Bishop Schneider: Martin Luther is Not a Witness to the Gospel (on Vatican Document)

Catholic Family News ^ | 2/17/17 | John Vennari

[marshmallow]

CFN Intro: On February 16 Rorate Caeli and Adelante la Fe posted a comprehensive video interview with the well-known conservative Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakistan that runs about 48 minutes. The interview covered a myriad of topics, but CFN is spotlighting Bishop Schneider’s magnificent response regarding a recent Vatican document that names the heresiarch Martin Luther as a witness to the Gospel. We know you will benefit from Bishop Schneider’s forthright commentary (JV).

Question: A controversial document from the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity equates Saint Ignatius of Loyola and Saint Francis of Borgia with Martin Luther, calling him a witness to the Gospel. We as Catholics are aware of the serious damage Luther caused to the Church, what should be our position if our ecclesiastical authorities invite us to consider Luther as a witness to the Gospel?

Bishop Schneider. Well, this document is issued by the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, this Council has no doctrinal authority. We have no need to take seriously this document, which is objectively wrong. It is against the evidence. We cannot put on the same level Luther and Saint Ignatius. This is a contradiction. Luther cannot be a witness to the Gospel, and the Church will not ask us to accept this because it is only a statement from the pontifical Council so it need not be taken seriously.

When we examine in sincerity and honesty Luther and his work, he caused immense damage to the entire Christianity. He divided Christianity. He is not a witness of the Gospel.He denied almost the entire previous tradition from 1500 years. This cannot be a witness to the Gospel who puts himself as the authority to interpret the Word of God. This is against the Faith which Christ gave us and which the apostles transmitted to us in a basic manner – to reject the Holy Tradition as really a fount of revelation and the entire thinking of the Church which the Holy Ghost guided in the dogmatic and doctrinal issues, and this is the case. Luther did not reject [merely] the disciplinary tradition, the pastoral tradition, but he rejected the fundamental doctrinal tradition of the Church. And the doctrinal tradition of the Church is the Gospel. This is Gospel. And when I reject the substance of the entire Apostolic and immutable constant tradition of the Church (in the case of Luther, 1500 years) I am rejecting the Gospel.

For example, in Kazakistan where I am living there was a holy martyr priest who was beatified, Blessed Oleksa Zarytsky whom my parents had known personally, he blessed me when I was a child. This priest was from the Byzantine Rite, but Catholic. And the Communist asked them not to deny Christ, not to deny the sacraments, but only to deny one point of the Gospel: the primacy of Peter, the papacy (which is in the Gospel). Blessed Oleksa told the tribunal, “If I would deny this point on the primacy of Peter, I will deny entire Gospel. I will be the anti-witness of the entire Gospel.” This is in our time, he died in 1963.

So, in the case of Luther, he rejected the heart of the Church, which is the Eucharist. He rejected the sacrificial essence and substance of the Eucharistic celebration, and this is the heart of the Church – the Eucharist. This is just one example. So how could one be a witness to the Gospel when he rejects the heart of the Church, the sacrificial nature of the Mass itself?

Luther called the Mass an invention of the devil, a blasphemy. He called the papacy an invention of satan. How can we name this person as a witness? When we do this, we don’t believe in the sacrificial character of the Mass, or we don’t believe in the primacy of Peter, or we don’t believe in the Catholic manner of the unchangeable doctrinal tradition of the Church, or we are committing a lie and playing only a game of political correctness. This is very dishonest. Or we have an intellectual position of relativism, that truth and untruth are the same. And so in this case when this document from the Pontifical Council states that Luther is more or less the same level as St. Ignatius, they are putting truth and error at the same level. This is the position of philosophical and theological relativism. And this is very dangerous.

So I think we need not take this document seriously, because it has no doctrinal authority. It is in itself contradictory and completely wrong. This document will not last for many years. Because the Church is more powerful, the unchangeable truth is more powerful than this weak and very wrong document. It will pass away with time.

[daniel1212]

Is there not in the scriptures that there is a “mighty cloud of witnesses” ?

Yup, contextually referring to those examples of faith who went to Heaven, but which does not even hint that such are to be objects of prayer to Heaven. And if any book would teach that, it would bve Hebrews. Instead it clearly tells believers to look to Jesus, who is the only Heavenly intercessor btwn man and God, and is uniquely qualified to be so:

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us," "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:1-2)

"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." (Hebrews 4:14-16)

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus," "By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;" (Hebrews 10:19-20)

"Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Hebrews 7:25)

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (1 Timothy 2:5)

[daniel1212]

Please cite the Scripture that requires Mary to pray on our behalf.

Wedding if Cana I wouldn't be hating on His mother.

Mary was not asked nor required to intercede anywhere, but in Jn. 2 she did what believers are to do. Meanwhile, just how do you rationalize construing rejecting the premise that Mary is required to pray for believers to Christ to be "hating on His mother?!"

Meanwhile, even if she is (and she may be) this simply does not translate into praying to her, and the exaltation that is part of, which is the real issue.

[daniel1212]

Before Jesus performed the miracle Mary instructed the servants to “do whatever He tells you.” It is significant that these are her last words in Scripture.

Indeed, and NOWHERE did He or any believer teach or example praying to anyone else in Heaven but God, and distinctly instructed, "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven," (Matthew 6:9) not "our Mother in Heaven.

And by His Spirit the Lord also warns about thinjking of mortals "above what is written," (`Co. 4:6) which Catholics exceedingly do with their Mary .

One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

Cathsshould only do (and I should do more of) what Mary and every believer in Scripture did in praying to Heaven, which was to pray directly to the Lord, not saintly secretaries. But they must truly become born again for that.

