MONS. SCHNEIDER: ONCE AGAIN THE FSSPX TO COMMIT SUICIDE - Non Possumus

[Michael]

TRANSCRIPTION MADE BY THE SITE "FORWARD THE FAITH"

Note: underline and comments in red, added by NP

Your Excellency Mgr Athanasius Schneider, thank you for this opportunity to have this interview for both websites, Rorate Coeli and Forward the Faith. From all of our readers, we thank you for this opportunity. Monsignor, facing the present confusion and ambiguities, and to clarify some concerns among the Catholic faithful, I would like to start with some questions.
First, recently Mgr. Fellay seems to have accepted the glove that His Excellency sent him in December when he said that it was unrealistic to expect that the situation would be perfect for signing the agreement with Rome. According to their statements there seems to be a conviction on their part to go forward whenever they are allowed to "be themselves". At this point what would you say to Monsignor Fellay and to Pope Francis as the last impulse to shake hands?
I would say in the first place that it is not a matter of an agreement, because when we talk about an agreement there are differences. But in this case, there are no differences in faith, in the Catholic faith . True insult to the SSPX: according to Ms Schneider, she has the same faith as Francis the devil of the Church, that the modernists and liberals who usurp the Catholic Hierarchy, whom the apostates and "Antichrist of Rome" (Monsignor Lefebvre dixit) . So it is rather a question of the discipline I would say in the first instance and therefore this is a pastoral question as well , which a community like the SSPX which is very evident that offers visible fruits to build the faith Catholic and transmits the integrity of the Catholic faith, the liturgy and the Christian life as practiced for several centuries.
But the problem is that this way in which they work and exist, unfortunately, does not have the recognition of the Holy See, this is a requirement for every Catholic community, an indispensable requirement to be Catholic, also having a visible canonical connection with The Chair of Peter, the Vicar of Christ . New insult: the SSPX will not really be Catholic until it joins Rome Antichrist. Monsignor: it is Rome that must return to the true Chair of Peter and it is Francis who must become and behave as Vicar of Christ. The FSSPX has forgotten the clear warnings of Monsignor Lefebvre about these lies. This is a basic requirement of any Catholic work in the world . However, due to the specific conditions that arose after the council and that still remain, the deep crisis of faith within the Church has not been possible for the SSPX to obtain the official recognition of the Church. No guilty names, eh, Monsignor?
Monsignor Lefebvre founded them in 1970, but unfortunately the recognition granted them by the Church was removed in 1975. Why? By whom? So Monsignor Lefebvre appealed against this suppression, which in my opinion was also unjust, but his appeal was rejected. And in a sense when the Holy See now grants them the recognition of their canonical status, this would be in a sense the acceptance of the appeal made by Monsignor Lefebvre in 1975 . "Finally, justice will be done to the SSPX!": An argument reiterated by this Bishop and Bishop Fellay and other chancellors. And what is the common good of the whole Church subject to the tyranny of the council sect? No, now the important thing is the assurances of the group, the rights of the congregation. Cowards! Their vocation is to fight for Christ and for the Church against the modernist sectarians who occupy Rome, not simply to defend their own corporate interests, their tranquility, their "spaces." So I think I would say the pope should be happy (We think it is, but for other reasons ...) When a large number of priests, more than 600, several hundred sisters, hundreds of seminarians and many other faithful around the world will have their official recognition to continue their good work of evangelization, of building the Church, at a time in the Which, in the whole world and especially in the Western world, we are witnessing a deep crisis of faith within the Church and a decline in Christian life . Again: through no one's fault, Monsignor? Thus, in times of crisis, we must unite all good ecclesial forces (Under the command of the demolisher François ... Wonderful perspective ... This is ... schizophrenic) and therefore I think that this plan will hopefully be reached soon ... that the work of Monsignor Lefebvre and his community, now that it has grown a lot, May be able to make their contribution to the building up of the Church , to preserve the faith and the education of the priests in a special way. What will this Bishop have inside his head?

