade schools were staffed completely with nuns. Children learned and understood the timeless truths of the Catholic Faith from their age-appropriate “Baltimore” catechisms. All seemed well—better than well. The Church was thriving. It really was.
Then, in 1962 came the Second Vatican Council. In the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church changed. Shortly after the close of the Council, the Catholic Mass changed. The Catholic Church and the Catholic Mass “modernized.”
My memory is that most Catholics greeted the changes as surprisingly new and interesting developments in their age-old and seemingly never-changing Catholic Faith. It seemed as if many Catholics agreed with the thought that there had been something wrong with the Church—something that needed fixing, or at least modernizing.
Most Catholics welcomed the “New Mass” because it was in the vernacular, and they accepted their new participatory role of happily and loudly giving what had been the altar boys’ muffled responses to the priest in the “old Mass”—not fully realizing that the “New” Mass was not simply the “old Mass” translated into the vernacular, but rather was a subtly changed “Liturgy”.
The “old Mass”, known as the Tridentine Mass, was understood to be the non-bloody re-presentation of Jesus’ Sacrifice on Calvary—the “old Mass” had always been referred to, throughout the ages, as the “Holy SACRIFICE of the Mass.”
The New Mass, known as the “Novus Ordo” Mass, focused then as it still does now on celebrating the commemorative-meal theme in remembrance of the Last Supper, and it is punctuated by a participatory, communal “Sign of Peace” in which the people attending the Novus Ordo Liturgy exchange hand-shakes and pleasantries with their neighbors for about half a minute just before getting in line to be HANDED their Lord and Savior (God Himself) in Holy Communion.
Accompanying the changes in the imposition of the New Mass—perhaps not surprisingly—has been the cessation of belief in the Real Physical Presence of Our Lord Jesus (body, blood, soul, and divinity) in the consecrated host, among a clear majority of the Catholic laity—a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center concluded that two-thirds of Catholics no longer accept the doctrine of the Real Presence.
As a result of all the changes, after a decade or so of credulous enthusiasm among the laity, the downward trend toward the Church of today began to take hold. Churches were no longer full. Sunday Masses began to decrease slowly in numbers and in attendance. Saturday Confession lines slowly shortened and finally disappeared. As vocations to the priesthood slowly dried up, parishes slowly became understaffed. Nuns slowly disappeared from Catholic parochial-school faculties. References to the old Baltimore Catechism became guaranteed laugh-lines in sermons. Slowly, as the initial credulousness and enthusiasm waned, the Church began to seem alien to some Catholics who remembered the Church of their youth. The Church was no longer thriving. It really wasn’t.
“It seemed as if many Catholics agreed with the thought that there had been something wrong with the Church—something that needed fixing, or at least modernizing.” Well, now, why do you suppose they did, if the church was in such a supreme state of excellence as you propose? Yes, indeed, I remember the crowded masses and the mass schedules that looked like the arrivals/departures boards at O’Hare Airport. I was there as, I suppose, you were, too. But do you not sense an inherent contradiction in the scenario that: the people first joyfully welcomed the new liturgy, then got bored, then lost the faith and just walked away–all this without ever having angrily protested the degradation of the faith and the liturgy? What kind of depth of so-called faith did they possess that they could so easily walk away without a care in the world, without even uttering–or wishing to utter–a single peep of protest? This sounds to me like they never even really believed in the first place! They just took the first excuse they could get to ditch the whole routine and live as pagans. Don’t you think that THIS is what was really missing in the old-time church? What really needed renewal?
Yes there was a revolt…it was called sspx, the Lefevre movement which is now anathema….I don,t agree totally with that breakaway but let’s admit post vatican 2 definitely had and still has its problems in proper implementation….larry rightly so points out some problems but he is a big resourcemont guy that I think clouded his vision just a little bit….
Thank you, Mr. Northon, for your reply to my contribution to the discussion, even though your reply heavily critiqued part of my contribution. I would benefit from a further heavy critique of my discussion on the Novus Ordo Liturgy and the cessation of belief in the Doctrine of the Real Presence among a clear majority of post-Vatican-II Catholics.
Mr. Northon, how do you know that the faithful did not angrily protest the degradation of the Faith? You conclude that there was not a single peep of protest. How do you know this?
I was there–although perhaps you are correct in that I should amend my original comment to say “barely” a peep of protest. During the 1970’s my mother gradually turned into a militant defender of orthodoxy as the liturgical abuses and errors became so preposterous that you just couldn’t sit there, grin and bear it anymore. The result was that she and a half dozen or so of her friends started a newsletter highlighting some of the worst abuses, which they turned out by mimeograph and mailed out to maybe a couple dozen or so subscribers–I think on a monthly basis, though I’m not sure. In our parish, the official liturgical changes took place across the 1960’s, although the avalanche of heresies didn’t really start until the 1970’s. But my original point is still intact in that probably 90+% of the elbow-to-elbow crowds of the pre-1964 era afterwards melted away like an ice cream cone under the July sun without mounting any kind of a fight at all. By the mid to late 70’s, my mom and other lay defenders of orthodoxy were pitifully small in number compared to those who either stayed on and accepted the bilge or fled (by far the majority.) The friends of orthodoxy were so outnumbered and outshouted that it was a virtually futile exercise. But then, things began to change with the advent of the Internet, EWTN, Pope John Paul II, etc etc. The resistance nowadays is far larger, louder and more effective, with many more friends in high places than my mother’s group. But let me tell you, back in the day, we sure could have used the support of all those thousands upon thousands of mass-packing Catholics who just up and took a hike after 1965 or so, leaving a half dozen or so parish women to take up the fight which should have been theirs, too.
Catholics believed what the Pope and the bishops told them, that the changes were legitimate and better. When the customs and discipline of being a catholic went out the back door,so did the laity.
I for one have a clear memory of the Church before Vatican II. Much of it was as you describe, but I sometimes wonder how deep it went. If so much was so wonderful, why did it fall apart so quickly? Yes, the churches, seminaries, and convents were full, but once again, if the Faith was that deep, why did they empty out practically overnight? I remember being taught the what’s and how’s of the Faith, but seldom if ever the why’s.
Just as my early years straddled the Second Vatican Council, I can fully appreciate what you have to say about the Church both before and after the Council, but as I mentioned above, I simply wonder if a lot of what passed for piety was a veneer, a pre-Vatican II Catholic Lite. This side of Eternity, perhaps I’ll never know.
I think the availability of oral contraceptives had an enormous impact on every sector of society from the 1960’s till today. Our shepherds never really took a proper stand against that & not a few today continue to tell their sheep to just “follow their own conscience”.
Things were far from perfect in the pre VII era but Western society at least functioned with a structure built on the family. That’s unraveled along with our marriages, birthrates, & communities.
Hi Mrs. C,
You may appreciate this: http://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/the-bitter-pill-of-dissent-from-humanae-vitae-the-catholic-community-swallowed
Thank you so much for sharing that article, meiron. I really appreciate it.
VII didn’t happen in a vacuum.
Thank you, Ken, for your well-thought-out and well-expressed reply. We may, with mutual respect, disagree on whether “a lot of what passed for piety was a veneer, a pre-Vatican II Catholic Lite,” but I sense that we heartily agree that “[t]his side of Eternity, perhaps [we’ll] never know”. That little check on prideful judgmentalism is what keeps exchanges of viewpoints civil, mind-opening, and ultimately mutually productive. Thank you for reminding us of it.
Mr. Marcin, pre-Vatican II times in the U.S. were different. We can’t go back. We can try to reclaim the good things about those times, but we have to keep in mind that there were plenty of “bad things” (e.g., racial prejudice, cigarette smoking, women who never attended college because they married right out of high school, mandatory draft for men during the Viet Nam war, etc.)
Back in the late 1950s, everyone went to church, either Catholic or Protestant. Church was a place not only where people worshipped God in their preferred way (usually because their family had been part of that church or denomination for several generations), but where they made friends (and business contacts) and socialized in safe ways and occasionally took part in helping the poor. It was also a place where their children learned about Jesus and His sacrifice that makes it possible for our sins to be forgiven. And “church” (Catholic and Protestant) was a place for reverence–when “Christian rock music” started showing up, many church members condemned it as “worldly.”
There were other societal differences–TVs that had antennas and only received 3 channels, much of which were “grown-up shows” other than on glorious Saturday mornings when kids all over the U.S. got up at 6 a.m., ate dry Cheerios (because Mom and Dad were still asleep), and watched cartoons until noon, when American Bandstand took over the airwaves and children finally got dressed and ran to play outdoors (or went to visit Grandparents so the parents could have a little time to themselves)! All kids played outside, only coming in the house when their mother called them to come to eat or go to bed–the neighborhoods were full of kids, and they all played outdoors .
There were no home computers, and even in the workplaces, computers didn’t exist–typewriters, Instruction Manuals, and company bowling and softball/baseball leagues were the norm.
Schools taught the three Rs and perhaps a little bit about geography and science, but evolution wasn’t taught until high school and it was presented as a “theory”. The public schools respected religion but left the teaching of it to the parents, although the public schools continued to use the word “Christmas” and even sang carols about Baby Jesus at the “Christmas Program (not the “holiday program). Parochial schools were taught by nuns, which made it affordable for many families that had large families. Children and teens had homework, but it was easily done in a few minutes (with Mom or Dad helping!). And large families were still do-able back then because of the availability of well-paying jobs that didn’t require a college diploma or even a trade school certificate, and because people didn’t feel entitled to live in an HGTV mansion and drive a huge SUV.
Children and teens played team sports in local leagues often run by churches, and there was no thought of “being good enough to earn a college scholarship.” (Working dads and occasionally moms were saving money for their children’s college payments!). And they only played a sport once a week, not every evening and on Saturday and Sunday! Many children were also taking piano lessons and that meant that churches had plenty of volunteer musicians to provide accompaniment for the church choir and the congregation (today, most church instrumentalists are paid).
I could go on and on–I loved being a Baby Boomer born in the late 1950s. I think it was the best time in U.S. history to be a kid–vaccines for polio were available and I remember standing in that long line to get vaccinated and all the parents were talking and expressing gratitude that their children would never get polio (and I didn’t). People back then trusted doctors and scientists.
I believe that Vatican II was done with good intentions, and as a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Catholicism, I am very grateful that I don’t have to attend a Mass that’s done in a foreign language. I’m not very good at foreign languages. Most of us Americans aren’t very good at foreign languages. I personally do not find a “Latin Mass” more “reverent” than a Mass in my own beloved heart language (English). Maybe you don’t, but I need to understand what is being said or sung! I respect those who DO prefer a Latin Mass, and in my large city, there are several parishes that offer the Latin Mass. I’ll probably visit one of them someday (I have a friend who keeps inviting me, but it means a 45-minute drive into the Big City and that’s not something I feel comfortable doing).
I can clearly remember as a child having many Catholic friends and talking to them about our churches, and I remember them and their parents being so happy to be able to hear Mass in their own language and sing hymns thanks to Vatican II. I believe that most Catholic parishes today are reverent in their Masses. I know that some people consider it “irreverent” for girls and women to wear slacks but no veil, and for a piano or guitar to accompany the hymns. Well, they are entitled to their opinion, but Holy Mother Church does not agree with them.
I think the reason why people don’t crowd into the churches nowadays has to do with the change in our SECULAR culture, not “church culture.” We work longer hours for less pay, and many people have two jobs to be able to earn enough money to pay their basic bills. Sometimes the bills are due for foolish purchases like a luxury car or an ocean cruise, but most of the time, the bills are for utilities, the cars, groceries (and most Americans nowadays are not very good at gardening and raising our own foo!) and of course, for their children’s private school and many extracurricular activities.
We are exhausted nowadays, as our computers and I-Phones are available to us 24/7, and many people spend hours every day on these hypnotic devices. We also spend a lot of time driving our children to and from their many activities, and that’s exhausting. And when we DO have a holiday like Christmas or Easter, we consult the latest magazines so that we can spend days decorating, cooking, and hosting events that leave us even more exhausted. And all of this stuff leaves us too worn out to go for a walk to get a little fresh air and exercise. (According to current statistics, 70% of Americans are overweight/obese.)
I agree with everyone who says that we need to take our faith in Jesus and His Church seriously and not give it a lower place than our appointment to watch our favorite TV show (which nowadays, we can stream so there’s no reason to miss church to watch it). I agree that we need to remind ourselves that we are Christians who love Jesus above all else, and that we need to spend more time with Him in and out of church. In fact, all of our moments and days should be spent with Him. But He often gets crowded out. And that’s, IMO, the biggest danger of “modern times.”
OOps–I am a convert from Evangelical Protestantism, not Catholicism! Sorry! Typing too fast!
Thank you, Mrs. Whitlock, for sharing your viewpoint so clearly and at length. I agree with your assessment that that the sociological issues that dominated in the pre-Vatican II era (race relations, etc.) were disgraceful. They, as well as my understanding of the timeless truths of the Catholic Faith were the reasons why I chose a career in Poverty law and Civil Rights litigation, followed by forty years of teaching law at the Catholic University of America. Your comment was very helpful to me in understanding the attraction of the Second Vatican Council to Catholics and especially to converts to the Catholic Faith. Thank you.
We read: ” I personally do not find a ‘Latin Mass’ more “reverent” than a Mass in my own beloved heart language (English).”
Just a detail, but an important one…
The point of Latin is/was that it is/was the universal language of the universal Church and, especially, that it is a so-called “dead language” in that the living meanings of the words remain constant across time and cultures. Cannot be devolved. The universal Church could not become only a neighborhood community, and the sacrifice of the Mass could not become only a Last(ing) Supper, and the Eucharist could not become only a symbol.
Ironically, Latin is even multicultural in a sense, as with the response of a Chinese emperor when asked what he would do to save his nation: “I would restore the meaning of words.”
Yes, and I think a similar reason why Hebrew was reserved for prayer & worship while Yiddish or Ladino, etc were used for every day communication.
There were/are some ultra orthodox Jews who resisted using modern Hebrew to conduct business when it became the official language of Israel.
Thanks, Peter, for your defense of Latin in the Church. I had my own encounter with that issue back in the late 1950s.(I’m suddenly struck with the ambiguity in the use of that word “late” as an adjective as it could carry the meaning of “deceased”–Yes, to some Catholics the Church of the 1950s and the Mass of the 1950s are dead and gone, and rightly so. In the minds and hearts of some few of us octogenarian Catholics, the Church and the Mass of the 1950s has never died.)
I spent my college years (1955-59) studying for the priesthood. Shortly after the death of the austere yet highly revered Pope Pius XII in the autumn of 1958, conversations among my fellow seminarians seemed to anticipate changeS in the Church. Many enthused happily about doing away with Latin, modernizing the Mass, and easing the strictness of Catholic moral principles. It was my first experience with division within the Catholic Church. I, of course, joined in those conversations and gave my best hardly-past-adolescence version of your fine argument, to no avail of course.
I had NOT entered the seminary in order to change or modernize the Church, but rather to become a priest in the Church as it was—as I had believed and trusted it to be. So the excitement that so many of the other seminarians were experiencing over the prospect of “modernizing” the Church, confused me.
The sense of “belonging” in the seminary seemed to diminish inside me. I agreed with none of the activist changes that the other seminarians seemed so excited about. The loss of that sense of belonging weighed on my mind and, at the end of the school year in 1959, I decided to take a year’s leave of absence from the seminary to think things over. I never returned from that leave of absence.
Then, three short years later came the Second Vatican Council, and the Church changed, and a few years later, the Mass changed, and my feelings of not belonging in the seminary or the priesthood seemed vindicated.
Sometime during my year’s leave of absence from the seminary, I had already decided to pursue a different calling—first as a factory worker, then as an office worker, then as a law student, then as a lawyer, and then (for forty years) as a law professor at The Catholic University of America.
Sorry to wax on so autobiographically, but I wanted you and the readership of CWR to understand why the Second Vatican Council, in the life and lived experience of at least one Catholic, wasn’t the wonderful springtime of faith that the readership of CWR seem to think it was.
Brother Raymond,
You are NOT alone. CWR readers are a variable lot; our disparate reactions to the likes of this Chapp chap’s writing. I recall someone at CWR suggesting that Chapp was like BreadNCircus coming to town. His writing entices us to show our best and our worst.
I hope for spring in the Church, but truthfully, I don’t believe I’ll find a good spring outside of Heaven. I thank God for the Church teaching that there IS spring through the Church. I thank God for the natural season of Spring. I thank God for Hope. AND, it’s a brilliantly sunny day in the environs of Seattle today. So there is that.
My mother lost her fervid piety after changes following upon VCII. As a young adult, after too many guitar Masses and sandal-trod hippy priests teaching nonsense, I left the church. You and I are one of many with similar experiences.
“I think it was the best time in U.S. history to be a kid–vaccines for polio were available and I remember standing in that long line to get vaccinated and all the parents were talking and expressing gratitude that their children would never get polio (and I didn’t). People back then trusted doctors and scientists.”
**********
*Most* people may have trusted doctors & scientists. I guess my parents were an exception. We were never vaccinated for polio because one of the first vaccine batches had been improperly manufactured & caused paralysis. I greatly appreciate modern medicine but my trust only goes so far. It’s a balancing act for sure. Blind trust isn’t a good idea, while a little knowledge can also be a dangerous thing.
