Francis cracks down on “Bp.” Athanasius Schneider, Must reduce his traveling [Catholic Caucus]

Francis cracks down on “Bp.” Athanasius Schneider, orders him to reduce his traveling abroad

We all know that “Pope” Francis is a big friend of migration, but even he has his limits when it comes to tolerating persistent moving about.

The expert Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti reports on his blog today that “Bishop” Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary of the diocese of Maria Santissima in Astana, Kazakhstan, has “received a verbal [i.e. oral] injunction from the Vatican asking him to reduce the frequency of his trips abroad” (“Il Papa Impone ‘i Domiciliari’ al Vescovo Athanasius Schneider”, Stilum Curiae, Nov. 6, 2018; Google translation). The person who communicated this restriction to him was “Abp.” Francis Chullikatt, the Vatican’s nuncio to Kazakhstan.

The curtailment had been issued by “Cardinal” Pietro Parolin, who, as the Vatican Secretary of State, acts on Francis’ behalf. Apparently someone in the Vatican had taken notice of the fact that Schneider spends an incredible amount of time outside of his diocese, traveling the globe from conference to conference to speak about apostasy, schism, and other problems he sees in the Vatican II Church.

According to Tosatti, because the Vatican restriction was delivered only by spoken word and not in writing, Schneider is unable to appeal the decision to the Congregation of Bishops or some ecclesiastical tribunal. No reasons were given for the sanction, which was communicated to Schneider in April of this year.

What does this mean now in practice for any trips the Kazakh auxiliary wishes to take outside his home country? Tosatti writes: “Every time he plans a trip abroad, he must inform the Nuncio.” Whether this will remain a simple notification or become in effect a request for permission will have to be seen, but it is clear that if the nuncio — or his ultimate boss — doesn’t like the frequency, the destination, or the purpose of the trips, Schneider will quickly come to experience further sanctions. In fact, he may even be ordered to take one final trip abroad — to Vatican City.

Tosatti notes that it is not known whether the nuncio has the power to forbid Schneider from leaving the country altogether. That may indeed be what will be decided eventually, considering Schneider’s track record as an outspoken critic of Francis:

•In early 2015, he urged people to “create groups of true Catholics, scholars, families, and clergy who will spread courageously the full Catholic truth, especially on the Church’s teachings on the family, on nature, and the commandments of God” in opposition to Francis’ apostate agenda

•In mid-2015, Schneider said that Francis “must one day render an account to God” and that “after his pontificate there could be judgments about his behavior”

•In late 2016, Schneider publicly backed the four “Dubia cardinals”, who had respectfully challenged Francis on some of the contents of his infernal exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which effectively downgrades adultery from a mortal sin to a petty failure to attain a heroic ideal that sometimes God desires us to commit •On Dec. 5, 2016, Schneider went on French internet television to complain about Francis’ Amoris Laetitia, basically accusing the “Pope” of being in schism with Christ •A day later, Schneider spoke in Rome at a conference sponsored by the Lepanto Foundation, at which he accused Francis of promoting the “joy of adultery” •On Dec. 31, 2017, Schneider co-signed a statement affirming truths about Holy Matrimony in conflict with Amoris Laetitia •In April of this year, Schneider spoke at a symposium entitled “Catholic Church: Where are you heading?”, in which he indirectly rebuked Francis for not fulfilling the duties of his (putative) office

For example, he has advanced the absurd and anti-Catholic idea that one can be in schism with Christ by adhering to the Pope, and that one can be in union with Christ by being in schism with the Pope. Both of these ideas are, if not outright heretical, extremely injurious to Catholic doctrine on the Papacy. Likewise, Schneider has carelessly spread falsehoods about Pope Liberius in order to make it look as though there were historical precedent for resisting a “heretical Pope” such as he knows Francis to be. These false ideas are quickly embraced by unsuspecting souls who mean to be traditional Catholics and appear to have found in Schneider their great master who will lead them in these troubled times. The damage Schneider has the potential to cause is, therefore, even greater than that of Francis in a certain sense, as Francis’ defection from the Faith is open and manifest, whereas Schneider’s de facto anti-Catholicism comes under the guise of orthodoxy and Tradition.