Thank you Monsignor. The proposed formula of the personal prelature seems to be seen by many as a panacea, however, canon 297 of the Code of Canon Law clearly states that for the establishment of a personal prelature in a diocese requires the permission of the local bishop. Does your Excellency think that under this canonical form the SSPX could be implemented in dioceses where the bishop is hostile, which by the way, would be the great majority? How do you foresee this could be developed so that this agreement was not then buried in practice by these bishops, as happens to other institutes such as the FSSP that is only received by a tiny episcopal minority?
Note the Bishop's minimizing and pseudo-supernatural response: it is not essential .. it is a detail ... it was always like this ... Y You have to trust God ("you will not die") ... Well, I think this is not a very fundamental point . In practice, of course, when the code of canon law establishes this, it is a general law of the Church. The new Code is illegitimate because it is the legal expression of modernism and the spirit of Vatican II. A personal prelature or even an order of pontifical right should request the permission of the local bishop before opening his house or starting his apostolate. So it is a common practice in the Church and was also in antiquity before the council as a similar canon law , although the term prelature did not yet exist, but if it existed of pontifical right. But I think, from my point of view, that this is not a problematic issue because we must also rely on God's Providence . We can not behave in the Church as an insurance company with the assurance of a policy that this will happen in the future. We are the Church not a secular or political entity, but supernatural as well . To follow the analogy, we inform the SE that the "sinister" referred to in the policy is in full development since the fateful Vatican II, and that the duty of firefighters is to combat the fire, not make traitorous peace agreements with the Incendiaries, nor less to be put under the orders of these.
So at the present time the SSPX has many laymen and many places where they are working and where they themselves do not have enough priests, I have knowledge of this, to attend to all the places where they are already present. As far as I know, the Holy See has established that at the time the prelature is erected, the places that already exist and their houses and churches will be automatically recognized without having asked for the previous approval of the bishop . This provision (obligation to ask permission of the Ordinary to act in a diocese) would be only for future new foundations . Notice how the FSSPX mortgages its future in order to obtain its "legal corner" in the circus or Roman zoo of the various religious "sensibilities". I think that then the prelature can go to other bishops who accept it and there are bishops who will accept and those bishops who do not accept it are not eternal, they can have another successor who will accept. So we must have a more supernatural vision and confidence . So the Prelature St. Pius X must arm himself with patience and where they prevent him from going to save souls , to wait quietly - and obedient to men before God - to retire the heretic Bishop of the day who prevents him from entering and assumes a " tolerant".


Be more confident, that these existing communities of the SSPX approach the local bishops.

Yes

One of the biggest doubts in general about this possible agreement are the true intentions of Pope Francis. How can it be understood that on the one hand the Franciscans of the Immaculate One are destroyed and on the other, an agreement with the SSPX is reached? Why some yes and others no?
We can not know the intentions, we can not judge a priori the intentions of the Pope Francisco towards the SSPX. So, in general, we must assume that when the pope offers them a prelature it is because he has good intentions , it is a basic moral law. Of course, the circumstances, as you mentioned, may induce us to suppose that the intentions will not be good, but we have no guarantee, we can not say . Therefore , as I said, we must rely on the Providence of God . Another problem is the hypothetical possibility that some of the members and priests of the SSPX are fearing is that when they see that they are recognized as a prelature, the Holy See may put pressure on them or require them to abolish or change some of their identity, but in reality It would then be in them to resist and preserve their identity. So even when they say that there may be a hypothetical case, we can not see or prevent the future, but only in this hypothetical case I mean, in this extreme situation where in a future or after some years of existence the prelature the Holy Sede may ask them to change something against their identity, they must resist this, say that it is unjust and that it is opposed to what their intentions were when accepting the prelature and that it will destroy their charisma . "His charisma". So the "lefebvristas" have a "charisma" or style among many in the Church. Then they must resist and in my opinion they must say with all respect to the Holy See "they can take the prelature again, we do not need it, the most important thing is to preserve our identity for the benefit of the Church, not for our own benefit But by that of the Church. " In this hypothetical case they would have to give up the prelature and continue as they are, so they would lose nothing (except the quality of "catholic", if one has to believe what a little higher said this bishop) Identity . Put another way: first one must enter the stomach of the beast (otherwise it is not a Catholic), and if it happens that it tries to digest it to one, then one is in his right to complain and to leave, and not nothing happens.