You’re referring to the Cutter Incident in 1955 when a contaminated batch of vaccine that left 57 children paralyzed by polio. The tragedy was caused by insufficient safety guidelines and inadequate government supervision, compounded by confusing communication by health authorities. Nothing comparable has happened since. Do you stop eating a type of food permanently after contamination of one source’s products made people sick. Vaccination had almost eliminated polio from the world–as had already been achieved with smallpox but thanks to anti-vaxxers, it’ll be coming back.
I’m not against vaccines in general Miss Sandra. I was just relating the approach my parents took re. the polio vaccine. I am against unethically manufactured vaccines & there are several I have avoided for that reason.
Although I am not a scholar, I think common opinion is that Delubac was condemned there. I read somewhere that Delubac even referred to it as a “lightning strike” for him. It would be a real crisis of faith for me if he were canonized.
Joseph, this is exactly what Dr. Chapp is calling out. Bp. Schneider by hand-waving away the achievements of post-Vatican II theologians like Balthasar makes this dialogue impossible. His Excellency including Balthasar in a book on heresy switches off discussion. Dr. Chapp has not made himself an enemy of Bp. Schneider, Bp. Schneider has made himself an enemy of orthodox Catholics outside of his own very narrow Traditionalist stream.
You are also making a common mistake of attributing all that has gone wrong in the modern Church to Vatican II. I simply do not think that you can defend this position factually. It’s a nice and tidy narrative but, do you honestly think that if there’d been no Vatican II that somehow the sexual revolution, feminism and liberalism would have never forced their way into the Church and the lives of everyday Catholics?
Joseph, I’m sympathetic to your position. But, I don’t think that Bp. Schneider wants this kind of dialogue. In addition to that I don’t think your argument about the council is congruent with the facts of history nor built on a sturdy, logical foundation.
Pax,
Gabriel.
Gabriel,
Sure, the fruits of Vatican2 were already fledgling long before the council. V2 just gave them their final extended daylight, manure, and constant water supply (seemingly endless implementation period) throughout the growing season.
Now the dead rotten fruit that remains on the branch and is grossly fermented and hacked at by greying and even elderly vultures is highlighted by those who hearken back to the Faith of our Fathers.
I simply asked Dr. Chapp what the good fruits are. The last twenty-five years of my life have been spent witnessing the stink and decomposition of these rotten fruit perched on multiple branches of education and evangelization. It is now time to cut the tree down. The black rot blight of modernism is everywhere on the tree.
What will it take to get the ilk of Dr. Chapp and others who lean orthodox to consume the red pill and admit that the modernization of the church ( the last 60-100 years +\-) has done little to nothing for the salvation of souls. When the culture eroded, most voices and hierarchical leaders in the church joined the mudslide, at varying levels.
If Bp. Schneider would sit down with my wife and I (no names of the nth degree), he will talk to Dr. Chapp in a heartbeat.
I will wait with baited breath…
Ave Maria!
Composing the prior post on my phone mangled several words before transmision.
Gabriel: Do you want this kind of dialogue” when you invoke simplistic caricature labels like “traditionalist?” Be specific. Be honest. What traditionalist? Name the belief and beliefs specifically that you are condemning. There are many “traditionalists” who label themselves as such who include Balthasar and De Lubac as theologians they admire. Don’t be simplistic.
In the case of taking a frivolous stab at “trads,” do you find the dishonest conclusion of Mr. Chapp disingenuous? Pius V made the Latin Mass permanent for all time. So no, Francis does not have the authority to do away with it.
Gabriel, re: “His Excellency including Balthasar in a book on heresy switches off discussion.”
Did His Excellency claim that Balthasar was a heretic?
To be honest, Joseph, when someone writes a book and publishes it, that’s exactly what they’re doing. They’re giving you a chance to sit down with them and listen to them, uninterrupted.
Dr Chapp has paid the bishop the courtesy of listening to him. Now he’s responding. Dr Chapp has a really in depth knowledge of twentieth century theology, both good and bad, and he’s capable of identifying both.
This is probably an “agree to disagree” situation, and no hard feelings either way.
I understand exactly why the Bishop is angry, but the time to have that conversation was before he wrote the book. And even then, would the bishop have listened to Dr Chapp? I’m not so sure.
Dr Chapp does not address the magnitude of Lagrange’s concerns, and I would guess is minimizing the significance of Humane Generis’ condemnation of Delubac.
Joseph, you ask “What exactly are the achievements of Vatican II?”
Pope Benedict made the crucial distinction between the “virtual” Council (of Hans Kung et al), and the “real” Council of the Documents. Your litany of disasters cannot be sidestepped, but as for the real Council, how about this:
FIRST, if formal apostasy, or maybe even Islam, ever actually annexes Rome and St. Peter’s Basilica (Pachamama?), we have clarity that the perennial Catholic Church persists all over the world. The bishops, and now cardinals, are dispersed all around the world as direct successors of the apostles—and not as less-grounded delegates of the pope in Rome as the successor of St. Peter.
SECOND, when the secular heresy of post-Christianity normalizes violations of the 6th and 9th Commandments, even to the extent of denying the reality of binary/complementary/ fecund/sacramental human sexuality and of the family, the more problematic Gaudium et Spes still teaches (!): “Christ the Lord…by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to himself [!] and makes his supreme calling clear.” That is, just as the first ecumenical council (Nicaea in 325) defended the revealed nature of the Triune GOD, the most recent Vatican II now defends the revealed and elevated nature of MAN.
THIRD, where much of Catholic history is entangled with Western dynasties and even the post-Reformation nation-state system, Vatican II now defends the transcendent human person against coercion “either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country [nation-state] or in a specific community [e.g., multi-state Islam]” (the vastly misconstrued Declaration on Religious Freedom, n. 6).
FOURTH, of the four Constitutions of the Church, Dei Verbum centers on the historical “event” of the Incarnation rather than on the originally proposed and secondary paperwork/preparatory schema from past ecclesial bodies. AND, Lumen Gentium is most clear about what “collegiality” is and what it is not (Chapter 3 and especially the clarifying Prefatory Note inserted by Pope Paul VI).
A long shelf-life for such achievements from Vatican II, as it completed Vatican I which was only “suspended” but not adjourned.
And there were enough individual sentences within the documents that praised the spirit of modern man sufficiently to propel the vanities of secularized theologians to accompany the cultic spirit of inevitable progress that could only downplay the need for religion over the course of future history.
I often find much to disagree with Dr. Chapp, but this is quite helpful. Priests and theologians are human and subject to all human errors and vices, and Bishop Schneider seems to developed a certain arrogance and a tendency to shape his theology to mold his own personal political preferences.
I don’t think anyone who has listened too or read anything from Bishop Schneider can accuse him of arrogance.
Plus the progressive liberals in the church did not misinterpret VII, they are interpreting just the way it was written.
In full accord with Larry Chapp’s line of reasoning (not having read Bishop Schneider’s book), your truly hopes that he (Chapp) might supply a more differentiated addendum here on the (true) possibility of salvation for those “outside” of the Catholic Church. Some ticklers:
Among Christian “ecclesial communities,” is this happy outcome a consequence of the sacrament of baptism, and not enabled so much by their invalid sacrament of holy orders (Leo XIII)?
Among Protestant Christians plus non-Christians, is the “ray of truth,” as a fragment of the full truth found within the Church as noted by Vatican II, a ray that moves in both directions, or is it an out-flowing of grace from the sacramental Catholic Church, or both?
Among non-Christian religions, is the “preparatory grace” what in Christian theology is clearly (too clearly?) differentiated as the inborn and universal Natural Law?
And, about the Natural Law, then, how are “we” to affirm this as the preparatory grace (?) while at the same time not blurring it with the distinct Christian revelation which (who!) is the singular event of the grace-giving Incarnation?
What, then, are the other “religions,” as such? Divergent embellishments of the Natural Law? Somewhere in his writings, Pope Benedict distinguished between religious “beliefs” and the Christian “faith” in the person of Jesus Christ.”
The mentioned Islam, as the special example, affirms “fitrah” which corresponds—but only partly—with the Natural Law as rendered explicit in the Ten Commandments. (Irenaeus even remarks: “From the beginning, God had implanted in the heart of man the precepts of the Natural Law. Then he was content to remind him of them. This was the Decalogue”).
At this point, and about the Areopagus, after his very mixed and lukewarm reception in Athens, and without speaking to the (yes) breadth of possible salvation, St. Paul then sharpens his message Corinth: “For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2).
In general, Vatican II points in the right direction about life in other religions, but then leaves a lot of chads hanging! Perhaps Chapp can offer a few more lines to what is already said, and with which I (while a non-theologian) agree. Something more precise than, say, the ambiguous outlier: “pluralism of religions.”
And the odd thing is that what you say is very much in keeping with the theology of the mindlessly dismissed Marcel Lefebvre.
Thank you for the review Larry. The reasons you dislike this book make it all the more attractive; one might retitle your piece “a tour de force against post-conciliar Apostasy”? Like Cardinal Siri’s “Gethsemanie” before it, “Flee” sounds like a “must read” and a timely book, in view of the sheer number of Catholics who have indeed “Fled”…
I concur in much of Dr. Chapp’s analysis, except his naive devotion to Vatican II. It can be (indeed, I believe it is) true both that so much “trad” (or “trad-adjacent”) critique of Vatican II is unhinged *and* that much of the Vatican II and post-conciliar magisterium is equally deficient and worthy of criticism.
Which criticism of V2 in particulier is unhinged?
At the end of this book review, Professor Larry Chapp writes: “This book is…a thinly disguised attack on Vatican II, the theology that inspired it, and the post-conciliar papal magisteria of several popes.”
Well, that is correct, except I believe it is not a “disguised attack” at all, but an open, unapologetic criticism and critique.
By contrast, Professor Chapp is an open, unapologetic, and total proponent and defender of “Vatican II, the theology that inspired it, and the post-conciliar papal magisteria of several popes.”
So, it should come as no surprise that Bishop Athanasius Schneider wrote what he wrote in his book, and that Professor Chapp wrote what he wrote in this book review.
But is one required by divine law and by canon law to be an open and unapologetic, and total proponent and defender of “Vatican II, the theology that inspired it, and the post-conciliar papal magisteria of several popes”?
If a bishop of the Church sees a terrible crisis in the Church that commenced when the Vatican II Council was underway, and if that bishop, as a result of much pastoral experience and much theological and historical study, ultimately concludes that the Vatican II Council (both in its texts and in its nature as an sociological event and ongoing movement of reform and “renewal”) created the crisis in the Church, doesn’t that bishop have a right and duty to express to that information the Church, so that the Church can use this information as it struggles forward to escape this current debilitating crisis that has been going on for 60 years now, with innumerable lives harmed?
Does divine law and canon law forbid any Catholic from being an open, unapologetic, and total proponent and defender of the magisterium of the Church before the Vatican II Council, in the era of popes such as Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII?
Does divine law and canon law forbid any Catholic from expressing his view that he has never seen any feasible or successful harmonization between the post-Vatican II magisterium and the pre-Vatican II magisterium?
Does divine law and canon law forbid any Catholic from expressing his puzzlement that figures such as Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI said that Catholic should apply a “hermeneutic of continuity” to the post- and pre-Vatican II magisteria, but that none of these figures ever wrote a single book or encyclical or other document that attempted to demonstrate the harmony and consistency of the post- and pre-Vatican II magisteria?
About the allegedly missing “…book or encyclical or other document that attempted to demonstrate the harmony and consistency of the post- and pre-Vatican II magisteria?”… recommended readings include:
Ratzinger, “Theological Highlights of Vatican II,” Paulist Press, 1966;
Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology,” Ignatius, 1982/Ignatius 1987;
Ratzinger, “The Ratzinger Report,” Ignatius, 1985;
And especially the “Final Report: Extraordinary Synod of 1985: Message to the People of God,” St. Paul Editions, 1985;
(A real Synod, convened “in order to avoid diverse interpretations [of the Council]”…. “The task of this Extraordinary Synod has been that of mediating, deepening and fostering the application of the teaching of Vatican II twenty years after its conclusion” (concluding address of Pope John Paul II, Dec. 7, 1985).
Thank you for those references.
I am familiar with those texts.
I don’t believe that any of those constitute an attempt to investigate and demonstrate the harmony and consistency of the post- and pre-Vatican II magisteria.
Rather, I would say that they assume the harmony.
These texts do not investigate the issues in an objective manner, being open to reaching whatever conclusions the facts lead to.
These texts never allow even momentarily for the possibility that there could be serious irreconcilable doctrinal differences between the pre-Vatican II magisterium and the post-Vatican II magisterium, thus necessitating some corrections/reforms in the post-Vatican II magisterium.
It is like putting someone on trial for a misdeed, but the judge announcing at the beginning of the trial that the accused person will be found innocent no matter what the evidence shows, and also having the judge rule ahead of time that most of the evidence against the accused shall be inadmissible.
The texts you referenced never address the points raised by figures like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Dietrich von Hildebrand. If the points raised by Archbishop Lefebvre Lefebvre and Dietrich von Hildebrand are all so weak and spurious, Church official should have no fear of them and should be able to easily dispatch and debunk all of them. But, instead, they are seemingly afraid to even mention or address those points.
When Pope Benedict XVI made pronouncements to the effect that the Traditional Latin Mass and the SSPX priests were absolutely and unambiguously still and perennially parts of the Church, the forces and fires of hell came down upon Pope Benedict XVI. And now the Traditional Latin Mass is once again taboo and virtually banned, and SSPX is once again highly marginalized and stigmatized.
The only discussions allowed in these texts you mention pertain to the slight gentlemanly differences in interpretation of the Vatican II Council, as seen between figures such as moderate progressives like Pope Benedict XVI/Cardinal Ratzinger and far left progressives like Cardinal Joseph Bernardin.
In the present-day USA there are probably more Catholics with advanced degrees in theology than ever before. Yet, as far as I can see, practically none of this massive brainpower is investigating and addressing the issue of the pre-Vatican II magisterium vs. the post-Vatican II magisterium. I think I understand why: They want to have a career in the Church. Any mention of this matter gets you branded as an SSPX type “heretic” and “schismatic” and thus blacklisted from all employment and publication.
You can publicly doubt the existence of God and yet teach in the theology departments of most Catholic universities in the USA and Western Europe.
But if you publicly doubt the awesomeness, greatness, perfection, wondrous achievements and benefits of the Vatican II Council (both its texts and its role in commencing a theological “renewal” and reform movement that continues to this day), you become Public Enemy Number One and persona non grata.
We need a Catholic movement that acknowledges that popes such as Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII are still sacred teaching authorities in the Church, and that the Church was not founded or reborn in 1962 or 1958.
At the very least, we need all these Catholics with advanced theological degrees to start reading the texts of these pre-Vatican II popes and of theologians and chroniclers of the Church of their eras.
I recommend any reader of what I’m saying to check everything for himself or herself. I am not a Catholic with an advanced degree in theology. I could be misguided.
But, as a modest proposal, I say this:
What harm can come from just knowing first-hand what Pope Pius XI wrote? How can knowledge be bad?
Well, yes, the Fall in the Garden happened because the first people ate from the Tree of Knowledge, despite being told not to. So, maybe knowledge can be bad.
But as far as I know, neither God nor the Church has ever forbidden Catholics to read and study the writings of Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
Brevity is the sign of wisdom. As in “the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.”
You write: “I am familiar with those texts. I don’t believe that any of those constitute an attempt to investigate and demonstrate the harmony and consistency of the post- and pre-Vatican II magisteria.”
The claim to familiarity is not demonstrated and, therefore, not credible. Moreover, the entire controversy is over the difference between the ACTUAL Vatican II magisterium (of the Documents) and your LATER (!) “post-Vatican II magisterium”—a distinction which escapes your attention….In the interests of the kind of dialogue you propose, here are some, yes, exploitable ambiguities found in Gaudium et Spes (GS), as then clearly offset by other entries:
FIRST, the exploitable and later-exploited, textual ambiguities:
[Surely recalling Teilhard de Chardin] “Thus the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one” (GS, n. 5).
AND, “The Church further recognizes that worthy elements are found in today’s social movements, especially an evolution [!] toward unity, a process of wholesome socialization [?] and of association in civic and economic realms” (n. 42).
AND, the early 1960ish optimism of “the joys and hopes” cancelling the “griefs and anxieties” [and original sin!] which, however, are also included in the opening line of GS.
AND, “Socialization” is mentioned, but is a distinct Latin concept introduced by Pope John XXIII in his 1961 Mater et Magister, and is not to be conflated by functionally illiterate ideologues with “socialism”. Instead, socialization—broadly has to do with the “common good”—and is clarified in GS, n. 63 and 74.
SECOND, but as for the magisterium repeated in Vatican II, in continuity with “the writings of Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII”:
“Contemplating this melancholy state of humanity, the Council wishes to recall first of all the permanent binding force of universal natural law and its all-embracing principles. Man’s conscience itself gives ever more emphatic voice to these principles. Therefore, actions which deliberately conflict with these same principles, as well as orders commanding such actions, are criminal. Blind obedience cannot excuse those who yield to them” (n. 79).
“Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraced working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator” (n. 27).
