Bp. Schneider: Open letter accusing Pope Francis of heresy ‘went too far’

GodsGrace101 said:

The CC is changing and the traditiional catholics cannot accept this.

One of my catholic friends has told me that her spiritual advisor has flat out told her that she needs to stop depending on the church and start to depend only on Jesus.

Praise God...I've been telling her this for years.
(she's a traditionalist).

Click to expand...

Basically, follow Christ through the Church He has given us, but don't confuse the Holy Father with the Truth itself. Follow Christ. Even Saint Peter erred. Yet God still used him.

That is how I would try to look at it. The Church is still beautiful, and good. She still gives us Saints.

Gracia Singh said:

Basically, follow Christ through the Church He has given us, but don't confuse the Holy Father with the Truth itself. Follow Christ. Even Saint Peter erred. Yet God still used him.

That is how I would try to look at it. The Church is still beautiful, and good. She still gives us Saints.

Click to expand...

I study with a monk in a town near my home. There's about 15 of us..all Catholic of course. (I don't agree with a lot of catholic doctrine so I'm not catholic anymore)....
He said exactly what you've stated above.
Men IN THE CHURCH can sin...
BUT THE CHURCH REMAINS PURE.

The church (small c) is holy..it is MEN that are not holy. (not all of them, I mean).

GodsGrace101 said:

I study with a monk in a town near my home. There's about 15 of us..all Catholic of course. (I don't agree with a lot of catholic doctrine so I'm not catholic anymore)....
He said exactly what you've stated above.
Men IN THE CHURCH can sin...
BUT THE CHURCH REMAINS PURE.

The church (small c) is holy..it is MEN that are not holy. (not all of them, I mean).

Click to expand...

Men can sin and err. And do. Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.

Death seemed to prevail wholly against Christ, in spite of His revelation that He was God. Yet, death did not and could not completely prevail. In order for Christ to be victorious, He had to suffer and die, and seem to be defeated.

The Church may go through something similar. But still, it is important to be humble, faithful, prayerful, and hopeful.

GodsGrace101 said:

Hi Major 1,
I agree with you because if anything about Mary was important, it would have been written of in the N.T.

The CC accepts these ideas about Mary because they accept docs outside of the N.T. For instance, there's a lot written about Mary in the The Protoevangelium of James.

Of course whether we want to believe it or not is a toss up. I prefer to stick to scripture.

source: CHURCH FATHERS: Protoevangelium of James (a catholic site)

Click to expand...

Correct!

And of course if anything is said against RCC teachings, then it is attack the messenger instead of the message of God's Word.

There is actually nothing said about Mary after Pentecost. That in itself seems strange to me with all of the importance placed on her by the RCC.

Major1 said:

Correct!

And of course if anything is said against RCC teachings, then it is attack the messenger instead of the message of God's Word.

There is actually nothing said about Mary after Pentecost. That in itself seems strange to me with all of the importance placed on her by the RCC.

Click to expand...

Revelation 12
Psalms 2

Gracia Singh said:

Revelation 12
Psalms 2

Click to expand...

I mean no disrespect to you my sister, and I am very aware of Catholic teachings on Rev. 12. However I must tell you with all love and respect...….The woman in Rev; 12 is not Mary.

It is true that the traditional Catholic interpretation for the woman is Mary. That is why Mary is sometimes depicted in Catholic art as clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and on her head 12 stars.

However, John's reference to the sun, moon, and stars in his description of the woman is similar to the descriptions of Israel in Genesis 37. The 11 stars refer to the sons of Jacob, and the 12th star to whom the 11 bow is Joseph. This is a clear reference to the twelve tribes of Israel in Joseph's dream (Gen. 37:9-10).

Israel is often represented as a woman (Isa. 26:18; 47:7-9; Jer. 4:31; 31:32; Ezek. 16:32; Hosea 2:16; Micah 4:9- 10). Therefore this is consistent with the woman as being Israel in Rev. 12. It is Israel, not the church that brings forth the male child who is the long awaited Messiah (verse 5) who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (Ps. 2:9).

In Hosea, Micah, and Jeremiah, Israel is depicted as a woman in birth pains trying to bring forth a child. For centuries Israel has suffered these terrible pains awaiting the promises of the coming of Messiah, all the promises of God, way back to Genesis chapter 3 about a seed of a woman who would bless, not only the nation Israel, but all the nations.

In Revelation 12, we see a woman being persecuted by Satan. Clearly, the woman cannot be Mary, because the woman lees into the wilderness for 3 1/2 years and there is NO Bible records of that taking place.

The woman is the symbol of God's purpose for Israel.

I know that is not going to sit well with you but it is the correct exegesis of that Scripture. I do not mean to change the focus of the thread, only to respond to your thought of Mary being in the Scriptures after Acts Pentecost.

Major1 said:

I mean no disrespect to you my sister, and I am very aware of Catholic teachings on Rev. 12. However I must tell you with all love and respect...….The woman in Rev; 12 is not Mary.

It is true that the traditional Catholic interpretation for the woman is Mary. That is why Mary is sometimes depicted in Catholic art as clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and on her head 12 stars.