So, now we can say that the signing of this agreement is in the hands of the SSPX? The last word, who has the last word?
The last word is of course the holy father, the pope. As far as I am aware the requirements for the SSPX to be erected as a prelature are not really too many, just the basic elements of the Catholic faith, to be Catholic in unity with the Pope . As far as I know, it is not too much that is being required . I have no complete knowledge of the current phase of affairs in Rome between the Holy See and the SSPX but according to what I have known before, it is not too much what is now being required of them . If this liberal Bishop says, yes it is too much. So maybe it depends on the pope I think, take a concrete step and offer them a specific date.

Monsignor ... Several eminent authors, such as Romanio Amerio and Gherardini, have pointed out that the problem with Vatican II - the nucleus of the discussion with the SSPX - is not only some deviated interpretations, but some of their texts, in themselves, favor the Error and confusion. Does not he think that even in conservative circles there is still a kind of conciliolatry, taboo to talk about it, trying to defend everything and with them stopping the real debate on the origin of the crisis, and then its solution?
Note the detestable "political correctness" of this response by Bishop Schneider, who is always critical of "something" in Vatican II, but who never dares to condemn it in a frank and manly way . Well I think in the first place they should understand what the Second Vatican Council was. The council was primarily, even declared by Pope John XXIII and by Paul VI repeatedly, a non-doctrinal and dogmatic pastoral council. It was the intention of the Church not to give these documents a definitive teaching. When there is no definitive teaching it means that there may be some evolution in these issues and even corrections and this is normal, it was in the past as well. For example, there was an ecumenical council that was also dogmatic in Florence in the fifteenth century and declared in a doctrinal document, not pastoral, but doctrinal, which is the subject of the sacrament of ordination. The question was whether to lay hands on the candidate or give him the instrument of the chalice, what is the moment of matter? Saint Thomas Aquinas says that the matter is given when the bishop gives the chalice and says: accipe potestatem celebrandi sacrifice missae ... "receives the power to celebrate the mass", but other theologians in the Middle Ages in the Eastern Church said that it was the Imposition of the hands of the bishop the only thing necessary. At that time the Council of Florence opted for the position of Thomas Aquinas, without naming this subject the laying on of hands and was an ecumenical council, although in fact after the council the Church allowed discussions even against this position. There were theologians and the pope said "please can you argue" even against the position of the Council of Florence in this specific matter, it was quite a discussion. And it was until four hundred years later that Pius XII in 1947 definitively established that the matter of ordination is only, only, through the imposition of the hands.
Therefore, even in Vatican II there are texts and formulas which, in a manner similar to the Council of Florence, can be changed because they are not definitive. This should create an atmosphere of discussion that even in the affairs of the Second Vatican Council is not against the authority of the Magisterium. Now, fifty or sixty years later we have a very extreme and unhealthy attitude of accepting, interpreting and looking at Vatican II and its documents almost as infallible, ex cathedra and this is not true and for this I think that just criticisms of Mons Lefebvre and the FSSPX to some expressions of the council - not to their totality, but to some - (those of the questionable 5% of Bishop Fellay) , is really an aid, it will be an aid to the Church . When the FSSPX is fully integrated as a canonical institution of the Church, they will indeed be able to officially offer the Church a good contribution to the necessary theological discussions and to deepen some aspects of the conciliation which were of a temporary nature fifty years ago. fifty years. So, in my opinion it will be helpful. Even the good criticism, the theological criticisms of the SSPX must be made, of course always with respect to the Magisterium . Do I respect the Magisterium? You know, Monsignor, that the fateful Vatican II - the greatest disaster in the history of the Catholic Church, according to Monsignor Lefebvre - does not qualify as "Magisterium of the Church". It was an ecumenical council and we must take this into account. But as I repeat, the Second Vatican Council was primarily a pastoral council.