Natural Law Man, you say you have “never seen any feasible or successful harmonization between the post-Vatican II magisterium and the pre-Vatican II magisterium?”. To a rank outsider, say a highly intelligent Buddhist, the two would seem identical. If our hypothetical outsider read a dozen randomly selected encyclicals of pre-VII popes and then another dozen of post-VII popes, he would conclude that they’re all from the same mob. Even the liturgies – if he understood both Latin and the vernacular – he would say they were basically the same. Have you read all the books and encyclicals, and speeches, of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, so that you can definitively state that they haven’t addressed the harmony and consistency of the magisterium across time? Maybe they did, and you missed it!
I agree that, to most people, pre- and post-Vatican II Catholicism seem identical.
But I think that during the 50 years of the Arian Controversy in Church in the 300s A.D., when at times most Catholic churches were preaching and teaching the Arian heresy (that Jesus was not equal in Godhood with God the Father) rather that the Trinitarian orthodoxy, I think most people could not distinguish Arianism from Catholicism. To most people, the controversy all seemed like meaningless and pointless hairsplitting. But Church authorities and most theologians came to see the rejection of the Arian heresy as central and vital. So, to this day, we make the sign of the cross, and repeat the creed in the Mass, to keep us from slipping back into the Arian heresy.
For those Catholics who do see a crisis in the Church, but who don’t think any good will come from investigating the doctrinal soundness of some of the teachings of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II popes, I think those Catholics should not support, approve of, or engage any investigation into the doctrinal soundness of some of the teachings of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II popes.
But for those Catholics who see a crisis in the Church, and who think some good might come from investigating the doctrinal soundness of some of the teachings of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II popes, I think those Catholics should support, approve of, or engage an investigation into the doctrinal soundness of some of the teachings of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II popes.
In general, if a person wants to discover the truth of a matter, one needs to study carefully the facts and arguments on both sides (or three or more sides, if there are such).
In this matter, this mainly means studying the primary texts of the pre-Vatican II magisterium and also studying the primary texts of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II magisterium.
Today, in the Church, almost no one, not even theology professors, reads or studies primary texts of the pre-Vatican II magisterium. These texts generally are not taught in Catholic seminaries or Catholic theological programs. It’s practically like the pre-Vatican II magisterial texts have gone extinct. But the texts are readily available and can be read and understood by anyone.
Besides studying primary texts, I think study of high-quality secondary sources is also necessary.
It is easy to find secondary sources (books, articles, videos, websites) that assert a that there is doctrinal unsoundness in some of the teachings of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II popes, and that this doctrinal unsoundness is the cause of the crisis that has been in the Church for the last 60 years. The quality of these secondary source varies. Sometimes the analysis in these texts is of a very high quality, however.
But it is practically impossible to find secondary sources taking the opposite position. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever found even one high quality secondary source that makes the case for the complete doctrinal soundness of the teachings of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II popes. There is very little even in the way of low-quality texts of this sort. A few years ago, I found a book written by two amateur lay Catholic apologists in which they tried to debunk and discredit everything taught and done by the SSPX, but their research and analysis was so incomplete, superficial, shallow, and uninformed that it I found it to be useless.
But don’t trust my word for it. Who am I? No one special. Look into these matters yourself, if you wish. Or don’t.
I think the great saints all teach that each of us should engage in activities that build, within us and within others, Faith, Hope, and Love.
If a course of study doesn’t not build up Faith, Hope, and Love, for souls in this world and for eternity, then what’s the point?
Speaking only for myself, I find it extremely painful to keep watching the crisis in and decline of the Catholic Church has been ongoing since the time of Vatican II Council.
It’s like watching, day after day, a continuous repeat of the Titanic hitting the iceberg and sinking, with all those poor, helpless, innocent souls floundering and dying in the cold waters of the Atlantic.
So, I find a hope in this idea that a great restoration of Faith could occur simply by the Church hierarchy rejecting all modern doctrinal novelties and innovations, and returning to the sound traditional Catholic doctrine that sustained and protected the Church for most of its history.
I think that Bishop Athanasius Schneider probably thinks and feels as I do. He’s just trying to stop the ongoing Titanic disaster in the Church. He feels a great sense of compassion for souls. He has a sense of urgency for souls.
We’ve been told for 60 years now that so-and-so or this-or-that will soon fix all the problems in the Church, but nothing ever gets fixed and everything just keeps getting worse and worse.
I think Bishop Athanasius Schneider has a burning desire to save souls from hell on earth and from the eternal hell. The time we are living in is not normal, and someone needs to speak up, defy political correctness, and defend sanity, decency, truth, order, and salvation.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider is not a villain, and he is not “sloppy,” he’s not “superficial,” and he’s not a “blunderbuss,” as readily shown and proven by the many, many laudatory past articles in Catholic World Report.
Thank you, Natural Law Man, for your bold, courageous, sensible, and charitable points.
Well done, Natural Law Man. Alas, this is not the first time that Dr. Chapp has maliciously attacked Bishop Schneider’s character and motivations. He does much the same thing in his critique of Bishop Schneider’s “Credo.”
In both “Flee From Heresy” and “Credo,” Bishop Schneider clearly sets forth the limitations of both, and also how each should be read, but such important aspects are ignored by Chapp who is still a bully despite his cheap shot comparison of Schneider to Chapp the bully as a boy, making it clear that Chapp believes Schneider acts like a boy bully while Chapp has grown from his childhood day or days as a bully, which he clearly hasn’t.
For all interested in reading “Flee From Heresy,” note what Bishop Schneider actually sets forth at the beginning of his book regarding the basic approach of the book that all honest readers should keep in mind in any of their criticisms, but Chapp of course does not do this:
“In this book, the term heresy is used in the older, broader sense of the term. Only some of the errors considered here are heresies in the proper, restricted sense given above; and nowhere is an individual or group deemed guilty of the sin of heresy (or any other sin). Rather, clear names and definitions have been assigned to certain ideas and systems of thought, identifying concepts that are inherently opposed to Catholic faith and morals at some level.
Tracing the history of ideas within human society is a complex discipline, and a complete account of every error that has affected the Church is obviously beyond the scope of this book. Instead, ‘Flee from Heresy’ should be read as a kind of summary catalogue and brief discussion of certain errors, to better recognize and avoid the same.” (see p. 9)
Why is this all-important explication that Bishop Schneider sets forth in his own words regarding his motivations as well as his own recognition of the limitation of his work not specifically mentioned and obviously not kept in mind by Chapp? Might it be that such would force the bully to temper some of his personal criticisms of Bishop Schneider?
Other thoughtful and honest commenters have laid bare many of Chapp’s specific errors and intentional mischaracterizations of what Bishop Schneider sets forth while claiming that it is Bishop Schneider who is guilty of mischaracterizations of some of Chapp’s heroes. These include the following:
Natural Law Man
Edward J Baker
Joseph DeLisle
Reading their comments as well as some others provides a fine counter to Chapp’s bullying of Bishop Schneider, plus they are also honest in their criticisms of some of Chapp’s heroes and the problems with Vatican II that do exist despite Chapp’s non-objective defense of same.
Can anybody show me in any Catholic teaching or decrees whereby Dr. Chapp’s “This is simply not how one does theology” is something we need to accept? When did he become a definitive word on what constitutes doing theology, and that Bishop Schneider’s stated approach that Dr. Chapp purposely ignores is “not how one does theology”?
I will end with my appreciation of the howler that Dr. Chapp presents at the end of his article:
“It has pained me to write this review since I wanted very much to like Bishop Schneider’s book.”
Thanks for the belly laugh, Dr. Chapp. The last time I had one like it came from reading your dishonest review of “Credo” that is also punctuated by your cheap shots at Bishop Schneider, which I am sure “pained” you as well.
Bonus consideration: A few years ago I read in Catholic World Report that Dr. Chapp rejected an outreach from Bishop Joseph Strickland, and in his rationale for doing so, he declared that Bishop Strickland is not his kind of bishop, using words to that effect. Note the similarity with “this not how one does theology”? It appears that Chapp believes he can not only determine how one does theology, but also that to work with any sincere bishop as Bishop Strickland is, that bishop must live up to Chapp’s determination of what constitutes his kind of bishop, or Chapp will dismiss him as being unworthy to work with in any way.
Among all of us flawed people seeking to live ever more in accordance with the truth, we will learn much, much more how to do so from the sincere Bishops Schneider and Strickland than we could ever learn from the oft-insincere Dr. Chapp.
One more bonus consideration: To get a very solid understanding of the history and doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, a relatively short scholarly book on the topic that came out in 2021 is one worth reading. Check out Eric Sammons’ “Deadly Indifference: How the Church Lost Her Mission and How We Can Reclaim It.”
Amen, Mr. Flanders. Well said!
Yes, agree NLM.
I was a young altar boy, I remember my Catholic parish, Catholic school, Catholic world before V2. There was clarity and stability. I remember all those things after V2, also. A confusing, sometimes incomprehensible mess.
I’m a simple man who respects reverence and solemnity and beauty. I remember my Baltimore Catechism and Bible History. Most theologians confuse me. So be it.
I’m right there with you Mr. Sean.
I have my illustrated Baltimore Catechism and my mother’s Douay Rheims Bible.
I just want a reverent Mass with my neighbors at my local rural parish, not a boutique Mass.
I wish I had memories of the pre VII Church like you do.
God bless you.
Amen, Sean. You are not alone in your respect for the reverence and solemnity and beauty that defined the Catholic Mass in your young altar boy years, nor in your dismay at the confusing, sometimes incomprehensible mess that replaced the Catholic Mass of those pre-Vatican II years.
Thank you, Natural Law Man, for sharing your wisdom and your common sense. You are putting into words the thoughts of many Catholics when you write “Speaking only for myself, I find it extremely painful to keep watching the crisis in and decline of the Catholic Church has been ongoing since the time of Vatican II Council.
“It’s like watching, day after day, a continuous repeat of the Titanic hitting the iceberg and sinking, with all those poor, helpless, innocent souls floundering and dying in the cold waters of the Atlantic.”
Never better articulated!
As a moderately intelligent former Buddhist (50 years in Buddhism before converting to the Holy Catholic Church), I disagree. The only resemblance between pre Vatican 2 church documents and post V2 is the use of elevated ecclesiastical language. The two masses are massively different, a difference which is blatantly obvious from attending one, then the other. Actually reading the texts makes the contrast even more stark.
Yes, indeed.
Both forms may be acceptable to the Church, but to God…hmmm, IDK.
IMHO, there is no comparison.
“…if that bishop, as a result of much pastoral experience and much theological and historical study…”
But Dr. Chapp demonstrated that “much theological and historical study” didn’t happen. Bp. Schneider does not accurately quote Humani Generis nor Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved“.
Hopefully Benedict’s opinion in Spes Salvi was correct, Chapp adding moderation to the central issue with von Balthasar, the less likely that all may be saved.
What Balthasar actually meant is debatable.
Balthasar may have meant universal salvation from his existential point in time, or from all time including those condemned. Bishop Barron who wrote the prologue to Dare We Hope interprets the text as envisioning an unconditional universal salvation for all, referring to dialogue between Catherine of Siena and Our Lord in which he says if love were to enter Hell it would annihilate it. This of course is private revelation that also can be interpreted as a fact that is not within the realm of possibility.
Nevertheless, the hope itself is not an evil, unless in line with its detractors, that it softens, even mitigates to non existence the horrendous reality of damnation to eternal suffering. Pope Francis himself was on the side of a softer approach in cahoots with Benedict, Bishop Barron, von Balthasar revealed during his private repartee with storied Italian journalist politician Eugenio Scalfari. Scalfari, an ‘amiable’ atheist disclosed to the press that Francis did not believe eternal hell exists. Francis remained silent until when later interviewed stated plainly, “God is not a torturer. The condemned are extinguished. Journey over!”.
We may ask why is this the key issue? We must respond, after all, what is this all about, our positions on the liturgy, the alleged progressivism of Vatican II if not eternal life or the unspeakable suffering of eternal damnation? We may muse about possibilities, one attractive notion, the eternity of the moment, that with God time is irrelevant, that our after the fact prayers might change the situation in the otherwise condemned favor. Bishop Schneider, to his benefit, is putatively correct, even if his theology is wanting, on the issue of salvation. We may muse all we want. The ultimate determination of where the truth lies on salvation or damnation must rest with the revealed words of Christ as attested by the Church in the Gospels.
St. Faustina was shown a vision of Hell in Diary passage 741. St. Faustina was very clear about the eternal nature of Hell.
*
“The kinds of tortures I saw:…the third is that one’s condition will never change… Let the sinner know that he will be tortured throughout all eternity, in those senses which he made use of to sin.”
*
and
*
“What I have written is but a pale shadow of the things I saw. But I noticed one thing: that most of the souls there are those who disbelieved that there is a hell. When I came to, I could hardly recover from the fright. How terribly souls suffer there!”
*
It is private revelation, but one by the saint closely associated with Divine Mercy.
I thought it might contribute to the understanding of this matter to mention the fact that Henri de Lubac’s writings were condemned and banned by Church authorities in the 1950s.
This is described (fairly and accurately, I think) in a passage in the Wikipedia article on Henri de Lubac:
“In June 1950, as de Lubac himself said, “lightning struck Fourvière”.[5] De Lubac, who resided at Fourvière but actually did no teaching there, and four Fourvière professors were removed from their duties (in de Lubac’s case these included his professorship at Lyon and his editorship of Recherches de science religieuse) and required to leave the Lyon province. All Jesuit provincials were directed to remove three of his books (Surnaturel, Corpus mysticum, and Connaissance de Dieu) and one article from their libraries and, as far as possible, from public distribution. The action came through the Jesuit Superior General, Jean-Baptiste Janssens, under pressure from the curial office, and was because of “pernicious errors on essential points of dogma”.[6] Two months later,[c] Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Humani generis, widely believed to have been directed at de Lubac and other theologians associated with the nouvelle théologie…”
So, Bishop Athanasius Schneider was not the first ecclesiastical authority to find, within the teachings of Henri de Lubac, “pernicious errors on essential points of dogma.”
In this book review, Professor Larry Chapp’s answer to that is as follows:
“The deeper question, which Bishop Schneider ignores, is whether the determination of what counts as orthodox theology had not been overly narrowed in very constricting ways in the previous three centuries in the Church. Therefore, theologians like de Lubac—and, later, no less a light than Joseph Ratzinger—were thoroughly justified on theological grounds for pushing back against this sclerotic constriction of theological orthodoxy. This further explains why they met resistance from some in the hierarchy until it became abundantly clear that their theology was not only thoroughly orthodox, but actually one of the greatest theological achievements of our time.”
So, Professor Chapp, and many others, think that Church authorities were, in the 300 years before Vatican II, condemning many teachings because those authorities were afflicted by a “sclerotic constriction of theological orthodoxy.” The word “sclerotic” means something has lost its healthy flexibility, and it instead has become hardened, or has become rigid and unresponsive, losing the ability to adapt.
Since some in the Church today are free and justified to think and say that pre-Vatican II popes, such as Pius XII and Pius X, condemned teachings that were not doctrinally wrong, due to those popes being afflicted with this “sclerotic” condition, would not others in the Church today be just as free and justified in thinking and saying that post-Vatican II popes, such as Paul VI and Francis, have approved or permitted teachings that are doctrinally wrong, due to those popes being afflicted with a condition of excessive openness, inclusiveness, flexibility, and permissiveness?
Professor Chapp wrote in this book review that he approves of “pushing back” against ecclesiastical authorities.
Again, I will quote Prof. Chapp: “Therefore, theologians like de Lubac—and, later, no less a light than Joseph Ratzinger—were thoroughly justified on theological grounds for PUSHING BACK against this sclerotic constriction of theological orthodoxy.”
So, given that Prof. Chapp approves, in general, of “pushing back” activism against Church teachings and judgments that seem erroneous, why is it so wrong and scandalous for Bishop Athanasius Schneider to do exactly that now?
Dear Larry,
Thank you for this perceptive and helpful review of Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s book, “Flee From Heresy.” I have met Bishop Schneider, and I have participated in two round table discussions with him and some others. He has many fine qualities. He’s a true polyglot, and he’s pious and charitable. I agree with you that he’s not fair to theologians like von Balthasar and de Lubac. It’s true that in many ways he favors “Baroque Tridentine Catholicism.” I think, however, that he departs from Baroque Catholicism in his claim that an ecumenical council such as Vatican II can contain doctrinal errors. The great Baroque theologian, St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), would never tolerate such a position. At the end of De conciliis, Liber II, chapter IX, Bellarmine says, “we hold by Catholic faith that legitimate councils confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff cannot err” (ex fide Catholica habeamus concilia legitima a Summo Pontifice confirmata non posse errare). Earlier in De conciliis, Liber II, chapter II, Bellarmine makes this point: “A general Council represents the universal Church, and hence has the consensus of the universal Church; wherefore if the Church cannot err, neither can a legitimate and approved ecumenical Council err (Concilium generale repraesentat Ecclesiam universam, et proinde consensus habet Ecclesiam universalis; quare si Ecclesia non potest errare, neque Concilium oecumenicum legitimum, et approbatum potest errare).
Bellarmine does admit that councils are not protected from errors in questions of fact. Thus, he argues that Constantinople III erred in numbering Pope Honorius I among the Monothelite heretics (De Summo Pontifice, Book IV, chapter XI).
