Leave your questions in the comments.
-
Those who reject the Magisterium, grasp at straws seeking its replacement.
-
Click here for a list of my Roman Catholic theology books and booklets, including books about the future.
-
To read the Kindle versions of my books, without a Kindle device, get the free cloud reader — or — any of the free Kindle reading apps.
The CPDV — my conservative Catholic translation of the Bible, from the Latin Vulgate into English, is available at Amazon.com in Kindle format and online here.
Meta
Subscribe to my RSS Feed. (If you use Google Chrome, first add a Chrome RSS reader or extension.)
the reproach of Christ 
Ron, thank you so much for all of your input…
I have just canceled my order for CREDO with a note to Sophia Press. Their reply:
We assure you that the Credo: Compendium of the Catholic Faith does not contain heresy and will not mislead its readers. It was written in conformity with the timeless teachings of the Catholic Church.
We hold to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that every bishop is obliged to promote and to safeguard the unity of faith (see Lumen Gentium, n. 23), for which reason each receives power to preach and teach at his consecration, as a pastor of souls (see Can. 375.2, 763, 773). Furthermore, Bishop Schneider is a Catholic bishop in good standing, who takes his oath of fidelity to the Magisterium very seriously. This is why he sought (and received) the imprimatur for Credo, as a faithful expression of Catholic doctrine.
We kindly suggest you contact the Bishop directly for clarification at http://www.CatholicCredo.com.
Please comment.
The company that publishes Credo and profits from it, assures us that it does not contain heresy? The book openly contradicts Vatican II and the CCC.
Ron, is Mary-as-Co-Redemptrix a liberal heresy? I haven’t heard about it in a long time, and wonder if it has faded away.
Mary is co-redemptrix, as a number of magisterial documents have used the term. The problem with those persons who push for defining the so-called “fifth dogma” is several things:
* the idea itself is from a discredited I would say false private revelation
* there are more than 5 dogmas already about Mary
* the Magisterium, in order to define a dogma, must give a specific definition of what that term means; the Church can’t simply rubber stamp a word. So, the definition of transubstantiation gives the detailed definition of the term.
* After much study, I believe that the most common understanding of Mediatrix, co-redemptrix, and Advocate are incorrect, and so the Magisterium would need to give a better corrected definition of each term
“Give us this day our daily bread”…does it or may it have temporal aspects, such as to ask that our earthly needs be provided for, or is it strictly speaking of our spiritual needs?
Both.
Ron, are there certain categories of the CREDO catechism that are usable? I ask this because the Q&A format is very helpful.
That book is a grave danger to souls. You don’t use a Protestant Catechism because the Q and A format is useful. Also the CCC has a Q and A short version, called the Compendium of the Catechism
https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
Fr. Joseph Edattu vCard from Devine Retret centre,UK.
What are your views on 38 & 39 in popes FS. You expect some changes by next pope and said in your predictions 2024.
38 is dangerous?
I do not think this is dangerous, but sinners often misuse the leniency of the Church and the mercy of God. I expect problems to multiply due to FS. Persons unrepentant from grave sin AND who do not even believe the teaching of the Church on sexual ethics, marriage, etc. are likely to use these blessings as if they do not need an annulment or as if they do not need to separate from a sinful relationship. So I think the next Pope will see this abuses and withdraw the blessing. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the decision, it is just imprudent and open to misuse by sinners.
38. For this reason, one should neither provide for nor promote a ritual for the blessings of couples in an irregular situation. At the same time, one should not prevent or prohibit the Church’s closeness to people in every situation in which they might seek God’s help through a simple blessing. In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely.
39. In any case, precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple.
Happy New Year… Should Bishop Schneider’s “new catechism” CREDO be considered authoritative? If so, does the CCC just fade away?
Spelling everything out has always seemed more than pharisaical to me. Don’t they believe in the Holy Spirit? No wonder we have passive effeminate priests; they are just rubber stamps. We have to sort through new Bible translations coming out, too. So much paper, so little time.
A Real Life Situation: a couple we know is cohabiting, just one of whom is nominally Catholic, and he’s the one we don’t know very well. Did you really think we would get any traction “demanding” their sacramental marriage? No, we will be overjoyed at any commitment that gets them both out of sin in a timely manner, which means we will accept their natural civil marriage AND we will attend it in spite of the catechism, because we were the impetus for them to consider marriage at all. The current Pope said to go make a mess. But back to the question about the Schneider catechism… Wilton Gregory could write his own catechism next week.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s “Credo” Catechism is heretical. He repeatedly states answers to questions (it is in Q and A format) and he himself notes that the answers are contrary to the teachings of the Magisterium in Vatican II and the Catechism. Since the CCC was issued by the Apostolic See with the approval of the Roman Pontiff, it has authority above any documents of local Bishops’ Conferences, individual Bishops, and certainly over the personal “Catechism” of a Bishop who openly opposes the Roman Pontiff, has accused him of heresy, and who openly opposes Vatican II and the CCC.