In other matters Monsignor we have a concern. There are many priests who are against communion in the hand but for fear of their bishops and a supposed spirit of "obedience" do not dare to leave this practice. Is it possible for these priests to raise an objection to this practice? What would you say to those who doubt?
There is a document that was published with the authority of John Paul II that is called Redemptionis Sacramentum in 2004, in relation to the discipline of the sacraments. There is a rule that establishes that when the priest is aware that there is a danger of desecration of the Blessed Sacrament, he has the right not to give communion in the hand, so at least there is a norm. In this case the priest can refer to this rule in Redemptionis Sacramentum and say that giving communion in the hand usually contributes, even proven by the facts, to the loss of fragments that often fall to the floor or stick on the fingers or In the palm of the hand and that there is even the danger of stealing the holy host, which is a real danger in several places. And when the priest is aware of this, he can refuse to give communion in the hand and ask people not to do this.
It would be good for the priest to perform a catechesis to prepare the people, to make a good homily of the dangers, the practical dangers of giving communion in the hand and the other side of greatness, really of the indescribable greatness, of the Blessed Sacrament. So, as he educates people, I think that, over time, most will not receive communion in the hand. So it is a question of education, of patience, but as I said when the priest really has doubt in his conscience and is aware that there is a danger I think he can deny communion in the hand and ask nicely , He must do it with charity, perhaps speak before this person and explain with love "please also respect my conscience as a priest, I also have a conscience as a priest, and in this case I ask you not to receive it in your hand . " "Please do not make sacrilege, be a good boy and respect my conscience." Do I respect the conscience? And respect for the sacrament of Christ? It is very painful to find this practice in a large majority of churches . Well be a man and instead of whining and whining, fight against that.