Following Bellarmine’s view, though, it would not be possible for Vatican II, as an ecumenical council approved by the Roman Pontiff, to contain doctrinal errors. Perhaps some teachings of Vatican II might be in need of further clarification, elaboration, or development. This, though, is not the same as doctrinal error.
So I guess the great Apostasy mentioned in scripture is just a scary story to frighten children into saying their players.
We read that Bellarmine “argues that Constantinople III erred in numbering Pope Honorius I among the Monothelite heretics (De Summo Pontifice, Book IV, chapter XI).”
And, yet, Honorious I was anathematized—not so much for what he did (not a heretic), but for what he did not do. Some wiggle room (?), there, also for today remaining too silent about this and that, like the “dubia” and the relevance of Veritatis Splendor on rebranded “pastoral” matters, and even on the ambiguity of town-hall meetings dressed up as a “synod of bishops” (in a straight line with Constantinople III).
What might they say today, both Bellarmine and a Constantinople 2025?
A common error among faithful Catholics is that they refuse to acknowledge that a Pope can err, and that indeed there’s convincing evidence that they err as Peter Beaulieu notes above [and as I have similarly responded to Dr Fastiggi in the past] regarding Honorius I, that by content moreso by omission during his letter exchanges with the patriarch of Constantinople.
The Constantinople Council III bishops cited omission. To quote Bellarmine as if his contrary judgment disproves the Council is assuming Bellarmine somehow possessed super Apostolic authority comparable to the Bishop of Rome. Those believers over at Where Peter Is are doing a disservice to the truth specifically regarding the Vat I defined scope of infallibility the Roman Pontiff possesses. That disservice is to themselves as regards what must be defended and what doesn’t, and moreso as regards the Laity.
Otherwise it can be reasonably argued that the content of Vat II in toto does not contain error, except that the hierarchy weren’t prepared to assimilate and proffer its content. Although there was one document that contained error by omission, that is Dignitatis humanae, which failed to contain the obligation for Catholics to hold faithful belief in Church doctrine, that as Catholics, for example, we’re not free to reject any content of what’s contained in the Nicean Creed, or any binding doctrine. The release of that document absent of this correction played a major part in the exodus from the Church.
Dear Fr. Peter,
Thank you for your comments. With all due respect I think you misrepresent my position. Popes can sin and make prudential mistakes. Popes can also be negligent in their duties. Not all non-definitive teachings of popes are free of deficiencies. Some papal teachings can be qualified or reversed by subsequent popes.
I think many of the articles at Where Peter Is provide a genuine service to the faithful. The authors at this website try to explain that what some papal critics judge to be errors are not really errors. Papal critics are not infallible. Many of their criticisms are based on misunderstandings or misrepresentations. Infallible teachings of popes are protected from all error. Non-definitive papal teachings are not infallible, but they are protected from grave error and heresy by God’s providence and the indefectibility of the Church. This is not simply the teaching of Bellarmine. It is the teaching of an ecumenical council, viz., Vatican I,
which, in Pastor Aeternus, chapter IV, states that “this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of the disciples: ‘But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren’ (Lk 22:32)” [Denz.-H. 3070]. The possibility of a heretical pope is likewise rejected by Vatican I, when it affirms that the “charism of truth and never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair in order that they may perform their supreme office for the salvation of all” [Denz.-H, 3071]. How can popes have a “charism of truth and never-failing faith” and teach heresy?
When Vatican I teaches that the Apostolic See “always remains untainted by any error,” I believe it means any grave error or heresy. I am trying to be faithful to the teaching of an ecumenical council. Please do not suggest that I am providing a disservice to the Church. I do not extend infallibility to every statement of the Pope. That’s a misrepresentation and a straw man. With regard to the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, my position is the same as St. John Paul II, who, in his General Audience of March 24, 1993 said: “Alongside this infallibility of ex cathedra definitions, there is the charism of the Holy Spirit’s assistance, granted to Peter and his successors so that they would not err in matters of faith and morals, but rather shed great light on the Christian people. This charism is not limited to exceptional cases, but embraces in varying degrees the whole exercise of the Magisterium.” John Paul II is helping us understand that the “charism of truth and never-failing faith” affirmed by Vatican I is not limited to ex cathedra definitions. This charism needs to be properly understood. I don’t believe it means that popes can never commit any errors. Instead, I believe it means that the papal charism of truth and never-failing faith will protect popes —even in their ordinary Magisterium– from grave error or heresy. I think the teaching of papal indefectibility, which is related to but distinct from papal infallibility, needs to be better understood. I am aware that people interpret Vatican I in different ways, but I don’t appreciate having my position misrepresented. With regard to Constantinople III and Honorius I, I follow the interpretation of Fr. Ludwig Ott, who believed that Pope Leo II understood the Council as anathematizing Honorius for negligence rather than heresy. I don’t deny that popes can be negligent. I do believe, though, that even the ordinary papal Magisterium has divine assistance. This is what St. John Paul II believed, and I do as well. Divine assistance, though, cannot be claimed by papal critics.
Question: Jesus prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail. Yet Peter did deny that he knew Jesus. Peter’s faith did not fail, but Peter certainly did deny an objective truth about Jesus. If Peter could err in that way, so may other successors to the apostles.
It seems that the doctrine of infallibility holds when the Pope (and Ecumenical council teachings approved by the pope) defines ex cathedra certain matters of faith and morals which the faithful are to hold and believe as true. Since other papal teachings do not fall within the restricted conditions assuring infallibility (as Vat. I deined), does it seem unreasonable that we consider them excluded from the infallibility doctrine> What say you?
Gracious Dr Fastiggi, thank you for you response. As to what you hold and so well explain here I in principle agree. And I agree there are varying positions on Honorius I, that negligence does not precisely specify heresy, even when the letters in question express favorability. And it is true, that whatever His Holiness Francis may have said that apparently opposed, or what was withheld from Church teaching, it never reached the level of adamant and consistent.
Although, there has been a succinct pattern of suggestion that counteracts his frequent pristine, highly faithful comments on traditional Church doctrine, which lead the non practicing and the faithful to believe that repentance, and penance for the forgiveness of sins is not a necessity for Church entrance, and reception of the Eucharist.
Insofar as divine assistance for papal critics, with that I agree if criticism is aimed at his person, as would imply his personal conscience. Although a priest, be he presbyter, bishop, or cardinal is obliged to address, not the person of the pontiff, rather the error, or the suggestion of error. On that score I assure you those of us who are thus critical of the errors, mistakes if you wish, God gives us his grace, his fortitude, his integrity, and his blessing.
Dr Fastiggi, the best gauge to measure the moral effect of His Holiness’ offhand remarks on perennial doctrine is the response from the Laity [the vast majority, parishioners who are deficient in religious education] who ask, after I explained said remarks were not formal pronouncements, ‘But Father Peter, he’s the Pope, what he said on marriage and divorce, holy communion, homosexuality is official’!
Furthermore, the doctrine of indefectibility is a traditional, commonly held belief in the indestructibility of the Church. That the Great Apostasy will not annihilate the Church. A remnant will be present at the final judgment. That would require a flawless retention of its original revealed truths. That is supported with the doctrine of papal infallibility, narrowly defined to ex cathedra pronouncements. It does not guarantee that mistakes cannot be made on a lower level of magisterium. It’s reasonable to assume, indeed referenced in the new testament, that the Great Apostasy will be driven by the promulgation of error. There’s no evidence in scripture that a Roman pontiff will not contribute to error.
We read: “‘How can popes have a “charism of truth and never-failing faith’ and teach heresy?” But, what if formal teaching and informal quips, signaling and silences are on different tracks? A divorce between the untainted formal magisterium and the informal world of enabled practices? Fiducia Supplicans, for example.
Is this what the cited Pope John Paul II had in mind on August 6, 1993 (nearly five months after the March 24 citation you supply), when he wrote in the now-neglected Veritatis Splendor regarding moral absolutes:
“A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [no longer a ‘moral judgment’?] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions [!] contrary to the teaching of the [intact] Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [thou shalt not!]” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 56).
Dr Fastiggi, thank you for your response. As to what you hold and explain here I in principle agree. And I agree there are varying positions on Honorius I, that negligence does not precisely specify heresy. And it is true, that whatever His Holiness Francis may have said that apparently opposed, or withheld from Church teaching, that it never reached the level of heresy.
Although, there has been a pattern of suggestion that counteracts his frequent faithful comments on traditional Church doctrine, which suggestions lead non practicing and the faithful to believe that repentance, and penance for the forgiveness of sins is not a necessity for Church entrance, and reception of the Eucharist.
Insofar as divine assistance for papal critics, with that I agree if criticism is aimed at his person, as it would imply his personal conscience which only God is the judge. Consequently a priest, be he presbyter, bishop, or cardinal is obliged to address, not the person of the pontiff, rather the suggestion of error. For those of us especially obliged for sake of the faithful to address mistaken suggestions God gives us his blessing.
One more point as it relates to divine assistance:
The Baptized laity share in the kingly, priestly, and prophetic missions of Christ. LG, GS, and CCC 941-943 attest to this.
CCC 946-948 address layperson participation in the Communion of Saints. For those who believe in the power of God and His grace, this power is full of His infiniteness, and we share in it.
The CCC also speaks to the sensus fidei or “supernatural appreciation of faith on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.” When Baptized church members do not manifest a universal consent, we acknowledge fault, sin, and error.
I believe that many of us here share the rights and the duties of our Baptism which granted us Divine grace, favor and assistance necessary to build up or repair error within Christ’s Church. Divine assistance is granted to members of Christ’s as it may please Him to offer to whom, in what manner, and when. So, if we see or hear error (or its obverse), we respond as His spirit and His truth in charity move us respond. His life and death earned for His faithful all this and more. As God’s children, we have inherited the gifts of His son. We are His brothers no more nor less than Holy Pontiffs, no more nor less than those who do theology to earn their daily bread.
There is great sunshine today in the PNW. May everyone everywhere have the same.
So are you saying that Pope Francis is free from heresy? The only way out, if what you say is true, would be if he was never validly the pope…
Thanks Robert. You raise a valid point which I wanted to address in the review, but the review was already long. The fact is what Schneider and those like him want to do is to “freeze” the Church into the Tridentine/Baroque form of Catholicism. But this then presents them with a performative contradiction: how to be faithful to the magisterium of that era while asserting that the magisterium of Vatican II and the post conciliar popes is highly “suspect” and crypto modernist? This pushes them to the silly emphasis upon Vatican II as a “purely pastoral” Council which they then use as a license to oppose even some of its dogmatic developments of doctrine in Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. I have more respect for the SSPX types and even some of the radical sedevacantist types because they at least understand and embrace the full Theo-logic of their extreme criticisms of the modern magisterium. They understand that you cannot freeze the Church into Tridentine form and also embrace the full legitimacy of the modern magisterium. And so they embraced the former and rejected the latter. Problem solved. But Bishop Schneider represents the desire to have your theological cake and to eat it too. He wants Baroque Catholicism, rejects the modern form of Catholicism, but does not want to face up to the true logical consequences of that approach. The Church can be criticized and that includes popes and councils. But at some point the criticisms reach such an extreme level, and reach down to the very constitutive foundations of the modern magisterium, that one begins to see that lurking beneath the surface is a real desire to simply ignore almost everything the Church has taught since 1962.
Bishop Schneider clearly rejects the teachings of the magisterium on:
Religious Freedom
The good to be found in non Catholic religions despite their errors
That salvation is expansive and not limited to very very few.
The authority of the Pope and the bishops over the liturgy
There are many others but these are representative enough. He clearly thinks the vast majority of human beings are destined for Hell since it is very, very hard for a non Catholic to be saved. And this is a really key point for him and for traditonalists in general. This is why they hate Balthasar and Bishop Barron and me. Schneider makes it very clear that the essence of the Balthasarian doctrinal “error” is in its assertion that we can and should hope for the salvation of all. He explicitly rejects this hope as false based simply on the statement from Jesus that the path to perdition is wide and most are on it. And so what we have is a Bishop of the Church, in a book on doctrinal errors, telling his readers that they should not pray for the salvation of all in a way that involves a real hope that the prayer might just be efficacious. Since, as he claims, it is impossible for that to be true. This is a really awful approach. And were the Church to adopt his scorched earth approach to salvation where most are damned, all non Catholic religions are merely demonic, and, in practical terms, only Catholics go to heaven — and even there only the “good Catholics” will go to heaven — you would have a pastoral disaster on your hands.
It is hard to give a fair treatment to complex theological issues in the context of short articles and comments like these. These things deserve book-length treatments.
I just offer a humble, simple generalization, well aware of the inadequacy of what I am saying.
Even if Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s writing contains some less-than-perfect descriptions of Catholic doctrine, and even if Bishop Schneider’s sometimes less-than-perfect doctrinal descriptions have done some harm in the Church, it does not logically follow that Dr. Larry Chapp’s writing necessarily contain no less-than-perfect descriptions of Catholic doctrine. Isn’t that fair to say? One man’s sins don’t make another man sinless, right?
Bishop Schneider has never had his writings formally condemned by the Church, as far as I know.
People like Bishop Athanasius Schneider (who, fairly or not, are sometimes grouped together as “traditional Catholics” or “traditionalists”) have had very, very little influence in the Catholic Church since the Vatican II Council.
By contrast, people like Dr. Larry Chapp (who, fairly or not, are sometimes grouped together as “John Paul II Catholics” “moderate Catholics” or “modern-day orthodox Catholics”), have generally been in total control of the Church, in the papacy, in the Vatican, in every seminary, in every Catholic university, and in every Catholic episcopy in the world.
So, for those who think something is very wrong in the Church of today, and who think that something has been very wrong in the Church for the past several decades (perhaps ever since the Vatican II Council), is it not perhaps most fair and reasonable to look, for responsibility, to those in power and with profound influence, instead of blaming those with no power and no influence in the Church?
Thank you, Larry, for this typically insightful, fair and accurate analysis.
St. Thomas Aquinas pray for us.
To be clear, what’s I confirm in Bishop Schneider regarding salvation does not include his mistakes regarding Vat II or the Novus Ordo, which does require further improvement, and which Benedict XVI believed should occur by translating to it what’s contained in the former Latin rite.
At issue regarding the softening approach to eternal damnation is the lessening of concern in committing sins that would damn us if not repented. We can perceive this notably in the wide use of contraceptives, abortion, the trivializing of pornography, sexuality in general the most common of Man’s sins – confirmed in the plummeting numbers in Mass attendance, the sacrament of penance. Christ’s words are succinct on the challenge of salvation.
Let us never forget that in their desire and rush to eliminate the “Medieval accretions” which inevitably separated us from our protestant brethren, it was necessary to go primitive. Yes, they argued, Modernists, for whom “tradition”, i.e. the venerable, edifying, royal, and unapologetically Catholic, clericalism, was repulsive can be entrusted with delivering to you a “primitivism” that can be reliably the cornerstone of the original liturgical expression of the nascent church. In more precise terms then, us Modernists are hyper-traditionalists. [You can laugh, but with a tear in your eye because Modernists are the LAST who should be entrusted with a “return to primitivism”. Too bad many good Catholics were simply hood-winked by this ruse.] If Roberto De Mattei is correct (I have no reason to suspect otherwise as his footnotes seem well-grounded on the matter), it was actually St. Pope Pius V that made pains to PRESERVE THE ANCIENT TRADITIONS and Canonize the resultant Mass, one must wonder “why not?”. After all, was it not at his turbulent time that the Catholic Church was under a torrent of “Modernism” exemplified by the Protestant Revolution? So, for all those Novus Ordo Catholics that would like to think that what they are attending when they sit in their pews is an “ancient” and venerable Mass; just think, the Mass with all those “bells” and “smells” is likely much closer to the most primitive Catholic liturgical expression. What you are “participating” in is the Mass of the rebels; NOT, the Catholic Mass of all ages. Stand there are receive, throw up your hand to pass the hippie peace symbol across your sanctuary, rush the Bema with the other 30 Eucharistic Ministers in blue and purple hair and sing your modernist gospel music, of course, all in the name of “Catholic liturgical primitivism” bequeathed on you by an admittedly modernist pope and the “spirit of vatican II.”
Islam is a false religion the same as Mormonism. The Church doesn’t recognize Mormonism in any legit way and neither should it Islam. I’ve studied Islam extensively and it’s not what the Church of Vatican II thinks it is. So yes, the Church has been misled with regards to Islam.
I think what needs to be addressed here is that Bishop Snyder, in no offense to his character or office, is a Johnny-come-lately to neo-traditionalism via the online prophet Taylor Marshall. He’s a Taylor Marshall-ist. I know because I used to be one. So I immediately recognize all the same arguments he makes in his book because Taylor made those same arguments in his book INFILTRATION a few years back. All of these gross generalizations the Dr. Chapp skillfully rebuffs, are constantly perpetuated on YouTube podcasts these past six or seven years. At this point, there need to be a formal mega-roundtable where these arguments can be finally put the test in a face to face conversation and debate.
Taylor Marshall’s Infiltrations is indeed a wretched book. When it was new, I sat down with a copy and went through his chapter on the St. Gallen Mafia, a lot the “historical” being simply cut and pasted from wikipedia with no evidence of wider knowledge. I took a lot of notes but abandoned my initial plan to write a rebuttal a la what I did on The Da Vinci Code because I regard Marshall is a foe unworthy of my steel.