We must always keep before us that what matters is not the personal intentions of the adherents of the false Modernist church but the danger they objectively present. As the 19th century English priest Fr. Frederick Faber once said: “It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side” (source).

With a soft travel restriction in place now, surely the message the Vatican is intending to send to “Bp.” Schneider is this: One more wrong move, and your party is over. In September of 2013, Francis had exhorted his “bishops”: “I beg you, please, to stay among your people. Avoid the scandal of being ‘airport bishops’!”

"...aside from how sincere he may be or whatever good intentions he may have, by holding fast to the Vatican II Church as the true Catholic Church and Francis and his five predecessors as true Catholic Popes, he is doing incalculable damage to souls. This is especially evident in his attempts to squeeze traditional Catholic positions into this anti-Catholic framework.

M-m-m-H-m-m-h.

There are a number of authors active in the same hazardous practice. It seems the most dreaded thought possible is that "francis" or "Benedict XVI" could be heretical false Popes.

Maybe that is how-come this train just keeps steaming ahead leaving vast wreckage in its wake.

Reading the excerpt you posted in full context, it seems this source has the position that this Bishop is problematic because he's conservative and opposed Frances (which is good) BUT he doesn't declare Francis an anti-Pope (which makes him dangerous).

If that's the standard they need to declare someone an ally, they will walk a long way alone. Most of the clergy want to curb Francis' foolish and harmful leftist "politics over religion" approach but will never openly say he's a heretic. They just won't.

Actually, for those who are ignorant of what sedevacantists really believe rather than what the anti-sedevacantist propagandists would like others to think they believe, the quotes are not "scare tactics".

The quotation marks are based on the fact that the new Paul VI rites of ordination and episcopal consecration were changed substantially to the point where they are, at best, doubtfully valid.

So, the quotation marks are to show that it is questionable whether Bishop Athanasius is actually a bishop, not about what he may or may not have done.

Why don't you educate me. How about this, what does this mean that's different than I said?

At Novus Ordo Watch we have been very critical of Mr. Schneider because, aside from how sincere he may be or whatever good intentions he may have, by holding fast to the Vatican II Church as the true Catholic Church and Francis and his five predecessors as true Catholic Popes, he is doing incalculable damage to souls. This is especially evident in his attempts to squeeze traditional Catholic positions into this anti-Catholic framework.
[...]
The damage Schneider has the potential to cause is, therefore, even greater than that of Francis in a certain sense, as Francis’ defection from the Faith is open and manifest, whereas Schneider’s de facto anti-Catholicism comes under the guise of orthodoxy and Tradition.
[...]
We must always keep before us that what matters is not the personal intentions of the adherents of the false Modernist church but the danger they objectively present. As the 19th century English priest Fr. Frederick Faber once said: “It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side” (source).

I reiterate. They are saying he has good intentions but the fact that he hasn't disavowed the current papacy is a danger to the true church because he will make others think it's okay to do likewise. Apparently to not be a danger, he must disavow Francis (and lots of other Popes going back to Vatican II). And while he might be a good guy personally, all that really matters is the "damage" he can do by not calling Francis a heretic.

What is the subtlety I'm missing. I went to secular universities so I lack nuance.

“...And while he might be a good guy personally, all that really matters is the “damage” he can do by not calling Francis a heretic.”

I think you did get the point.

The thing about it, is that this is a very big problem. Many Vatican II Catholics are very unsure of themselves as the bad fruit of that council and the apostates who engineered it and support it unfolds.

If only large swaths of Vatican II Catholics would re-enter or enter the true Church which still exists even if there is presently not a living Pontiff. There are parishes operating under this premise and the Masses are typically extremely holy and beautiful, very much NOT the Novus Ordo (New Order) Mass.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.