A controversial document of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity equates St. Ignatius of Loyola or St. Francis of Borgia with Luther ... Martin Luther, Calvin and others, calling him "a witness of the Gospel." We as Catholics, aware of the serious damage that the heretic Luther caused to the Church, what should be our position or which way to go if our ecclesiastical authorities invite us to consider Luther as a witness of the Gospel?
Well, this document was issued by the Pontifical Council for the Unity of Christians and this Council has no doctrinal authority, therefore, we should not take this document that is objectively wrong. This is against the evidence. We can not put Luther and St. Ignatius on the same level, this is a contradiction. And a blasphemy and a heresy. Again Bishop Schneider minimizing facts and numbing consciences, and directing the "reaction" through pacifist ways, proper to cowards. Luther can not be a witness of the Gospel and the Church will not ask us to accept this because this is only a statement of the Pontifical Council so we should not take it seriously. And authority, where is it? Is he innocent in allowing that? When we examine Luther and his work with sincerity and honesty, he actually did immense damage to entire Christianity, divided Christianity, and he is not a witness to the Gospel. He denied almost all the previous 'tradition' of 1,500 years, this can not be a witness of the Gospel, who puts himself as the authority to interpret the word of God. This is against the faith that Christ gave us and that the apostles transmitted to us in a basic form. To reject the holy 'tradition' as a real source of revelation and the whole thought of the Church that the Holy Spirit directed in dogmatic and doctrinal matters. And this is the case, Luther did not reject the disciplinary tradition or pastoral tradition, but rejected the fundamental doctrinal tradition of the Church and the doctrinal tradition of the Church is the Gospel, that is the Gospel. And when I rejected the whole substance of the unchanging and constant apostolic tradition, which in the case of Luther was 1500 years, then I am rejecting the Gospel. And Vatican II that you sometimes and partly criticize but never condemn, did not do the same?
For example, in Kazakhstan where I currently live, there was a holy martyr priest who was beatified as a martyr, Father Alexi Zarinsky whom my parents personally knew and who blessed me as a child, this priest was from the Byzantine, but Catholic, And the Communists asked him not to deny Christ or the sacraments, but to deny a single point of the Gospel, the primacy of Peter, the papacy, found in the Gospel. And in the court Father Alexi replied that if he denied that point on the primacy of Peter would deny the whole Gospel, it would be the anti-witness of the whole Gospel. This happened in our times, died in 1963.
Thus, in the case of Luther he rejected the heart of the Church which is the Eucharist, rejected the essence and sacrificial substance of the Eucharistic celebration and this is the heart of the Church, the Eucharist. This is just one example: how can he be a witness of the gospel when he rejects the heart of the Church? The sacrificial nature of the Mass itself and called the Mass an invention of the devil - which is a blasphemy - He called the papacy an invention of Satan. How can such a person be called a witness? When we do this or do not believe in the sacrificial character of the Mass, either we do not believe in the primacy of Peter, or we do not believe in a Catholic way in an immutable Church tradition, or we are telling lies and playing only a politically correct game Which is very dishonest, or we have a relativist position where what is true and what is not true is the same. The modernists of Vatican II and of the present day have been more effective in harming the Church than Luther, by acting more cunningly than this. Modernists, for example, do not directly deny dogmatic formulations, but by ambiguous, well-calculated words, they detract from its true meaning. Luther took half of the Catholics out of the Church. Despite this loss, the Church remained healthy, with no change in doctrine. Today's modernists, however, from within the Church strive to change the Catholic religion by a false humanist, anthropocentric religion. That is why the present crisis is incomparably worse than that caused by Luther. Bishop Schneider, however, does not see that, and quietly submits to the modernist popes, trying, moreover, to drag the SSPX into that gravely illicit, traitorous and suicidal obedience.
So, in this case, when this document of the Pontifical Council indicates that Luther is at the same level as a witness of the Gospel that St. Ignatius, they are putting truth and error on the same level. For this is exactly what the decree on religious freedom of Vatican II did. This is a philosophical and theological position of relativism, and this is very dangerous. In this way I believe that we should not take this document seriously since it has no doctrinal authority and is in itself contradictory and completely wrong. This document will not last for many years because the Church is more powerful, immutable truths are more powerful than these weak and misleading documents will be lost over time. And many souls will also "lose themselves over time," while certain prelates who claim to be very traditional will continue to be cowardly accomplices of the modernist popes.