However, John's reference to the sun, moon, and stars in his description of the woman is similar to the descriptions of Israel in Genesis 37. The 11 stars refer to the sons of Jacob, and the 12th star to whom the 11 bow is Joseph. This is a clear reference to the twelve tribes of Israel in Joseph's dream (Gen. 37:9-10).

Israel is often represented as a woman (Isa. 26:18; 47:7-9; Jer. 4:31; 31:32; Ezek. 16:32; Hosea 2:16; Micah 4:9- 10). Therefore this is consistent with the woman as being Israel in Rev. 12. It is Israel, not the church that brings forth the male child who is the long awaited Messiah (verse 5) who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (Ps. 2:9).

In Hosea, Micah, and Jeremiah, Israel is depicted as a woman in birth pains trying to bring forth a child. For centuries Israel has suffered these terrible pains awaiting the promises of the coming of Messiah, all the promises of God, way back to Genesis chapter 3 about a seed of a woman who would bless, not only the nation Israel, but all the nations.

In Revelation 12, we see a woman being persecuted by Satan. Clearly, the woman cannot be Mary, because the woman lees into the wilderness for 3 1/2 years and there is NO Bible records of that taking place.

The woman is the symbol of God's purpose for Israel.

I know that is not going to sit well with you but it is the correct exegesis of that Scripture. I do not mean to change the focus of the thread, only to respond to your thought of Mary being in the Scriptures after Acts Pentecost.

Click to expand...

Hey, brother. I respect your thoughts and kindness.

But a comparison between Psalms 2 and Revelation gives us reason to infer that this Woman gave birth to Messiah. Mary, in Scripture, is described as Blessed Among Women, and the Mother of the Lord. Hymns to Mary have been dated to prior to the Council of Nicea.

Bless you, friend.

Gracia Singh said:

Hey, brother. I respect your thoughts and kindness.

But a comparison between Psalms 2 and Revelation gives us reason to infer that this Woman gave birth to Messiah. Mary, in Scripture, is described as Blessed Among Women, and the Mother of the Lord. Hymns to Mary have been dated to prior to the Council of Nicea.

Bless you, friend.

Click to expand...

I understand your position and respect it as one that was taught to you by the RCC.

In its initial sense, the psalm is clearly referring to the coronation of David.

All I can do is tell you what I see when I read Psalms 2 and that is it predicts the opposition he will experience as king and looks forward to the eventual subjugation of his enemies.

Gracia Singh said:

Men can sin and err. And do. Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.

Death seemed to prevail wholly against Christ, in spite of His revelation that He was God. Yet, death did not and could not completely prevail. In order for Christ to be victorious, He had to suffer and die, and seem to be defeated.

The Church may go through something similar. But still, it is important to be humble, faithful, prayerful, and hopeful.

Click to expand...

Jesus won death because He was resurrected from the dead...the first of many that will follow, as in 1 Corinthians 15.

He won sin because satan no longer has a hold over us because the Holy Spirit is with us.

The Church and the church may be going through something similar...it will prevail in the end.

What worries me is the incorrect doctrine that can lead to sin and lost souls. Some incorrect doctrine will not lead to this,,,but some will.

Major1 said:

Correct!

And of course if anything is said against RCC teachings, then it is attack the messenger instead of the message of God's Word.

There is actually nothing said about Mary after Pentecost. That in itself seems strange to me with all of the importance placed on her by the RCC.

Click to expand...

But we cannot be very aggressive against catholic teachings. They have the right to teach what they believe to be true. There are many protestant churches that teach incorrect doctrine...we seem to be more docile towards them.

I do believe that Mary has taken on a role that is beyond what the Early Fathers "may" have meant...OTOH, just because something is not written does not mean it's not so.

I do understand why Mary had to be Immaculate and I do understand why it was decreed that she ascended to heaven without suffering the results of a grave....I don't agree with this,,,but, who knows...the cc might be right!

I think there's too much we just can't know.

GodsGrace101 said:

But we cannot be very aggressive against catholic teachings. They have the right to teach what they believe to be true. There are many protestant churches that teach incorrect doctrine...we seem to be more docile towards them.

I do believe that Mary has taken on a role that is beyond what the Early Fathers "may" have meant...OTOH, just because something is not written does not mean it's not so.

I do understand why Mary had to be Immaculate and I do understand why it was decreed that she ascended to heaven without suffering the results of a grave....I don't agree with this,,,but, who knows...the cc might be right!

I think there's too much we just can't know.

Click to expand...

Well, I understand what you are saying and NO, I do not want to argue with anyone and YES they are due the same respect for their theology as we are of our Protestant theology.

All I have said, here or in the past is simply that the Catholic Religion is not Bible.

IF....IF the RCC is correct in its doctrines that means the Bible is NOT correct and if that is the case my dear sister...…...we are all in a whole lot of trouble. The kind of trouble that means you do not want to walk through the cow pasture barefooted.

The list is simply too long to post on this web site of incorrect RCC teachings but I will post just one...…….
1). Yes SINLESSNESS of Mary.