The typical arguments that ascribe each and every contemporary problem in the Church to Vatican II have forgotten that “correlation is not causation.” It’s necessary to prove a direct linkage. The “mirage” of the Council was responsible for much of the damage–wreckovations of churches, for instance. And by the way, look at what happened to mainline Protestants who had no Council. The doom of Modern Times was coming for all Christians.
I finished my Catholic education before the Council started and went through the dislocations that followed. I hate to tell you, gentle readers, the rot was already in beneath that 1950s facade. See, for example, the ruin of womens’ religious communities, as ably analyzed by Anne Carey’s Sisters in Crisis.
Having being brought up on the Dialog Mass, which had papal encouragement behind it, I simply do not understand why some Traditionalists’ are so hostile to the congregation saying or singing the responses and propers of the Mass. With my historical training, the liturgy of the Early Church was not just like the Tridentine Mass and in the Middle Ages, there were all sorts of local variations like the Sarum Rite in England. (That’s why the Wedding Service in the Book of Common Prayer is different from that in the Roman Rite.) And the 15-minute silent Low Mass was hardly an inspiring act of worship.
Is Islam not an Abrahamic religion, at least in origin? I have Mormon friends & perhaps they describe themselves that way also. I’m just not sure.
All I know is that I had Muslim inmates recently ask if they could offer prayers for my little grandchild who’s been quite ill. I was very touched by that. God bless them for that.
Why is there always this consuming verbal crushing the bruised reed and snuffing out the flickering wick? Charity is not rude and antagonistic, it actually endures and bears all things like the Lord witnesses in the Gospel for today…blessings
I believe that Joseph’s comment above is spot on, and I hope Mr. Chapp takes it to heart: “Why don’t you sit down with Bp. Schneider and hammer out all your claims of flaw and error… You would find out that your relation with him is exactly that you accuse him of: you are actually friends and very close theologically and should unite, discuss, and seek to wear the same uniform of orthodoxy. Y’all are not enemies… Rather than attack, why don’t you sit down and talk to him?”
Indeed, I respect both Mr. Chapp and Bishop Schneider, but just as I think Mr. Chapp was unfair in his review of “Credo” (wherein Schneider has many great references for further reading, leaving me greatly edified), I believe he is unfair here as well, at least in one place in this book review.
Here is where I’d like to focus on, and encourage Mr. Chapp to reach out to the good Bishop, as the charge he lays against the Bishop is specious at best:
“Bishop Schneider says things as well that come dangerously close to the idea one must have explicit faith in Christ and be an explicit member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved.”
I’ll at least give Mr. Chapp credit that he qualified this spurious charge, but it’s still unfair as I’ll demonstrate in a moment. Now I haven’t read the book yet, so I can only go off of what Mr. Chapp himself has written in this review. If anything, this review makes me want to get the book even more, just to see what Bishop Schneider fully has to say on this one issue. Mr Chapp continues:
“In answer to the question ‘Is explicit faith in Jesus Christ necessary for contemporary Jews to be saved?’ he answers: ‘Yes, the same as with all men’. Two pages later, he states it is necessary to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved, saying, ‘This is the meaning of the affirmation often repeated by the Church Fathers, popes, and councils: extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’
“But this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. While it is true there is today a dangerous religious relativism and a presumption of heaven, it is not at all true the Church teaches that extra ecclesiam nulla salus means one must be an explicit member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved.”
First off, yes, what Bishop Schneider apparently wrote in his book is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. There seems to be a sleight of hand here, as I can see nowhere that the Bishop has said that “one must be an explicit member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved.” Mr. Chapp is absolutely correct when he says such a notion is false. Indeed, that’s not what the dogma “extra ecclessiam nulla salus” means. And the Bishop never said as much, from what I can see in this review. What he said was the truth of Catholic teaching: It is NECESSARY to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved. This is done either by being an explicit member of the Catholic Church “on the rolls”, as it were, OR can be done by one who is invincibly ignorant, possesses perfect charity and supernatural faith, and has at least an implicit desire to enter the Church had he had access to those ordinary means before death. Either way, that person is saved by and through the Catholic Church, of which Jesus Christ is the Head of. Therefore, it is always necessary to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved; either as an explicit member or by an implicit desire, as it is only Christ that saves, inseparably united to His Catholic Church. So if we restate that positively, as the Catechism does at #846, “all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.” And that Mystical Body is none other than the Catholic Church. This is what Schneider professes. All that to say, this is the nuance that Mr. Chapp misses when he accuses Bishop Schneider of “coming dangerously close” to something “that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.”
But don’t take my word for it. Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, a peritus at Vatican II, lays all this out in detail in his masterful work “The Catholic Church and Salvation”, easily searchable in the public domain and still in print. He affirms that “[U]nder certain circumstances a man may be saved if, at the moment of his death, he is not actually a member of the Church but only one who intends or wills to be within it. We know also that this desire or intention of entering the Church can be effective for the attainment of eternal salvation even when it is only implicit. [Pius XII’s] ‘Suprema haec sacra’ explains this truth in terms of the fact that the Catholic Church, like the sacrament of baptism, is requisite for the attainment of the Beatific Vision, not by intrinsic necessity, but by reason of God’s own choice or institution” (p. 160).
As the Church has always taught (and Fenton says repeatedly elsewhere in his writings), the Catholic Church is requisite and necessary for salvation with the necessity of means and also with that of precept. Now when something is said to be necessary for salvation with an INTRINSIC NECESSITY, it is meant that “this thing is an essential element or factor in the life of sanctifying grace to which the Beatific Vision itself belongs. Thus divine charity is intrinsically necessary for salvation… [and this] love of charity is the love of friendship for God as He is known supernaturally, in the Trinity of His Persons” (p. 161). Who is Love? God. Who is the Head of the Catholic Church? God the Son, Jesus Christ. Therefore, the love of charity is a gift of Christ’s Catholic Church, which is why Fenton can confidently say, “Where such a love [of charity] does not exist, the life of the Beatific Vision, the life of sanctifying grace, does not exist.”
And this takes us back to Mr. Chapp’s charge that Bishop Schneider is off base in his assertion that explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. We must not forget what St. Peter says: “By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth… there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:10, 12). The Bishop has said nothing wrong, and does not come “dangerously close” to something contrary to Church teaching by asserting the necessity of explicit faith in Jesus. Supernatural faith is a gift, and it can be given in an instant. As Fr. Michael Müller C.Ss.R. said in his book “The Catholic Dogma”, “Indeed, Almighty God, in his infinite mercy, can dispose a soul, in a moment, for receiving sanctifying grace, and infuse, at the same time, this grace into the soul. The light of true faith… the remission of sins, and the infusion of grace take place by a simultaneous movement; for justification is instantaneous, and has no successive gradation” (pp. 220-221). This is why we can say that explicit faith in Jesus Christ IS INDEED necessary, but NOT explicit membership in the Catholic Church at the moment of death; God can give this grace in an instant to the soul that is disposed to receive it, and such a person dies within the bosom of Christ’s Catholic Church.
That is why Fenton rightly asserts that “genuine supernatural faith… is an essential part of the life of sanctifying grace during its preparatory status in this world. There can obviously be NO SUCH THING as a supernatural life with reference to God, known in the Trinity of His Persons, apart from an awareness of Him in THIS WAY… As a result, there can be no such thing as ANY SUBSTITUTE for the actual possession of faith and hope and charity as requisites for the attainment of the life of heaven. A man could not be saved if he were to have faith and charity merely in desire or intention at the moment he passed from this life. … If a man is to attain eternal salvation he MUST possess GENUINE supernatural faith and the true and supernatural love of charity at the moment of death” (pp. 159-160, all emphases mine). Clearly, we must be aware of God in the way He has revealed Himself, as a Trinity which includes the Divine Son. This faith must be “explicit”, and as we saw Muller explain above, that faith can be given in an INSTANT. Therefore, no man who attains the Beatific Vision does so without coming to an explicit recognition that Jesus Christ is God and Savior.
God can do this in a myriad of ways: he could send a Philip as He did the Ethiopian eunuch; he could send an angel as Aquinas asserts; he could send someone miraculously to evangelize as he did the Venerable Mary of Jesus of Ágreda to the Jumano Indians of central New Mexico and West Texas when she bi-located and preached to them in the 17th century… or any other numberless ways! But what it all boils down to is that genuine faith in Christ, the Second Person of the Triune God, is necessary for salvation, as is belonging to the Catholic Church, even if they belong to Her by virtue of an implicit desire at the moment of death, in perfect charity.
I’ll close with Fr. Muller’s words, as they sum up both of these dogmas clearly:
“To assert that acts of divine faith, hope and charity are possible out of the Catholic Church is a direct denial of the article of faith: ‘There is positively no salvation out of the Catholic Church’; for, on account of these acts, God unites himself with the soul in time and in eternity. If these acts, then, were possible out of the Catholic Church, there would be salvation out of the Catholic Church, to say which is a direct denial of the above article of faith” (pp 226-227).
May God grant us the grace to always persevere in faith, hope and charity! May all the world be brought to recognize Christ as Savior, and also that His Church subsists solely in the Catholic Church.
AMDG!
Your penultimate paragraph, quoting Fr. Muller (his pp. 226-227), about the necessity (?) of actual membership in the Church, contradicts what you write further up (fifth paragraph from the bottom) in relation to the same Muller: “This is why we can say that explicit faith in Jesus Christ IS INDEED necessary, but NOT explicit membership in the Catholic Church at the moment of death; God can give this grace in an instant to the soul that is disposed to receive it, and such a person dies within the bosom of Christ’s Catholic Church.”
St. Faustina offers this:
“I often attend upon the dying and through entreaties obtain for them trust in God’s mercy, and I implore God for an abundance of divine grace, which is always victorious. God’s mercy sometimes touches the sinner at the last moment in a wondrous and mysterious way. Outwardly it seems as though everything were lost, but it is not so. The soul, illumined by a ray of God’s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God forgiveness of sin and punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [ed. at that stage] no longer react to external things. Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy!” (Diary).
The inference, I believe, is that a ‘pagan,’ throughout his life may, at the moment of death, come to ‘explicit’ faith in Jesus; simultaneously, at that same moment, Baptism is not available or feasible.
The Church has historically taught that Baptism assures reception of the ‘divine’ theological virtues, or ‘supernatural’ faith, hope, and charity. These godly virtues in the soul give one EXPLICIT membership in the Church. So the Church has historically taught.
A ‘sinner’ may not, at his moment of death, be an EXPLICIT member of the Church because his mortal sins and lifestyle excluded him by his own choice or Church decree. By virtue of his baptism, however, and actual grace, he may at the moment of death, recall and seek to recover explicit membership through some faith remaining in his soul, a residual effect of baptism, despite a life of mortal sin.
I did not read a grave contradiction in Fenton. Faustina’s account of Mercy shows its immutable nature while man’s will is open to change while God holds his soul in life on earth. Only upon death does man’s will cease to effect the quality of his soul.
The contradiction is not in Fenton…
Mr. Beaulieu, I’m not seeing a contradiction in what I wrote. I think you’re misunderstanding, and I’d like to clarify further. I do think Meiron has it basically right. I would just make one “tweak” to Meiron’s comment.
If a man is saved, he is saved through Christ’s Catholic Church. He belongs to the Church. Again, that’s what the Catechism says at #846. How can this be? Well, either the man was baptized into the Catholic Church as an infant, or after going through the catachumenate and receiving baptism as an adult, meaning he was “on the rolls”. But the “pagan”, or non-Catholic, that Meiron refers to ALSO belongs to the Catholic Church in an EXTRAordinary way if he has supernatural faith animated by perfect charity at the moment of death. As I wrote in my original comment, if a man “has at least an implicit desire to enter the Church had he had access to those ordinary means before death, [then] that person is saved by and through the Catholic Church, of which Jesus Christ is the Head of. Therefore, it is always necessary to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved; either as an explicit member or by an implicit desire, as it is only Christ that saves, inseparably united to His Catholic Church.”
So I do hope this demonstrates that I did not present a contradiction, Mr. Beaulieu. The other analogy I would give, and I’m not the first to give it, would be this: Imagine the Catholic Church as a giant ship. The Barque of Peter. All those on board, sailing to safe harbor in Heaven are “explicit” members of the Church in a state of grace. But there is a man who did not know that this ship was the only ship that could safely dock at the harbor, and his life is now expiring. He doesn’t have the time or the strength to scale the ship to enter it. But before he expires and dies, someone from the ship throws a life preserver. It is tethered to the Barque of Peter. The man catches the life preserver, clings to it, and doesn’t let go. When the ship reaches harbor, this man is in tow. He has reached the safe harbor of Heaven.
This is the man who was never officially “on the rolls” in the Catholic Church in an ordinary way. But nonetheless, he has been towed to safety in an EXTRAordinary way. And who did the towing? The Catholic Church. He was saved by and through the Catholic Church, even though he wasn’t standing on deck with everyone else. Yet he belongs to the crew’s complement when everyone aboard is counted at the harbor. I do hope this analogy helps, and demonstrates why it’s impossible to be saved outside of the Catholic Church. No other ship will get you to safe harbor. You can’t swim there by yourself. But God is merciful, and will give man every help available to make sure man is able to be connected to that one Barque of Peter in some way.
I’d also note that I am a big proponent of the Divine Mercy. I pray it every day, and always take advantage of the Extraordinary Promise on Divine Mercy Sunday. Like Meirion, I see no contradiction between the comment you gave from St. Faustina and Fenton (or Mueller, for that matter). Indeed, I agree with you that God’s mercy is beyond comprehension! But as I believe we also see in St. Faustina’s Diary, our Lord’s mercy and love is often rejected, and this saddens our Lord. St. John Vianney also wrote similarly on this topic. Therefore, we should trust in God’s mercy, not despair of a single sinner, and leave it in God’s hands, knowing that if any particular person is saved, it is through Christ’s Catholic Church.
Lots of good insights, Bob, but please note that Dr. Chapp has indeed purposely misconstrued what Bishop Schneider sets forth regarding salvation outside the Catholic Church, so relying on his jaundiced mischaracterizations is not wise. Moreover, even though in both his “Credo” and “Flee From Heresy,” Bishop Schneider sets forth at the outset the limitations of his works, and that he will not go into depth on the topics, this is also purposely ignored by Chapp et al so they can unjustly hit him with straw man arguments, claiming that Bishop Schneider fails to mention this or that, and so what he does set forth is declared to be “often erroneous.”
Now in your first comment on the salvation topic, you mention the all-important invincible ignorance that must also be present for a person outside the Church to possibly be saved by our Lord’s extraordinary means, and this should always be emphasized.
Section 847 of the Catechism provides the basic requirements for possible salvation via extraordinary means:
“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
So the implicit faith that you mention must be permeated by invincible or inculpable ignorance, or such implicit faith will not open the door to the extraordinary means of salvation outside the Church.
It should also be kept in mind that invincible or inculpable ignorance is quite difficult to possess, so to speak, and it must be absolutely invincible or inculpable to be legitimate. As such, section 848 of the Catechism sets forth the duty of the Church (includes its members) to evangelize all:
“Although in ways known to himself, God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”
The ultimate judgment is of course in God’s hands, but we are also called to evangelize, and in this regard, though despair is sinful, we must nevertheless be very concerned for all and evangelize wherever we can, and not just leave it to God.
Thank you, Mr. Flanders. Regarding this topic of salvation, I’m in total agreement with what you’re saying. Evangelization is a must; as Pope St. Paul VI put it in Evangelii Nutiandi, evangelization is a fundamental duty incumbent upon all the people of God (cf. #5). It’s not optional, and we must joyfully witness to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus. In my comment on “leaving it in God’s hands”, I merely meant that once a person has died, there’s nothing else I can do but pray for their soul. That person’s judgement is in God’s hands now. Indeed, while we live in this world and we interact with people in pure daily lives, we MUST cooperate with the graces God has given us and evangelize by both our words and actions.
This is why this question and dogma of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” is so important. If the Church exists in order to evangelize, it is important that we bring all people into the bosom of Holy Mother Church. I’m saddened to see in these comments so many people referring to “angry trads”. It’s not just “trads”, but regular, orthodox Catholics that have a problem what what Mr. Chapp is claiming in his misrepresentation of Bishop Schneider’s position on salvation and the necessity of the Catholic Church for that salvation, as well as the necessity of supernatural faith in Jesus Christ for that same salvation.
We all agree here that salvation is a possibility for everyone living on this Earth today. The means are there for each person to do so, through the Catholic Church herself. But is it PROBABLE that every person will do so? Is it PROBABLE that most will do so? Sadly, the answer is no. And this is straight from the Second Vatican Council. Look to Lumen Gentium 16, specifically the end of that section after it discusses the POSSIBILITY of salvation to those not yet joined to the Catholic Church:
“But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.”
We can’t know for sure the eternal destination of any soul outside of those who have been canonized as saints in Heaven. But it certainly seems that those outside union with the Catholic Church will have an uphill battle for the reasons you mentioned, Mr. Flanders. That’s why Pope Pius XII exhorted all those outside the Catholic Church to come into union with her because of the special graces that are only available here, and without those helps, those people outside the Church cannot be sure of their salvation.