Can you define those points which truly separate the Orthodox and the Catholics?
I often hear it’s only the primacy of the Chair of St. Peter, but it seems that there are at least some other issues that would have to be resolved for reunification to take place.
There is the difference on the procession of the Holy Spirit. And over time, other differences have accumulated, because they do not accept the Councils and the papal teachings since the split.
If I might point out an Eastern Orthodox perspective, Orthodox perceive there is a 194 year gap in western “Catholicism” – a temporal problem. From 879 AD – 1075 AD both East and West accepted the same Council of 879 AD that supported Photius, who pointed out the Sodomy problem in the West and its solution. In 1054 Cardinal Humbert put the Bull of Excommunication on the Altar of St. Sophia in Constantinople and the schism was thought to be about him – nobody thought it would last.
He was also the nemisis of St. Peter Damian who wrote the Book of Gomorrha and St. Peter lived in that 194 year period.
In 1075 AD, the Frankish papacy (St. Francis named after the Franks…there are no coincidences) reverted the to the Council of 869 AD as the West’s 8th Ecumenical Council. [That is a temporal problem, I don’t know how one honestly resolves it except to see the Western Church as prodigal (and ironically favored) in nature. The prodigal son went into the world – hence the ring, robe and sandals]
The Orthodox, in respect of the West, only tend to remember 7 Councils, the 7 ventures, perhaps 8 mentioned by Solomon when casting bread upon the water (Holy Communion, for He has established it upon the seas and founded it upon the waters) the 7 refining of fire prophesied in the Psalms when we were truly One.
So who are the schismatics? Who are Catholic including in TIME because TIME is vital to Catholicism – Jesus, the Catholic man says, I AM the ALPHA and OMEGA, the Beginning and the Ending. We Orthodox believe Christ IS with us always (See Matthew). He does not need (but may have) a vicarious. As He is with us, our Pope is with us eternally. Peter is with us NOW.
Also, what does an honest reading of the first and second infallible encyclicals of St. Peter say? Would St. Peter agree with “evolution”? Would he deny the Flood? Would he say he was the chief cornerstone, or The One True Bishop, or the Chief Shepherd? He mentions those three in his first Epistle that is infallible Holy Scripture agreed by all Church Fathers in all time. He disses modernism in his second Epistle, he knew what was coming.
I certainly believe there are wonderful Western Saints and the Roman Catholic Church makes Saints. There are a great many in the Orthodox Church as well and in fact wonder workers in our time. Many Catholic Saints are ultramontane. Many Orthodox Saints would not give the Pope the time of day. There are legalistic people who care more about their egoism and their being “right” or in power than being honest – but look at Luke 22 – even the disciples argued over who was greatest! Clergy cannot solve this problem.
Would Saint Pius X have accepted what is going on right now? Would Saint Pius V? I don’t think an honest person would conclude the Saints East or West would agree with what is going on right now – including with the Russki Mir crowd – it stretches credulity.
Saints were known to keep calm and maintain their inner peace in times of terrible trials, sufferings, and tribulations. In fact, it seemed their trials worsened the more they prayed. However. Our Catholic faith teaches us to preserve in prayer, do not despair, keep joyful, hold your tongue, forgive, pray for those that persecute you, and offer it up, all for God.
I’m telling you Ron these are trying times that we live in to be holy in a society that has become so hedonistic and evil. I am baffled that God has not put a stop to this madness yet. Maybe 2024 will be the year that the events foretold in Garabandal and Medjugorje begin.
Maybe this is more science than theology but I believe it overlaps…I watched the movie “Noah” today starring Russel Crowe, which I really liked. I’ve read and appreciate your older discussions about the flood. I’ve also watched some podcasts about the flood. Do you believe, if you’ve looked into it, that the math (especially with regard to genetics) works for so few people to have repopulated the earth if indeed Noah’s family as related in the biblical account were the only humans to have survived the flood? Also, I’ve not found any dogma concerning the survival of animal life apart from what was placed on the ark. Additionally, didn’t blessed Catherine Emmerich envision several more survivors on the Ark than the few related in the biblical account?
This is a lot to cover so please don’t feel compelled to respond.
Please keep up your good and valuable work and Happy New Year!
In my book, Noah’s Flood: Literal or Figurative?, I explain that certain parts of the story of the flood are figurative, and other parts are literal (historical). So the flood affected the whole world, but not everyone outside the Ark died.
Throughout the church history it has been believed that the wicked will receive immortal, incorruptible bodies. Would an opinion that the bodies of the wicked will not be made immortal, acceptable?
No. Scripture says: {Acts 24:15} having a hope in God, which these others themselves also expect, that there will be a future resurrection of the just and the unjust.
The General Resurrection is of the just in purgatory and heaven and of the unjust in hell. All are given bodies: the just are given glorious bodies; the unjust are given bodies befitting of the sins of their lives. Then the unjust are sent to a new Hell, “the second death”, a Hell fit to punish body and soul, while the just enjoy a new heaven and a new earth.