Instead, Caths basically say,

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

[ealgeone]

Please cite Scripture that requires your friends and family to pray for you.

For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, Col 1:9

I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers Eph 1:16

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and profound insight, Phil 1:9

o this end, we always pray for you, that our God will count you worthy of His calling, and that He will powerfully fulfill your every good desire and work of faith, 1 Thes 1:11

Now...show us where we are to pray to Mary.

[ealgeone]

Are you unaware that the prayers to Mary are simply asking here to pray for us, as she is in the presence of Christ?

Sadly, it's way more than that.

The following quotes are by Louis de Montfort.

This is but a mere drop in the bucket of the many, many examples of how catholics do more than "just ask her to pray for us."

“If I were asked by someone seeking to honor our Lady, ‘What does genuine devotion to her involve?’ I would answer briefly that it consists in a full appreciation of the privileges and dignity of our Lady; in expressing our gratitude for her goodness to us; in zealously promoting devotion to her; in constantly appealing for her help; in being completely dependent on her; and in placing firm reliance and loving confidence in her motherly goodness.

“In these latter times Mary must shine forth more than ever in mercy, power and grace; in mercy, to bring back and welcome lovingly the poor sinners and wanderers who are to be converted and return to the Catholic Church; in power, to combat the enemies of God who will rise up menacingly to seduce and crush by promises and threats all those who oppose them; finally, she must shine forth in grace to inspire and support the valiant soldiers and loyal servants of Jesus Christ who are fighting for his cause.”

“St. Thomas assures us that, following the order established by his divine Wisdom, God ordinarily imparts his graces to men through Mary. Therefore, if we wish to go to him, seeking union with him, we must use the same means which he used in coming down from heaven to assume our human nature and to impart his graces to us. That means was a complete dependence on Mary his Mother, which is true devotion to her.”

”http://www.ncregister.com/blog/joseph-pronechen/on-his-300th-anniveresary-21-things-louis-de-montfort-said-about-the-r1

[daniel1212]

You will note that Mary was “Assumed”, not of her own power.

Which is another fable that is made into doctrine. As even Ratzinger stated,

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative... Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg¦had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the "apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

But if you conceive of "tradition" as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent "remembering" (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) [yet "grasp" is not the same as "remembering"] can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down [in amorphous, unrecorded, unverifiable "tradition"] in the original Word," J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59. More by God's grace. .

[ealgeone]

You are wasting your time....when you pray to Mary or rely upon Mary in lieu of Christ.

[ealgeone]

The wedding in Cana has nothing to do with asking Mary to pray on our behalf. Nothing.

[ealgeone]

Before Jesus performed the miracle Mary instructed the servants to “do whatever He tells you.”

It is significant that these are her last words in Scripture.

And not once did He ever say pray to mom or rely upon her.

He did however teach His disciples to pray and that prayer was addressed to His Father.

[G Larry]

Give up on the mind reading.

You fail.

[G Larry]

So, you can’t answer the question?

Were Moses and Elijah “dead” when they appeared with Christ in front of Peter?

[G Larry]

Why do you ignore the fact that we are asking Mary to Pray to Jesus on our behalf?

[boatbums]

Why do you do so?

Do you think I'm throwing stones from a glass house by saying:

And shouldn't y'all know by now that those who differ with your doctrines have reasons as well? Face it, threads like this are intentionally provocative towards non-Catholic Christians in their not-so-subtle condemnation of those deemed "children of Martin Luther". Trash him, trash us, right? I'd say expect to be challenged and don't whine when it happens.

Nope...no glass house for me. I don't whine and I expect for my beliefs to be challenged and I am more than happy to back up both what and WHY I believe something. If that is what you call someone "who lives in a glass house throwing stones", then you will have to point out how that applies. Otherwise, I think you don't really understand the adage.

[ebb tide]

Yes, I do think you are throwing stones.

[ealgeone]

We need to keep in mind some Catholics have the same thin skin as Obama. They can’t handle the debate and will be the first to resort to either profanity or name calling.

[BlueDragon]

Yes, I do think you are throwing stones.

Poor wittle baby. The stones thrown from your own glass house were tossed back --Rejected-- as the errors which they are.

So sad, too bad.

[ebb tide]

You’re a riot. Where have I resorted to profanity or name-calling on this, or any other, thread?

And who is calling others a “poor white baby”?

“Birds of a feather...”

[boatbums]

Seeing as the “throwing stones” adage is the same thing as calling someone a hypocrite, please explain what I said that you think was hypocritical. And be sure to go back to the post I made that prompted your criticism.

[boatbums]

Funny how some simply cannot see their own hypocrisy.

[BlueDragon]

Give up on the mind reading.

You fail.

There was no mind reading on the part of Zuriel in comment #54 that was visible...

What he did do was to take a specific word order usage (which does indeed carry/contain theological implications) and then apply the same name-place-switching that transpired in his primary example to the secondary example.

There was no mind reading, there.

But WE WOULD HAVE TO to (and DO HAVE TO) engage in more than just a little bit of "mind reading" in order to see what it is you are driving at.

Guess what? Speaking for many of us here in this, though perhaps not specifically Zuriel, yet many others for more certain, -- the argument you are making through use of short-hand references ---We've seen it already. Nauseating numbers of times.

If we had not seen it already, so far, on this thread, if just going by your own presentation of it (your own argument!) it is doubtful anyone would much at all understand what you referred to somehow supported what you have otherwise been asserting concerning prayers to "Mary" (and/or anyone else other than God Himself).

There was no failure on Zuriel's part, today. Better check that action, mister. You [figuratively] ran your own argument up on a curb.