So yes, I would also argue that inculpable or invincible ignorance is “difficult” to possess”, and while not quantifying who possesses it, I would just add that a person may be invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church’s necessity for salvation, yet still be damned because of unrepented mortal sin. If a person is outside the Church, they have no way to receive the Sacrament of Penance. It’s even more difficult to have perfect contrition, even for those within the Church since all one must bring to have a valid confession is IMperfect contrition. The sacrament provides for us not having perfect contrition. These are the helps Pius XII mentions that can only be enjoined in the Catholic Church. This is why, yes, one who is not visibly united to the Church CAN be saved through that same Catholic Church by extraordinary means, it’s a totally different question if such a scenario happens OFTEN.
In more recent times, I think of Dr. Ralph Martin who would also answer that oftentimes men sadly die being deceived by the evil one. In his book “Will Many Be Saved”, I have this earmarked as one of the most important quotes in the book:
“While we cannot judge the state of anyone’s soul and what transpires at the moment of death, it certainly appears – from the view of human resistance to grace, and subsequent judgement, contained in the Scriptures and from empirical observation – that many people persevere to the end in their rejection of God and/or in a life of immorality…
“[F]rom the weight of [the] Scriptures and the historical testimony of final rejection of God or embrace of immorality, both in Scripture and contemporary history and experience, it is not just a theoretical possibility but probable, that many end up in hell” (pp. 155-156).
All that to say, this is what animated missionaries to go out to baptize and live out the Great Commission our Lord Jesus gave in St. Matthew’s Gospel. This gives us a great urgency to evangelize, and is why all the recent popes have exhorted us as Catholics to bring Christ to a world that desperately needs Him; for without Him AND His Cathoic Church, their salvation is uncertain at best. As we pray in the Office of Readings every year on December 3rd, St. Francis Xavier’s feast day, “Many, many people hereabouts are not becoming Christians for one reason: there is nobody to make them Christians. Again and again I have thought of going round the universities of Europe, especially Paris, and everywhere crying out like a madman. Riveting the attention of those with more learning than charity: What a tragedy: how many souls are being shut out of heaven and falling into hell, thanks to you!”
This great saint was animated with missionary desire because he knew how difficult it would be for people to be saved outside Christ’s Church. We need to regain this fervor, knowing that many people we encounter in our daily lives are in danger of losing their souls. That’s why we must make sure our house is first in order, fortified by the sacraments of the Church and the graces we receive from them, and then go out there and reach souls for Christ.
AMDG!
“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 14)
I’ve often wondered how Bishop Schneider– an auxiliary bishop in what might be considered one of the peripheries of the world, Kazakhstan– came to such prominence. I’m saddened to see that he appears to be heading toward the right gutter in the bowling lane; this orthodox person really wants to root for him. Still, in the Internet age, thorough scholarship is not difficult when the writings of anyone meriting discussion are accessible almost instantly– or easily obtained in hard copy. I know that even without any titles before my name or significant theological letters after my name, I do as much reading as I can before I start swinging in a formal way, and I refer to the Catechism and the Bible along with reliable references even when I think I know a topic thoroughly to try to make sure that I get it right. A bishop should do as much if not more– and he may even have a staff to assist him with the research, something that I have never had the luxury of having at my disposal.
It seems as if you take at face value what Chapp writes about the Bishop’s writing. if so, what evidence led to that conclusion?
Hmm. You’ve often “wondered how…an auxiliary bishop in what might be considered one of the peripheries of the world,…came to such prominence.”
Did you ever wonder how an insignificant little village in Judah once known as Ephrathah (meaning “Ash Heap”) would later be known as Bethlehem (House of Bread)?
e of the little clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to rule in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.
Therefore he shall give them up until the time
when she who is in labor has brought forth;
—Micah 5:2-5a
In all the writings about Nouvelle théologie and ressourcement is there any effort to remind people that the early Church was in a period of covenantal transition between the old Mt. Sinai Covenant and Christ’s New and Everlasting Covenant? The Council of Jerusalem was the first council held under the New Covenant. Even then the Church at Corinth had those who said that their knowledge made it possible for them to eat the meat offered to idols, which contradicted the Council of Jerusalem. The “spirit of Jerusalem” at work? St. Paul had to tell them that knowledge puffs up but that love builds up and that their bad example could harm those with weak faith. With all the talk about the hermeneutic of rupture one could wonder if a similar covenantal scale transition is being proposed. That perhaps Christ’s New and Everlasting Covenant is not so everlasting and represents backwardism and excessive rigidity? How can people play the field and be expected to give their hearts exclusively to God at the same time? King Solomon was not encumbered by God’s commands when he gave into his foreign wives. He was very inclusive. What distinguishes this from some people’s idea of what ecumenical outreach is? Some of the recent Synods looked to me like the spirit of unfaithful King Solomon was at work.
*
The coming of Christ and His Covenant were predicted in the Old Testament prophecies. There is no record in the New Testament where there is any prophesy of God-authorized wrenching changes to come in the future. Peter was given a heads up by God by a trance with the sheet with the unclean animals on it prior to his going to Cornelius.
In contrast to the truly towering intellectuals in this article and its subsequent commentaries, speaking for myself: “Nihil et nemo sum, servus inutilis.”
Simply put, this discussion sounds like the devl has once again succeeded in getting the best of the best among the Roman Catholic faithful to tear each other asunder.
I have purchased and read Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s book, “Flee from Heresy”. I thought that it was extremely helpful, clear, concise and direct, especially for those of us who have just enough theology to know and understand that Jesus Christ is Lord.
As such, I felt compelled to redirect the discussion toward St. Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians 5:11-13 –
“Therefore, encourage one another and build one another up, as indeed you do.
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you,
and to show esteem for them with special love on account of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.”
There are peaceable ways to speak on error though no matter which side the error occurs. And some of those conversations should for the sake of charity be private ones, face to face. That’s what scripture instructs us to do first.
Mr. Chapp: It would be nice if you would, once in a while, engage in some distinctions about what “taditionalists” believe and don’t believe as though they are something besides a giant sociological caricatured monolith, unless you’ve never troubled yourself to know.
Don’t you think the distinctions between Catholic traditionalists would be a very extensive list indeed? But yes, it would be an interesting article.
He has yet to define the word when I asked. I don’t think he knows. Some words denote scapegoats for all that’s wrong in the world. Our writer chap does show skill in using a tool or two of rhetoric.
I have written often and in many venues what I mean when I say “traditionalist”. I cannot reinvent the wheel in every article. And it should be clear from my criticisms of Bishop Schneider’s book which aspects of traditionalism I am criticizing. If you are a self-describing “traditionalist” and you do not agree with many of the things that Bishop Schneider says then my critique does not apply to you and traditionalists like you.
I have to chuckle at those on here who accuse me of being too breezy in my comments about traditionalists but then, in their comments, proceed to prove that my descriptions are actually accurate. Namely: Vatican II is a shit council that we should ignore, all post conciliar popes are crypto modernists, most people are bound for hell and only an elite few will be saved, the liturgical reforms were a demonic Free Mason plot and only a full return to the TLM will do, religious freedom is a heresy and we need a reinvigoration of “Throne and Altar” integralism in order to outlaw the public expression of all religions other than Catholicism, and so on and so on.
And I further notice that nobody on here seems to mind when I criticize “progressive” or “liberal” Catholics and never criticize my characterization of their errors as too vague.
Note the absence of sources and the lack of truth as well as charity in what
Chapp says some have here said: “Vatican II is a shit council that we should ignore, all post conciliar popes are crypto modernists, most people are bound for hell and only an elite few will be saved, the liturgical reforms were a demonic Free Mason plot and only a full return to the TLM will do, religious freedom is a heresy and we need a reinvigoration of “Throne and Altar” integralism in order to outlaw the public expression of all religions other than Catholicism, and so on and so on.”
Therefore, I conclude: The statements from the Schtick represent a type of sadly deficient intellect—sloppy, flawed, often erroneous, certainly highly exaggerated, a study in hyperbolic rhetoric. Coming from a ‘Christian,’ a past professor of theology, Chapp’s post brought sadly to mind a circus floor littered with empty peanut shells.
Good meiron: I and other fair-minded readers share your frustration with the ongoing mischaracterizations and mostly unjust criticism of Bishop Schneider’s “Flee From Heresy” by Dr. Chapp that is quite reminiscent of his unjust criticisms of Bishop Schneider’s “Credo.” If you have not done so already, please see some of my other posts as well as the posts of other honest commenters who point out in detail the serious misrepresentations and straw man arguments used by Dr. Chapp in his personal vendetta against Bishop Schneider and many other sound traditionalists such as Bishop Strickland.
In his most recent comments that you rightly call to task, also note just a handful of his other numerous errors on display in those comments that I will rebut:
1. In his disdain for Bishop Schneider and what Chapp refers to as “those like him” regarding an alleged desire for “freezing” the Church into a “Baroque/Tridentine form of Catholicism,” note the following:
Rebuttal: Nowhere is this presented by Bishop Schneider, and so to claim a mere speculation as a “fact” is just a lie, and both Chapp and Fastiggi are purposely mischaracterizing Bishop Schneider’s actual positions. But even if their claim was speculatively true, the question becomes whether or not the Church would be better served by readopting the Tridentine form of Catholicism, and of course this is something that Chapp will not even consider, and so he negatively presents such a desire as a “freeze” as if this is automatically a bad idea. Of course, unchangeable truths of the faith are beautifully frozen and thankfully so, and if it can be shown that a particular form of Catholicism is the ideal, would freezing into that form be a bad thing? Of course not. In fact, it would be a very good thing.
2. Next up for consideration is Chapp’s remarkable claim… “But this then presents them with a performative contradiction: how to be faithful to the magisterium of that era while asserting that the magisterium of Vatican II and the post conciliar popes is highly “suspect” and crypto modernist? This pushes them to the silly emphasis upon Vatican II as a ‘purely pastoral’ Council which they then use as a license to oppose even some of its dogmatic developments of doctrine in Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium.”
Rebuttal: Notice the dishonest lumping of Bishop Schneider with more extremist positions he does not hold. Also note that Bishop Schneider often favorably quotes Vatican II, but as I set forth in another comment, Bishop Schneider rightly asserts and holds that Vatican II is a pastoral council as was also expressed by Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI. The only thing silly here is Chapp’s actually believing that the Council was not a pastoral or even primarily pastoral council as set forth by the popes of the Council that Chapp disagrees with. Also keep in mind that Bishop Schneider has always accepted and defended Pope Francis as being legitimately elected and serving as the Pope, but this does not prevent Chapp from lumping Bishop Schneider in with those who challenge the Pope’s legitimacy. Remarkably dishonest.
3. Next, consider Chapp’s “I have more respect for the SSPX types and even some of the radical sedevacantist types because they at least understand and embrace the full Theo-logic of their extreme criticisms of the modern magisterium. They understand that you cannot freeze the Church into Tridentine form and also embrace the full legitimacy of the modern magisterium.”
Rebuttal: Once again, the desire for a return to the Tridentine form can be legitimately held by anyone who simultaneously accepts the current form. The would-be contradiction of holding such a position is a mere fantasy in Chapp’s mind. Case in point: yours truly. I fully accept the legitimacy of the current or modern magisterium while at the same time I would like to see the Church either go back to the Tridentine form or adopt many aspects of it. Bishop Schneider has repeatedly defended the legitimacy of the current Church, and as previously stated, this includes the legitimacy of the papacy of Pope Francis, but being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, Bishop Schneider also expresses a legitimate desire for the Church to abandon the errors of the modern Church. This is theologically sound, so Chapp’s rantings here are non sequiturs employed yet again to purposely miscast Bishop Schneider.
Just a few more howlers for rebuttal.
4. Chapp claims that Bishop Schneider rejects the teaching of the magisterium “that salvation is expansive and not limited to very very few.”
Rebuttal: On the contrary, since the Church has never taught that salvation is expansive, the person who is blatantly opposed to the teaching of the magisterium is Dr. Chapp as I and other commenters such as Bob have made clear, and with actual quotations from the magisterium to back up the Church’s position as opposed to Chapp’s heretical “expansive” claim.
5. Chapp claims that Bishop Schneider tells “his readers that they should not pray for the salvation of all in a way that involves a real hope that the prayer might just be efficacious. Since, as he claims, it is impossible for that to be true. This is a really awful approach.”
Rebuttal: Nowhere does Bishop Schneider tell his readers that they should not pray for the salvation of all, so yet another lie/jump to a false conclusion by Chapp. Moreover, if Chapp was even half the theologian he claims to be, he would recognize the legitimacy of praying for all even while knowing that all will not be saved. We pray for all in serious illness that they will be healed and not die even though we know that some will die nevertheless. Does this make our prayers in vain? In like manner, we can pray for the salvation for all while knowing that all will not be saved. Also consider a related Church teaching fully accepted and set forth by Bishop Schneider regarding the salvation of all. In response to the question “Doesn’t God want all men to be saved,” Bishop Schneider responds unequivocally “Yes. As a loving Father, God ‘desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.’ (1 Tim 2:4). This is why he established His Church as the ordinary and universal means of salvation. ‘He cannot have God for his Father, who does not have the Church for his mother.’” (see p. 86).
Now I ask you, meiron, and all other honest readers of Catholic World Report: is it reasonable to assume, as Chapp does, that Bishop Schneider would favorably set forth God’s desire for the salvation of all while knowing not all will be saved, but at the same time advise people to not pray (in this case an expressed desire) for the salvation of all? This would put Bishop Schneider in opposition to God’s desire, and he clearly does not do this. As such, the truly awful approach is the one adopted by Chapp in yet again casting Bishop Schneider in a false light, and telling readers, in essence, “this is what Bishop Schneider really means,” because I, Larry Chapp, say so, and I don’t need evidence to jump to this conclusion.”
I appreciate your commitment to the truth, meiron, and also your heartfelt defense of the good Bishop Athanasius Schneider against many unwarranted and unjustified attacks on both his character and some of his writings on behalf of the Church.
Good meiron: I and other fair-minded readers share your frustration with the ongoing mischaracterizations and mostly unjust criticism of Bishop Schneider’s “Flee From Heresy” by Dr. Chapp that is quite reminiscent of his unjust criticisms of Bishop Schneider’s “Credo.” If you have not done so already, please see some of my other posts as well as the posts of other honest commenters who point out in detail the serious misrepresentations and straw man arguments used by Dr. Chapp in his personal vendetta against Bishop Schneider and many other sound traditionalists such as Bishop Strickland.
In his most recent comments that you rightly call to task, also note just a handful of his other numerous errors on display in those comments that I will rebut:
1. In his disdain for Bishop Schneider and what Chapp refers to as “those like him” regarding an alleged desire for “freezing” the Church into a “Baroque/Tridentine form of Catholicism,” note the following:
Rebuttal: Nowhere is this presented by Bishop Schneider, and so to claim a mere speculation as a “fact” is just a lie, and both Chapp and Fastiggi are purposely mischaracterizing Bishop Schneider’s actual positions. But even if their claim was speculatively true, the question becomes whether or not the Church would be better served by readopting the Tridentine form of Catholicism, and of course this is something that Chapp will not even consider, and so he negatively presents such a desire as a “freeze” as if this is automatically a bad idea. Of course, unchangeable truths of the faith are beautifully frozen and thankfully so, and if it can be shown that a particular form of Catholicism is the ideal, would freezing into that form be a bad thing? Of course not. In fact, it would be a very good thing.
2. Next up for consideration is Chapp’s remarkable claim… “But this then presents them with a performative contradiction: how to be faithful to the magisterium of that era while asserting that the magisterium of Vatican II and the post conciliar popes is highly “suspect” and crypto modernist? This pushes them to the silly emphasis upon Vatican II as a ‘purely pastoral’ Council which they then use as a license to oppose even some of its dogmatic developments of doctrine in Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium.”
Rebuttal: Notice the dishonest lumping of Bishop Schneider with more extremist positions he does not hold. Also note that Bishop Schneider often favorably quotes Vatican II, but as I set forth in another comment, Bishop Schneider rightly asserts and holds that Vatican II is a pastoral council as was also expressed by Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI. The only thing silly here is Chapp’s actually believing that the Council was not a pastoral or even primarily pastoral council as set forth by the popes of the Council that Chapp disagrees with. Also keep in mind that Bishop Schneider has always accepted and defended Pope Francis as being legitimately elected and serving as the Pope, but this does not prevent Chapp from lumping Bishop Schneider in with those who challenge the Pope’s legitimacy. Remarkably dishonest.
3. Next, consider Chapp’s “I have more respect for the SSPX types and even some of the radical sedevacantist types because they at least understand and embrace the full Theo-logic of their extreme criticisms of the modern magisterium. They understand that you cannot freeze the Church into Tridentine form and also embrace the full legitimacy of the modern magisterium.”
Rebuttal: Once again, the desire for a return to the Tridentine form can be legitimately held by anyone who simultaneously accepts the current form. The would-be contradiction of holding such a position is a mere fantasy in Chapp’s mind. Case in point: yours truly. I fully accept the legitimacy of the current or modern magisterium while at the same time I would like to see the Church either go back to the Tridentine form or adopt many aspects of it. Bishop Schneider has repeatedly defended the legitimacy of the current Church, and as previously stated, this includes the legitimacy of the papacy of Pope Francis, but being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, Bishop Schneider also expresses a legitimate desire for the Church to abandon the errors of the modern Church. This is theologically sound, so Chapp’s rantings here are non sequiturs employed yet again to purposely miscast Bishop Schneider.