Monsignor, we know that as Catholics we must submit to the authority of the pope, nevertheless in the face of the growing confusion among the faithful generated by the free and catastrophic interpretations of the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, with communion with adulterers, Luther as witness of the Gospel , Restitution of the great chancellor of The Order of Malta, accused of allowing the distribution of condoms; There is a growing number of faithful who no longer want to submit to the authority of the pope or his authorities, with a high risk of adopting a secular position. As Catholics interested in maintaining ourselves within the Catholic Church, how can we sustain and recognize the pope's authority, without obeying things contrary to what has always been the Catholic faith? Is submission to the pope's authority the same as blind obedience?
No. As Catholics and this is a characteristic of being Catholic, we must be canonically subjected to the pope, the Vicar of Christ, accept his authority, have respect for him, pray for him and have a supernatural love basically. This does not mean blind obedience, of course not, because we are not in a dictatorship. In a dictatorship yes, you must obey blindly, or when you are in the army, there is no questioning. False: it is not morally lawful for the military to obey unjust orders. The armies of Christian countries have rules and procedures for such cases. But we are in a family, the Church is a family where it is also possible to discuss, where it is also possible in some way to correct with respect and love. And when this is not possible then there is no real atmosphere of Church spirituality, there would be an atmosphere of intimidation, repression, fear, and this is not the atmosphere of the Holy Spirit in any way.
Therefore, we took examples of saints in the Church, St Catherine of Siena - Doctor of the Church - she always maintained a deep love and respect for the pope, but she wrote several letters with many severe criticisms, for his sake. She admonished the pope and this was something correct and the Church recognizes her as a saint and is a Doctor of the Church. Even she wrote a letter to one of the popes of that time, which did much damage to the Church and was finally responsible for the great schism: "Holy Father if you do not please turn away and renounce the papacy, I write this out of love To his person, for his eternal salvation and for the Church. " Monsignor: would you dare to write the same thing to Francisco? If you have not dared so far, we believe you will never dare. This attitude is not sectarian, it is not schismatic, it is not against the pope ... in any way. And in this sense I think that, as you mention these problems, we must always maintain the supernatural vision of the papacy and the pope, but we must not idolize the pope or practice the papolatry by making the pope a God by deifying it. This is contrary to the Gospel, this is against the tradition of the Fathers of the Church.
I think that there has been an evolution in the Church in the last hundred years towards this unhealthy papolatry that in a certain way divinizes the pope. This is against the Church's oldest and most constant tradition. Perhaps this crisis we are currently experiencing will help the Church to have a greater balance in relation to the attitude with the pope, to avoid having this extreme papolatry and divinization of the pope and to allow the Church the possibility of doing in a way also respectful And loving an appeal to the holy father when there is danger, an objective danger for the common good of the Church. And now there is no such danger? As St. Augustine wrote, and St. Thomas Aquinas, quoting it, when St. Paul made a correction to the first pope, Peter, and did so publicly, not privately, in the letter he wrote to the Galatians in a matter that was not so much Doctrinal or dogmatic but rather practical and pastoral about a mistake of Peter, and then Paul does this ... St. Augustine says that Peter was so humble and so wise that he accepted this correction, he did not say "you are against me, heretics, They are schismatics, "no! He accepted this with gratitude and so should the pope these days: "Thank you my dear brothers, sons and daughters, when you inform me that there is some danger to faith, for the common good of the Church, I will reflect, I will not be angry With you, "and so the pope should also say to the bishops and cardinals:" I am not angry with you when you point out something even publicly, "there is even a 'no' as a possibility.
The correction of St. Paul was public and even wrote in his letters that are inspired by the Holy Spirit, for all generations that until the end of the world will read the correction to the first pope, as Word of God. Paul made this public. If Paul lived today he would use the internet because this would be the public medium as in his time was his epistle that sent to all the Churches. Therefore, for me there is no difficulty nor is it a problem that the four cardinals have issued this public appeal to the pope. It should of course be an exceptional situation, but we are witnessing an exceptional situation of confusion that is somewhat unprecedented in the history of the Church because this confusion is growing all over the world and is reaching almost every basic doctrine Of the Church and not just one in specific. The issue of divorce, the Eucharist, the moral law of God, is basic, relativism where truth and error are on the same level. And nothing to say against Francis, Your Excellency? This is a crisis caused by ghosts, by abstractions; In which there are very serious evils but there are no names of culprits. Curious.
So we are witnessing a crisis of faith that is really almost universal and therefore, in such exceptional cases, exceptional resources can be accepted to help stop this crisis. But I must add that, and this I would like to tell the faithful, the most powerful resources are not an appeal to the Pope or a kind of fraternal or filial connection. These are not the primary resources. I think this will not produce the best effect. We have the most powerful resource to help the Pope, so that he can help the Church to overcome this doctrinal confusion, and it is through the prayer resource, through an intensive resource of deep prayer and even suffering, of To do repair work, to atone for the pope, for his soul, for him to receive the guidance of God, the light to confirm the whole Church without ambiguities, in the truths, as did Peter and almost all his successors . So these are our means, prayer, sacrifice, and this is the most powerful, and God will accept it. I am convinced, and will lead the Church out of this crisis just as He has done so many times in the last 2,000 years . "To God praying and with the hammer giving" . The example to be followed is that of Monsignor Lefebvre, and then to fight frontally and resolutely against the modernist enemy that occupies the Church, beginning with Pope Francisco, until the total extirpation of the malignant neo liberal and modernist tumor of the Church of Christ. The rest is pure "ostrich politics", myopia, diplomacy, political correctness, betrayal and cowardice.