From the Catholic owns web site @https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin
we find these words...…….....

Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression.

But what does the Bible, the Word of God say about such a doctrine?

Romans 3:23 says,...….
“All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

1st John 1:8 says...…...
“If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.”

In fact Mary herself said, in Luke 1:47...….
‘My soul rejoices in God my savior’.

That Scripture in her own words tell us that She clearly understood herself to be a sinner if she admits to needing a savior.

Major1 said:

Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression.

But what does the Bible, the Word of God say about such a doctrine?

Romans 3:23 says,...….
“All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

Click to expand...

Including Christ?

Major1 said:

1st John 1:8 says...…...
“If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.”

Click to expand...

Including Christ?

Major1 said:

In fact Mary herself said, in Luke 1:47...….
‘My soul rejoices in God my savior’.

Click to expand...

That's not an argument against the Marian doctrines.

Major1 said:

That Scripture in her own words tell us that She clearly understood herself to be a sinner if she admits to needing a savior.

Click to expand...

Our Lady never confessed that she had ever sinned in that passage. You're imposing your man-made traditions onto Sacred Scripture.

Major1 said:

Well, I understand what you are saying and NO, I do not want to argue with anyone and YES they are due the same respect for their theology as we are of our Protestant theology.

All I have said, here or in the past is simply that the Catholic Religion is not Bible.

IF....IF the RCC is correct in its doctrines that means the Bible is NOT correct and if that is the case my dear sister...…...we are all in a whole lot of trouble. The kind of trouble that means you do not want to walk through the cow pasture barefooted.

The list is simply too long to post on this web site of incorrect RCC teachings but I will post just one...…….
1). Yes SINLESSNESS of Mary.

From the Catholic owns web site @https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin
we find these words...…….....

Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression.

But what does the Bible, the Word of God say about such a doctrine?

Romans 3:23 says,...….
“All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

1st John 1:8 says...…...
“If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.”

In fact Mary herself said, in Luke 1:47...….
‘My soul rejoices in God my savior’.

That Scripture in her own words tell us that She clearly understood herself to be a sinner if she admits to needing a savior.

Click to expand...

I see that @thecolorsblend does not agree with you.

The reason the CC teaches that Mary is sinless is due to the fact that it feels Jesus could not be a part of a sinful creature. Thus, the Immaculate Conception.

The Jews were awaiting the Messiah who would take away their sins...so it would be normal for Mary to also be waiting for the Savior of the world.

I'm still not sure, after studying this a bit, that Mary really understood who Jesus was. I think she became more and more aware of it as time went on.
By the Wedding at Cana she surely understood she was the mother of a miracle-maker.

Of course the I.C. brings up some problems:
WHEN was Mary decided to be immaculate?
Before she was born...
After...

If before, did God predestine her to be Jesus' mother? If so, what good did her "YES" do? She would have been predestined to say yes. And yet the CC teaches this great YES even to children of catechism.

I think sometimes we go beyond what scripture intends us to.

And I'm not too worried about the cow pasture...
I do believe God is loving and merciful and just and we'll be judged on our faith in Jesus and not on our doctrine.

thecolorsblend said:

Including Christ?

Including Christ?

That's not an argument against the Marian doctrines.

Our Lady never confessed that she had ever sinned in that passage. You're imposing your man-made traditions onto Sacred Scripture.

Click to expand...

If someone needs a savior, it means they know they're a sinner.

If a person is perfect...no savior is needed.
And only ONE person was perfect...JESUS.

GodsGrace101 said:

If someone needs a savior, it means they know they're a sinner.

If a person is perfect...no savior is needed.
And only ONE person was perfect...JESUS.

Click to expand...

That didn’t answer my questions.

thecolorsblend said:

That didn’t answer my questions.

Click to expand...

You mean:
"including Christ"?

I thought it was rhetorical.
You mean you really want an answer??

Jesus was not just a man. (The hypostatic union)
Even when the first N.T. letters/gospels were written this was already known and of course, any statement about MAN would not include Jesus.

GodsGrace101 said:

You mean:
"including Christ"?

I thought it was rhetorical.
You mean you really want an answer??

Jesus was not just a man. (The hypostatic union)
Even when the first N.T. letters/gospels were written this was already known and of course, any statement about MAN would not include Jesus.

Click to expand...

Ah. So not all sinned then?

thecolorsblend said:

Ah. So not all sinned then?

Click to expand...

I understand your point...
but it's an unnecessary point when speaking to Christians that know the scriptures pretty well....
JESUS did not sin.
According to the CC, MARY did not sin.
ALL others have.

redleghunter said:

The OP is a bit off topic right now. I see maybe two Roman Catholic responses to the OP. I would like to hear others especially those who voted that "yes the letter went too far."

Click to expand...

Ready.
Sit down.

Today on an Italian talk show about the Vatican, the journalist who is assigned to the Vatican said that most probably the secretary's office did NOT SHOW the Pope the letter from the Bishops of the U.S.

I fear to consider the ramifications of such a statement...so I won't.