Just a few more howlers for rebuttal.
4. Chapp claims that Bishop Schneider rejects the teaching of the magisterium “that salvation is expansive and not limited to very very few.”
Rebuttal: On the contrary, since the Church has never taught that salvation is expansive, the person who is blatantly opposed to the teaching of the magisterium is Dr. Chapp as I and other commenters such as Bob have made clear, and with actual quotations from the magisterium to back up the Church’s position as opposed to Chapp’s heretical “expansive” claim.
5. Chapp claims that Bishop Schneider tells “his readers that they should not pray for the salvation of all in a way that involves a real hope that the prayer might just be efficacious. Since, as he claims, it is impossible for that to be true. This is a really awful approach.”
Rebuttal: Nowhere does Bishop Schneider tell his readers that they should not pray for the salvation of all, so yet another lie/jump to a false conclusion by Chapp. Moreover, if Chapp was even half the theologian he claims to be, he would recognize the legitimacy of praying for all even while knowing that all will not be saved. We pray for all in serious illness that they will be healed and not die even though we know that some will die nevertheless. Does this make our prayers in vain? In like manner, we can pray for the salvation for all while knowing that all will not be saved. Also consider a related Church teaching fully accepted and set forth by Bishop Schneider regarding the salvation of all. In response to the question “Doesn’t God want all men to be saved,” Bishop Schneider responds unequivocally “Yes. As a loving Father, God ‘desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.’ (1 Tim 2:4). This is why he established His Church as the ordinary and universal means of salvation. ‘He cannot have God for his Father, who does not have the Church for his mother.’” (see p. 86).
Now I ask you, meiron, and all other honest readers of Catholic World Report: is it reasonable to assume, as Chapp does, that Bishop Schneider would favorably set forth God’s desire for the salvation of all while knowing not all will be saved, but at the same time advise people to not pray (in this case an expressed desire) for the salvation of all? This would put Bishop Schneider in opposition to God’s desire, and he clearly does not do this. As such, the truly awful approach is the one adopted by Chapp in yet again casting Bishop Schneider in a false light, and telling readers, in essence, “this is what Bishop Schneider really means,” because I, Larry Chapp, say so, and I don’t need evidence to jump to this conclusion.”
I appreciate your commitment to the truth, meiron, and also your heartfelt defense of the good Bishop Athanasius Schneider against many unwarranted and unjustified attacks on both his character and some of his writings on behalf of the Church.
And the odd thing is that what you say is very much in keeping with the theology of the mindlessly dismissed Marcel Lefebvre.
“Here is a clear and uncompromising report on the dangers that threaten the Faith, from one who every day receives the most reliable information from every continent. Cardinal Ratzinger’s observations are as hopeful and balanced as they are clear-sighted, forcefully re-affirming the immense and positive work of Vatican II, whose genuine fruits this book provides a guideline for achieving.”
The Ratzinger Report
Was there nothing wrong with VaricanII? I’m still waitin for Larry Chapp, who I admire, BDW, to give an impartial critique of VaticanII, pointing out its strengths and its weaknesses, as well as its real fruits, both sweet and sour. Unless he thinks it was totally error free of course. For instance, does he see any continuity between its possible errors and the errors of Bergoglio, I wonder?
You are still waiting for my analysis of Vatican II? I have written often on Vatican II on this site, in my blog, in many podcasts, in my book, and in The National Catholic Register. Do a search. Vatican II — like all councils — had strengths and weaknesses. It has flaws. It is not beyond critique. I just do not think Bishop Schneider’s critique is theologically sound and, for that reason, it is not very helpful. I cannot reinvent the wheel in every article I write.
I’d love to see a survey of a random sample Catholics exiting Mass on Sunday asking them one simple question:
“Can you identify just one salient teaching from ANY of the Second Vatican Council documents?”
Deacon
Would you mind sharing your thoughts on what you might learn from various answers to your question?
I’d probably say no contraceptives which was from 68. So I’m still thinking of a teaching. I read the liturgy document so I could say there’s a preference for chant in the mass. Hard pressed for anything else. If you jogged my memory I might remember other teachings
Ron
My point, Ron, is that Vatican II and its documents are grist for discussion among theologians (a cynic might say it’s kept many of them employed over the past 50 years). However, for Joe and Mary Pewsitter these documents and their teachings resonate not at all. My guess is that for the average Catholic who faithfully attends Mass, only a distinct minority would be able to supply an accurate answer to my question.
Thanks deacon. I agree.
well, Pope John XXIII stated this as its purpose: “The present Council is a special, worldwide manifestation by the Church of her teaching office, exercised in taking account of the errors, needs and opportunities of our day.” – Opening Address to the Council.
So Pope Bergoglio has taught. He has taught that the TLM ought to not be said. He has taught that allegations of sexual abusers in positions of ecclesiastic hierarchy are allegations often best procrastinated; that blessings are in order for kissing couples, that disordered ‘legal’ adulterers may sometimes receive Holy Eucharist, etc., etc., etc.
His critical medical condition teaches me that all human life, no matter one’s state or position in the world, will one day come to a gripping and definite end.
In addition, the document largely composed by Jesuit Courtney Murray [an excellent document as religious freedom relates to the State but not as regards the person’s conscience if Catholic] was a proposed candidate for dogma, which those periti who had some sense of wisdom refused. Nevertheless, remaining a declaration [ DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS] it could still be considered the Manifesto for Cafeteria Catholicism.
A comment on the commentary as perceived. Larry Chapp has made a valid critique on the book, Flee From Heresy, one of the more faithful bishops of our Church. Not an easy task if one intends candor.
Chapp, rather than take a one-sided broadside at Bishop Schneider’s work, clearly explained the truths, mistakes, and half truths. He gave an acceptable, positive assessment of de Lubac. For many a controversial theologian ranging from deleterious modernist to brilliant conveyor of the richness of our faith.
Responses are quite varied, some sharply so. That is a good thing. Achievement in striking that balance is an art.
Yes, “striking a balance” as in precisely clarifying, rather than only bundling and averaging to a muddled “middle ground”.
I believe, Fr. Morello, that if you read “Flee From Heresy” and note the very important honest explication of Bishop Schneider at the beginning of his work regarding the limitations of the work and its basic purpose, you will very soon conclude that Dr. Chapp has indeed engaged in a one-sided broadside as I and others have explained in other comments.
One specific consideration for you to chew on in this regard: If you write a book on X Topics, and you make it crystal clear that you are only setting forth some basic ideas A and B, and such will not go into any great depth of C, D, E, F, how fair-minded would a critic of yours be if he or she “read your mind” so to speak, and claimed that your work fails because it needs to discuss C, D, E, and F only because the critic says so, and your “failure” to go into C, D, E, and F demonstrates what you are really thinking? Now, it is not necessary for you to go into C, D, E, and F as the critic maintains, though of course a sincere critic can lament this and suggest it, but to jump to false conclusions because C, D, E, and F are not covered by you would be grossly unfair to you. And this unfair criticism is found permeating a great deal of Mr. Chapp’s unjust review of Bishop Schneider’s “Flee From Heresy.”
Thanks Tom for your analysis of Bishop Schneider’s Flee from Heresy. Bishop Schneider reminds me of my deceased spiritual director who thought virtually in identical terms as Bishop Schneider on all the issues discussed here by you and others who defend him.
My point regarding the Bishop’s Baroque Catholicism, as characterized, is that it’s a doctrine however dusty, that works to save souls. Whereas the irony of the moderate, intellectually refined updated Christian message by all indications has not. Too many bishops and laity are living in this locked in world of rationalization of the mystery of Christ.
My response to the changes since Vat II has been to implement the legitimate changes with additional spiritual depth, doctrinal solidity. We lack fire. That living flame that draws us to heroic virtue. We’ve reached that level of spiritual morbidity that voices like Bishop Schneider’s cannot simply be written off as intransigent and reactionary .
“Flee From Heresy” could be more aptly re-titled “Flee from the Nouvelle théologie, the Vatican II Church, and its Papal Promoters.”
Thanks Larry. As Bergoglioism ends, this looks like EXACTLY the book Catholics need to understand the 1962-2025 Modernist Apostasy.
Only defenders of the Neo-modernist Post-Conciliar Apostasy could take issue…
Thanks deacon
You’re welcome, Ronald. BTW, you might try out my proposal the next time youreat Sunday Mass. Ask one or two people you don’t know from the parish that question. See what you get for a response.
This is a well-written article, and many of the criticisms seem to miss the points Dr. Chapp makes entirely. It’s disheartening how tribalism has taken hold in so many discussions these days. One might appreciate Bishop Schneider’s orthodoxy on certain issues, but that doesn’t excuse the sloppiness in his reasoning or his attempts to undermine the universal Catechism by presenting personal opinions as facts.
What I can’t quite understand is why it seems like Bishop Schneider is rarely present in his actual diocese.
I don’t have a handle on the theological questions here, it’s over my head truthfully, but I do think there’s increasingly a feeling that you have to be on one “team” or the other as a Catholic. And I’m not playing for a team, I’m just trying to be faithful.
mrs cracker, I agree…
“For if one says, ‘Certainly, I am of Paul,’ while another says, ‘I am of Apollo,’ are you not men? But what is Apollo, and what is Paul?”
If, anything, we are “of Christ.”
I was thinking of that same verse in scripture also, Deacon Edward. Thank you & God bless you.
Schneider has a way of putting bees in Chapp’s bonnets every time.
Chapp gets in a stew and pickle over them and manages to keep on his hat! Best of both worlds!
I find Schneider helpful in alerting one to the “feeling of the times” and this is how I read some of his material as that is available to me, or listen to his talks.
I suspect he writes for Pope Francis to hear and consider. Also I believe he wants to sensitize one, that “loose” things, novelties, grandiose adduction or ecstatic meditation, etc., that append in the thoughts of recognized theologians, can be very misleading often not imparting any substantive teaching.
He attends to common subjects subsisting in diverse environment “popular” or otherwise and he deals with them “topically” without feeling he has to be too structured and without trying to impose tidy arrangements on the reader whether faithful or not.
It’s an eclectic style and informal and can be very effective; many groups live their talks and studies in this kind of un-conditioned condition.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/12/17/credo-is-a-weaponized-response-to-vatican-ii-and-the-ccc/
Classic.
For all those interested in a very scholarly criticism of Dr. Chapp’s hero Hans urs von Balthasar, and whether or not he taught a form of universal salvation or strongly implies such, Dr. Ralph Martin devotes a substantive chapter to von Balthasar in his 2012 book “Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization.”
Martin also follows up on his book in a 2014 essay available free online and entitled “Balthasar and Salvation: What Does He Really Teach?” (In some recent interviews, Martin has maintained basically the same conclusion he arrives at in his 2012 book and his follow-up essay.) In the essay, Martin responds to some serious critics of his position, and in both his book and essay, he sets forth very compelling arguments that line up much more closely with the very few comments about von Balthasar’s position/s by Bishop Schneider that Chapp and his sycophants intentionally mischaracterize via numerous straw man arguments to unjustly attack Bishop Schneider.
Next consider an absurdly false claim made by one of Chapp’s sycophants in this combox: “I think, however, that he [Bp. Schneider] departs from Baroque Catholicism in his claim that an ecumenical council such as Vatican II can contain doctrinal errors.”
Because representing things truthfully is of prime importance, take a look at what Bishop Schneider actually writes in his book via some questions and answers:
“Is a particular council or synod infallible in its teaching?”
“No. However, its decrees could be made universally binding by the express declaration of the pope.”
“Are the teachings of an ecumenical council infallible?”
“Like the Supreme Pontiff’s ‘ex cathedra’ statements, an ecumenical council is infallible in its approved and solemn dogmatic definitions. Its other statements, disciplinary norms, pastoral provisions, etc. are beyond the scope of infallibility, and subject to possible future revision.”
“Why is Vatican II the clearest example of an ecumenical council emitting non-infallible teachings?”
“Because it was not convoked to infallibly pronounce new dogmas or propose definitive teachings, but to offer a pastoral explanation of the truths of the Faith, as asserted by Pope John XXIII: ‘[This Council’s] magisterium is predominantly pastoral in character,’ and ‘the salient point of this Council is not a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church.’ Pope Paul VI was also very clear in stating: ‘Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.'”
“What was the key difference between Vatican II and all previous ecumenical councils?”
“The previous ecumenical councils formulated the doctrine of faith and morals in articles with the clearest possible assertions, and in concise canons with anathemas, to guarantee an unambiguous understanding of the true doctrine and protect the faithful from heretical influences within or outside the Church. Vatican II, however, chose not to do this.” (see pp. 97-98).
It is also important to add the following from the Code of Canon Law:
Subsection 3 of Canon 749 reads as follows: “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.”
Note the clarity (so much for the personal attack alleging the Bishop is guilty of sloppiness) of Bishop Schneider’s responses that reference for support of what he explains both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, the primary popes of Vatican II.
So honest readers of Catholic World Report, will you accept the flawed rantings of Drs. Chapp and Fastiggi, or will you check for yourselves the actual statements of Bishop Schneider regarding the reality of what Vatican II actually was and how it should be honestly viewed as set forth by Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, and Bishop Schneider?
The theology, honesty, and clarity come from what Bishop Schneider actually writes; not how it is spun by disingenuous critics. On the other hand, demonstrated sloppiness, dishonesty, and flawed theology emanate from the two aforementioned doctors.
Dear Tom,
Thank you for your comments. I quoted Bellarmine accurately. My point was that Bishop Schneider’s critique of Vatican II does not harmonize with what Bellarmine and other Baroque Catholic theologians (e.g Suárez) teach about the protection of ecumenical councils from doctrinal error.
Your other citations seem to suggest that Catholics are only bound to adhere to infallible teachings of popes or ecumenical councils. This, though, is error 22 of Pius IX’s 1864 Syllabus of Errors (Denz.-H, 2922).
With regard to the doctrinal authority of Vatican II, this is what Paul VI said in his General Audience of Jan. 12, 1966 (when quoted more fully):
“The question is here asked: what type of authority, what theological qualification did the Council wish to attribute to its teaching, knowing that it had avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium. And the response is found by recalling the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: Given the pastoral character of the Council, it has avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas marked by the note of infallibility; but, nevertheless, it has provided its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium (del supremo magistero ordinario); this teaching authority (magistero), which is ordinary and thus clearly authentic, must be received in a docile and sincere manner by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and the purposes of each of the documents.” (Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, n. IV [1966] Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana).
In his Oct. 11, 1976 letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, Paul VI repeated the need for Catholics to adhere to the teachings of Vatican II even if they were not set forth infallibly:
“With the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the popes and the ecumenical councils have acted in this common way. And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did. Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that we enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk. 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with us of this.
Again, you cannot appeal to the distinction between what is dogmatic and what is pastoral to accept certain texts of this Council and to refuse others. Indeed, not everything in the Council requires an assent of the same nature: only what is affirmed by definitive acts as an object of faith or as a truth related to faith requires an assent of faith. But the rest also forms part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which each member of the faithful owes a confident acceptance and a sincere application.”
Does Bishop Schneider’s attitude towards Vatican II harmonize with these statements of Paul VI?
It becomes unbearable when one gives too much time and energy to observing and condemning the activities of the evil one and his collaborators (whether deliberate or duped collaborators), even if this observing and condemning is done in good faith with the aim of trying to offer a lifeline to some to escape the way of hell.
For the sake of one’s spiritual sanity, one needs also (and mostly) to contemplate and visualize the activities of Heaven and of Saints who are both on earth and in Heaven.
The Apostle Paul: “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.” (1 Corinthians 15:19)
While Larry Chapp’s last article on Bishop Schneider made some good points concerning the equality of all men according to nature, this time he fires his blunderbuss in defence of the wrong people.
Pius XII certainly did have de Lubac in mind. In Mystici Corporis he wrote, “here is on the other hand a false mysticism creeping in, which, in its attempt to eliminate the immovable frontier that separates creatures from their Creator, falsifies the Sacred Scriptures”. De Lubac got the sack after this. As the article points out, his mistakes were not the same as full-blown Arianism. This does not mean they were “OK”.
Pius XII wished to preserve the achievements of the modern Catholic Church, the Tridentine Church in which we live. The previous four hundred years were not “sclerotic”, as this article states. The abandonment of true Thomism was not achieved by “convincing” anyone, but by Paul VI’s brutal steamroller, which removed the Church’s intellectual defenders from the errors currently troubling it far from all positions of influence. The great Fr Garrigou La Grange had foreseen all of this. He concluded in 1946 that the Nouvelle Theologie would end in a distortion of Catholic doctrine and the convergence of all religions.
What “converged” during Vatican II and afterwards were two means of attaining these unfortunate goals. One was the progressive line typified in the ideas of de Chardin and Rahner. But there was another, “conservative” approach, that of von Balthasar and de Lubac who, with Joseph Ratzinger, founded Communio. In common with the false mysticism alluded to by Pius XII, there was misinterpretation of Patrology and contempt for the Thomist revival.