Thank you Monsignor for clarifying these points.
Monsignor, some bishops and cardinals have declared in recent days that the single conscience suffices to receive communion. Is it possible to say that those who feel at peace with their conscience can come to receive holy communion?
No. This statement is against the constant teaching and tradition of the Church. It is the principle of subjectivism, ultimately Luther, of Protestantism. In Protestant communities there is this method of consciousness being the supreme judge. And not! The conscience is not the judge, the judge must listen to the voice of God. This is true consciousness, when you listen. And there is the commandment of God in a clear way, and the teaching of the Church. He does not commit adultery and be in a state of grace even objectively not only subjective, and in this way receive holy communion because the sacraments are not private actions of each individual, the sacraments are public, they are the most public actions of the Church . Therefore, there must be an objective criterion. As St. Paul told us in the first letter to the Corinthians, and this is the word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit, therefore the individual conscience can not be in this case the judge but the Word of God and the Constant tradition of the Church. Wow ... In this case of sacrilege, the conscience does not count, but in the sacrilege of communion in the hand, the conscience does count, and not only that, but it is the fundamental criterion. Curious.

In the face of the recent threats of suspension ad divinis for Maltese priests by their bishops who refuse to give communion to remarried divorcees and the recent case of a priest suspended ad divinis in Colombia. What is your opinion about the position of bishops like those of Malta? And what awaits us as faithful Catholics if in our parishes we have priests ready to allow sacrilegious communion so long as they are not suspended? And what should we do about it?
Well, I do not know the texts of these norms of the Maltese bishops and therefore I can not speak directly of this, but when a bishop does this he is committing a grave abuse of his power. He is ordering to sin, and when a bishop or even a pope orders sin, I must reject this because I must obey God. Therefore, in this case the priest must tell the bishop: "Your Excellency, you are ordering me to commit sin and I can not do this, I must obey God in this case and I can not obey you in this case." But to the best of my knowledge, these cases are rare exceptions, and I hope that such drastic and abusive rules of bishops will not be propagated by the Church, forcing priests to give communion to the divorced; They must resist even to the extent of losing their trade. Better to lose everything, but not to commit sin against the command of God, in this case. But it is a good idea to put yourself under the power of the head of the disastrous Amoris laetitia : Pope Franciso. Very coherent thought, SE

Mons. This was the last question, we want to thank him for his time and patience, and to clarify these concerns of the majority of faithful Catholics around the world. Thank you, Monsignor Athanasius Schneider, for this interview for Rorate Coeli and Forward the Faith and please have us in your prayers.
Thank you and I would like to end by encouraging the faithful not to be discouraged in these dark times of confusion but to consider this also as a challenge to grow in trust in God, in His omnipotent power, that He can overcome this crisis with His omnipotent power. So we have to deepen our supernatural trust, the indestructibility of the Church and deepen our Catholic knowledge, our Catholic faith, the joy of our faith and, indeed, the most important thing in the Church, is not to be Pope, to be Cardinal, bishop or priest, but to be a good Catholic, to be a good believer, to live according to the Word of God, to the will of God and to maintain the treasure of the Catholic Church that Christ gave us, that He revealed to us and that The Apostles conveyed to us; Which the Church has transmitted to us for 2,000 years. Keep this treasure of the integrity and beauty of the Catholic faith in our souls. And no one can take away this grace because Christ gave it to us. May God bless and strengthen all of you Catholics and please pray and make sacrifices for overcoming this crisis, pray for the Holy Father, may God give his Church in these days many good and courageous successors of the Apostles, As well as priests and laity, and good Catholic families. Urgent request: Someone give the book "Liberalism is Sin" to poor Monsignor Schneider. Let's see if that opens your eyes.

Thank you Monsignor.

MONS. SCHNEIDER: ONCE AGAIN THE FSSPX TO COMMIT SUICIDE - Non Possumus

[Dawn Marie]

The SSPX boggles the sane mind. They are equal in their suicidal actions and words as the socialists here demanding we let in terrorists muslims to kill us.