Now it seems that defending of the letter of Vatican II (which is flawed in various places and needs interpreting by the Church of the future), as opposed to its “spirit”, is obliging conservatives to also defend to the death the views of von Balthasar and de Lubac. This is a disastrous approach, because their views were worse than anything the “spirit” of the Council dreamt up.
Von Balthasar wrote a gushing introduction for the occultist Tomberg’s Meditations on the Tarot. This book contains many defences of Gnosticism, esoterism, magic, and characters associated with these practices, including Blavatsky, even satanists. Von Balthasar’s preface es self-explanatory. It should make all conservatives reconsider.
C. S. Lewis has been taken up as the unofficial Church Doctor of this mysticism. No doubt this is due to his own idea of mysticism, which he attributed to Jacob Boehme, a false mystic if ever there was one, but one Conservatives will eventually have to line up to defend with their blood if they continue in this line. In Just Christianity, Lewis’ approach is not quite Christian, for he tries to separate “Christianity” from the institutions of the Church. But the Christian religion was established as Christ’s mystical body, not merelty a code or belief system; its institution is inseparable from the faith. Salvation does depend on being in it (at least as an invisible member, as Bishop Schneider well knows). For Catholicism, all grace comes through the Church, and even those in other religions are not saved by those, but by the Church.
Both Conservatism and Liberalism are hopelessly flawed. Schneider is heading the right way, by all accounts.
We have read about Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved“ since Catholic World Report was a monthly print magazine. I regularly pray, “Lead all souls into heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.”
Yet I remain mindful of the words of Our Lord, “[W]oe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.” Matthew 26:24.
While an interesting theological discussion, the Final Judgment is not our role. Our prayers are not wasted when offered in union with the intentions of Christ on the Cross.
I am going to make one last comment and then I am done here. I thank everyone on here, even my fiercest critics, for taking the time to engage this topic. And some of the responses are very long and detailed which bespeaks a fundamental concern for the importance of the topic. I really only want to address two or three issues.
First, I want to defend myself against the charge that I am deliberately misrepresenting the book because I have some kind of vendetta against the bishop. I do not have a vendetta against him and the simple reality is I just fundamentally disagree with his theology and that of many other traditionalists. I have no more of a vendetta against him than I do for Cardinal McElroy who I have criticized in these pages on numerous occasions. Indeed, far more often than I have engaged Bishop Schneider! I simply disagree, and profoundly so, with the theology of Cardinal McElroy. But both McElroy and Schneider have tossed their hats into the arena of public discourse and therefore to accuse those of us who engage them in critical ways of having a vendetta against them are confusing strong disagreement with personal animus. Bishop Schneider wrote a book. I was asked to review it. I did so and found it severely lacking and said so. I have written books and those books were reviewed publicly with both positive and negative responses. But I never thought for one second that the negative reviews were the result of personal animus. Rather, this is just how academic exchange happens.
Second, many on here do however accuse me of misrepresenting the bishops’s views on salvation. And they have then gone on at great length to show how the bishop’s words can be interpreted in orthodox ways. I do not disagree with the idea that they can be. Which is why I never accuse Bishop Schneider of teaching doctrinal error. I say he comes close to it but I stop short of a direct accusation precisely because his short explanations are slippery. And therein lies the problem, Many of my interlocutors on here have done a lot of theological heavy lifting to show how the good bishop’s words can be taken in an orthodox manner. But I was not tasked with writing an article on the topic of salvation. I was reviewing *this* book and this book does not engage in such nuanced exposition of the topic. When asked if contemporary Jews need to have explicit faith in Jesus Christ to be saved, Schneider says “Yes, like all men.” He does not nuance that in any way even if to just say parenthetically (“Of course this requires further explanation too complex to discuss here”) or something like that. And later on he says you have to “belong” to the Catholic Church to be saved. And once again, there is no nuance, however brief, about the need to consider the “baptism of desire” or other such factors in order to make it clear that he is not claiming that one must be an explicitly water baptized Catholic to be saved.
Therefore, what my critique hinges upon is that this book is being put forward as a simple, understandable, no nonsense exposition of the basic truths of the faith for all manner of different Catholics. And since most of those simple readers will not have the theological education that many in this combox seem to have, and will not be able to make such fine and neat distinctions, when they read this book will have a decided tendency to read it in a very simple and straightforward manner. Thus, when Schneider says you have to have explicit faith in Jesus and you have to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved — statements he makes without caveats or nuance — I am convinced that the average Catholic will take it in precisely the ways I am criticizing.
I never accused Bishop Schneider of explicitly teaching doctrinal error on these points. I was very careful and deliberate in that choice. But he does come close to it in the sense that he had to know how his words would be understood by many simple readers and yet he did nothing to make sure his words were not open to such misunderstandings. I think that matters, and it indicates I think that he would rather have Catholics believe that you have to be a water baptized Catholic to be saved than to believe in religious relativism. So he just lets it stand as is without further nuance. I think this is unwise.
Third, I think the same is true with regard to the title of the book. Some on here have pointed to the fact that Bishop Schneider tells us up from that he is using the word “heresy” very expansively and loosely to mean theologies that he thinks are doctrinally in error or that come close to it. So why then did he not title the book more accurately as “Flee from Error” or “Flee from Doctrinal Error”?? Why choose the word heresy which is inherently inflammatory in its real sense? I think it is because deep down he thinks the theologies he is criticizing are heretical in the narrow sense but knows that would involve the theological condemnation of several modern popes and he does not want to cross that bridge. So he is using the word in a manner that allows him to press his case by making it seem all of these theologies are “heresy adjacent” while not explicitly calling them heretical. It gives him plausible deniability if challenged. And by the way, I never said in my review that Schneider is accusing people of heresy in the narrow sense so I do not know why people are raising this point as an objection to my review when I never made an issue of it. I deliberately said that Schneider accuses his targets of being in doctrinal error.
Finally, I understand that there are many on here who do not like Balthasar’s theology concerning our hope for salvation. I would suggest however that his critics actually read more than “Dare We Hope” to get a sense of why he is considered one of the great defenders of Catholic faith and why so many, including JPII and Benedict, found his theology profound. One does not have to agree with everything a theologian says in order to appreciate him. I do not agree with Balthasar on several points, but continue to go back to him again and again as one of the most spiritually fruitful theologians of modern times. Someone on here has pointed out that Balthasar wrote a favorable preface to a book on Tarot cards. They go on from this to imply that Balthasar must therefore have been sympathetic to the gnostic occultist ramblings of the book. But that is just not true and Balthasar’s entire theological corpus is, in reality, a retrieval of the anti gnostic theology of Irenaeus. But what the heck, let’s just smear the guy anyway with all manner of falsehoods just because we don’t agree with him that we can hope for the salvation of all.
And I do not care what Ralph Martin says. I have reviewed his writings on Balthasar and find them equally tendentious and unfair. And since when did Ralph Martin, the charismatic who gets a new “word of knowledge” every morning with his granola, become such a guiding theological light for traditionalists? But here is the point: I do not care if many folks do not like the theology of Balthasar on this topic. That is your right and it is a topic open to many differing opinions. I have spent my whole life in such theological debates and I welcome them. They are a healthy sign of life in the Church.
But my criticism in the review is to defend the Balthasarian view only insofar as to point out that it is one possible view among many that the Church allows us to adopt. In fact, the German title of Balthasar’s book is not “Dare We Hope” but “Was durfen wir hoffen?” which literally means, “what are we allowed to hope for?” or “What may we hope for?”. In other words, Balthasar is saying, “What may we hope for from within the boundaries of orthodoxy on this matter?” In the book he explicitly rejects apokatastasis and universalism and on dogmatic grounds. He also affirms the reality of hell, its eternity, and rejects the notion of post mortem conversions, again on dogmatic grounds. He was a loyal son of the Church and always submitted his writings in humility to the judgement of the magisterium.
Therefore, my complaint about Schneider’s book is that he just dismisses all of the complexity surrounding the topic and about Balthasar in general, as “doctrinal error” since Balthasar thinks it is possible to pray for the salvation of all with the expectation that it might just happen. You can disagree with that all you want but it is not a doctrinal error to hold such a hope. But Schneider says it is. And he is wrong. And it is also uncharitable of the bishop to make such a charge on the basis that he “suspects” that Balthasar was a closet universalist and/or that many have taken his theology in universalist directions. Alright then … of some have done so then tell them that they are in error. But do not accuse Balthasar of teaching universalism, which he did not. Especially since Balthasar explicitly condemns universalism.
Once again, this is Bishop Schneider accusing someone of doctrinal error when in point of fact all it is is Schneider disagreeing with Balthasar’s theology. But it is a mark of just how nasty traditionalism has become when such legitimate theological disagreements get turned into accusations of doctrinal error against orthodox theologians simply because they do not follow a strict, old fashioned, scholastic template.
And there is hypocrisy in this. I said above that someone on here has dismissed Balthasar because of the preface he wrote to a book on Tarot cards. This person then goes on to champion the theology of Garigou Lagrange. But not a word about Lagrange’s allegiance to Marshall Petain and the Nazi appeasing Vichy regime simply because Lagrange hoped Vichy would restore the French monarchy and return the Church to her rightful status in France by that monarch. I actually like Lagrange very much and have read many of his works. And I do not hold his politics against him. Likewise, I do not hold it against Balthasar that he seems to have a fascination with the topic of the human subconscious and its spiritual underpinnings which led him to be mildly interested in Jungian psychology and related topics. But none of that colors his main theological work and in fact, as noted above, everything he wrote was a robust defense of an anti-gnostic understanding of the Incarnation.
It has been an interesting conversation folks. Some of it bitter. But we are in a time of “testing” in our Church today due to the failures of the current papacy to have the Roman center “hold”. And the overarching point of my review, as I stated clearly, is that ressourcement theologians are not the enemies of orthodoxy or tradition. And that it is a grave mistake for traditionalists to not see this. We can have a lot of disagreements within the parameters of orthodoxy and I am not calling for all disputes to be set aside. Far from it! But the current crisis we are facing requires a more sober analysis of who are friends and enemies are than Bishop Schneider’s book would lead us to believe.
I apologize for all typos if any. I am not going to proofread this tome and I am headed to Mass. Peace and blessings to all
I know it’s the end of your conversation Mr Chapp but the reference to a charismatic Caththolic getting words of knowledge with their morning granola reminded me that someone recently predicted the Church of the future
will look more charismatic and more like the
TLM. Which should be interesting.
God bless🙏
Thanks for the Reply Dr. Chapp. Meditations on the Tarot, by Tomberg, is not a book about Tarot cards. It an outrageous, notorious, and long-winded defence of the occult, gnosticism, and worse. It praises a galaxy of names from the world of occultism, magic, masonry, theosophy and even satanism. Von Balthazar’s preface was also long and thoroughly cognizant of the material in Tomberg’s book. The preface itself contains errors. One could go through von Balthazar’s other works for dangerous errors. This was perhaps the most blatant of them.
It’s not comparable to prudential mistakes of a theologian with regard to the political status quo. I don’t think you’ll find any defence of divine right monarchy (which began in the early Enlightenment) or fascism in Garrigou La Grange’s writings.
The “Letter of Vatican II” ship position is firmly chained to von Balthazar and de Lubac now. But many believe the “letter” is flawed in a number of places and will be clarified by the Church because there is no agreement on what it means (to say the least). The Church will act quickly once it regains its presence of mind, because those two authors and the school associated with them is sinking fast, even as the defenders of the “Letter” clamber aboard.
It seems fairly clear that Judas didn’t make it to Heaven. Jesus said that woe to him who betrays the Son of Man. It would be better for him if he had never been born.(cf.Matthew 26:24) Therefore, logically it follows that there is no reasonable hope that ALL may be saved.
Citing the Fatima prayer “… and lead ALL souls to Heaven” as justification for the idea that there is a reasonable hope that all might be saved seems disingenuous.
If memory serves me correctly,it was during the apparitions of Fatima that the children were shown a vision of Hell in which is described human forms in torment. Our Lady said , “You see Hell, where poor sinners go. In order to save souls God has established devotion to my Immaculate Heart…”
My church doesn’t teach that receiving on the tongue is the best way to receive Holy Communion.
Schneider opines that there are four logical consequences that follow from receiving communion in the hand. I didn’t hear the fourth and for the third, he repeated what he had said for the first – lack of respect: “This form [in the hand] is a minimum of gestures of adoration. We have to give the maximum.” Tell us which way is more respectful for yourself, bishop, but not for me.
The speaker …. about the particles that fall. 1) I have examined the hosts almost every day for three years in two different churches and have never seen a particle in my hand. I daily marvel at how well they are made. At St. Isidore in Yuba City, California the supplier is Cavanah of Greenville R.I. Today I asked the sacristan if they shake them when taking them out of the jar. No need. They never observe particles. On Sunday I asked the pastor if he observes particles in the sacred vessels. “No. And no need to clean them, but I do so anyway.”
Being a lector for daily Mass, I am often one of the first to receive, and father puts a quarter of the broken bigger host in my hand. Even though it is not smooth, I have never noticed a particle. The God that I know and worship, is not in the least offended if a particle accidently falls. We can’t offend Him unless we know we are doing so. I do offend when the King comes to visit, and my “home” is far less than immaculate.
2) People “stealing” hosts to profane them. Yes, it happens. But if one wished to do that, it would be far easier to do so receiving on the tongue, no? Doing this, one could return to the pew (or leave the church), cover one’s mouth with a handkerchief and spit out the host with no one noticing. At the Star of the Sea in Oregon, a lady returned to her pew holding the host. I followed her and told her to consume it. A year ago, here at St. Joseph’s, I saw that a boy did not consume the host in front and walked down the side aisle. A sacristan had also seen this and confronted the teenage at the back of the church. Please supply specific evidence that stealing hosts has increased in many countries and that it is the result of receiving in the hand.
The bishop was wrong and you for hosting him Fr. Pacwa. But it’s not the worst error that one connected with EWTN has done. Why were the comments turned off? Was it because there would be more comments like mine? Bishop Schneider did not make it clear that his opinions were his own, and not those of the Catholic Church. Listeners might think that he represents the Catholic Church in his teaching. He does not. Schneider and I have obviously had a different education, belong to different Catholic churches, and even might worship a different God.
Receiving on the tongue became routine after doing so for eighty years – always the same without due preparation. During Covid it was either receive in the hand or go without. It was a “happy fault.” Now, when I tenderly pick up “the baby Jesus” I recall how Mary did the same. She revealed to Maria de Agreda that she kissed her baby, but to do so on His face she asked for permission.
Now before I invite Jesus into the garden (my heart) I water the flowers (virtues) and work at pulling out the weeds (vices) (as my professor Teresa of Avila teaches).
Respectfully
Ed Kelly
THE QUEST FOR HOLY GRAIL OF SACRED CONTINUITY
The famous Holy Grail legend involves a chronically wounded, ailing, hobbled king, and knights in search of what will heal the king’s wound.
I think both Professor Larry Chapp and Bishop Athanasius Schneider would agree that the Church is presently, to some degree, wounded, ailing, and hobbled.
Bishop Schneider sees some doctrines being taught by Church authorities that are inconsistent with longstanding Sacred Tradition, and he sees that as a cause of the sufferings of the Church at present.
Prof. Chapp is, I think, acknowledging that there is a substantial degree of doctrinal discontinuity between the pre-Vatican II magisterium and the post-Vatican II magisterium.
I think that Prof. Chapp acknowledges this significant doctrinal discontinuity with his statement in this article that Church authorities were, in the 300 years before Vatican II, wrongly condemning some teachings because those authorities were afflicted by a “sclerotic constriction of theological orthodoxy.”
Given that Prof. Chapp and his like thinkers feel justified in being supporters of this doctrinal discontinuity on the Vatican II & post-Vatican II side, why isn’t it just as legitimate for Bishop Schneider and his like thinkers to feel justified in being supporters of this doctrinal discontinuity on the pre-Vatican II side?
Given that there are popes, saints, and famous theologians on both sides of this matter, shouldn’t Catholics have some sort of natural, canonical, and divine right as a Catholics to choose either side, as long they propose and discuss these matters in public in sober, respectful way?
Didn’t Pope Benedict XVI acknowledge such a right when he lifted the excommunications of the bishops of the SSPX?
Prof. Chapp writes in this article, discussing the decades before the Vatican II Council: “Therefore, theologians like de Lubac…were thoroughly JUSTIFIED on theological grounds for PUSHING BACK against this sclerotic constriction of theological orthodoxy.”
If Lubac and his like thinkers were justified in “pushing back” against the Church’s magisterium before the Council, why is it such a terrible crime for Bishop Scheider and his like thinkers to now engage in “pushing back” against the post-Vatican Council magisterium?
After all, might not Church might very well change its mind again, just as it did after the election of John XXIII to the papacy?
Couldn’t some future pope, council, or synod develop a theology (like a sort of Holy Grail) that completely and credibly eliminates all discontinuity, confusion, and contention in the Church’s doctrinal history?
Aren’t these fair questions?
Like the wounded king in the Holy Grail legend, the Church is suffering. Like that wounded king, the Church needs healing.
Why can’t devout Catholics like Professor Larry Chapp and Bishop Schneider sit down together and work for this healing?