NEWS:  April 27, 2015
donate Books CDs HOME updates search contact

Bird’s Eye View of the News

Atila Sinke Guimarães
THE USEFULNESS OF THE FALSE RIGHT  - The Revolution – the universal Revolution that unfolded with Humanism and Renaissance and today is reaching its last steps after taking over the leadership of the Church – has one weak point: its fundamental illegitimacy. (1) Its illegitimacy is the weakness of this Goliath. A David could defeat him if he knew how to aim the stone to hit between his eyes.

Let me offer another metaphor to explain the Revolution’s embarrassment.

The Counter-Revolution has the strength of truth and legitimacy on its side

A usurper took over a kingdom by killing the legitimate king and his family. Only a child managed to flee the country and escape. Although his coup d’état was successful, the criminal lives in constant affliction because he knows that boy is the legitimate heir and he is a villain. If the boy returns to his land, the usurper will be defeated if the boy knows how to unite his natural allies to depose the bandit.

If this boy in fact returns, what would be the best way to prevent him from rallying his allies? It would be for the usurper to encourage many counterfeit heirs to claim “rights” similar to those of the boy, so that his potential allies would not know whom to support. Since the usurper would control the actions of the fake heirs, the claim of the genuine heir would be diluted and could become futile.

The Counter-Revolution does not need to have equal power to defeat the Revolution. The CR has the strength of truth and legitimacy on its side. So, a much smaller number of counter-revolutionaries can defeat the Revolution insofar as they are aware of their strength and know where to aim David’s stone.

If this is so, nothing is more important for the Revolution than to keep the real counter-revolutionaries out of the picture. If it not possible to destroy them by silencing their actions, splitting their ranks, infiltrating their cells, suborning their members, slandering their leaders, lying about their goals, then the best thing to do is to create pseudo-counter-revolutionaries to confuse their followers and make their fight as ineffective as possible.

The ensemble of these fake enemies of the Revolution is what we call the false right. It is the best ally of the Revolution when the true and legitimate Counter-Revolution is present. The more numerous the false right factions, the better it is for the Revolution.

This revolutionary strategy is quite frequently employed in the revolutionary process. Sometimes it is very difficult for the public to discern the false right. The ones who, for obvious reasons, immediately discern a new false right when it enters the scenario are the true counter-revolutionaries. At the Final Judgment, where all these tactics will be exposed, Catholics will be surprised to learn how often they were fooled by false rights.

From theory to practice

At the 2014 October Synod a very radical report was launched midway through when the Synod mentors realized they would not reach the unanimity they needed to impose their progressivist agenda. That report was meant to establish the goal that Pope Francis, Card. Kasper and others want to reach.

In parallel, it also created a strong reaction in Catholic public opinion, which is a good thing. It provided the pretext, however, for the sprouting of a group of “conservative” ecclesiastics who are increasingly assuming the role of heroes against Progressivism. They provide good examples of the false-right. Let me analyze one of them today.

Bishop Schneider using capa magna

Schneider restores traditional customs in order to make Vatican II and a hybrid Mass more palatable for conservatives

Among these new heroes is Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan. During the previous pontificate he had been one of the “lions” favoring the hybrid Mass, that is, a traditionalist-looking Novus Ordo Mass following the plans of Benedict XVI. He also wrote two books advocating that Communion in the hand should be abolished in the NO, which are summarized here.

Schneider loves to appear in solemn Bishop's apparel. It is not rare to see him wearing the capa magna, the Bishop's purple mantle with a long train. After the Synod, Schneider made strong critiques of some progressivists at the Synod.

With these precedents, Bishop Schneider has been applauded by conservatives and traditionalists, along with other Prelates who also stood up against the excesses at the Synod. In less than one year he already has free transit in many traditionalist-conservative circles, be they clerical – SSPX, the Good Shepherd Institute – or lay – the Latin Mass Society, TFP, the New Liturgical Movement and a variety of blogs in the genre of Rorate Coeli, Fr. Z’s, Secretum Meum, Fraters in Unum.

To show who Schneider really is, I am transcribing very revealing documents that I found in major part on the blog Call Me Jorge. I double checked the sources and they appear to be authentic documents insofar as we can rely on secondary sources on the Internet.

Schneider on Vatican II

During a symposium held in Paris in January of 2014, Bishop Schneider made an appeal for the reform as set out by Benedict XVI. He stated his position on the Council:

Bishop Schneider at the TFP seat in Brazil

Bishop Schneider at the TFP seat in Brazil responds to questions of Fraters in Unum and defends Vatican II

“It is Vatican II Council that gave us a wider understanding of the Mystery of the Church according to the teaching of the Church Fathers […]. Thus, the Church is seen as ‘a people made one with the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’ (Lumen gentium 4).” (2)

Defending the last fad of Benedict XVI on Vatican II, which was the hermeneutic of continuity (here, here, here & here), Schneider said this at the Bishops' meeting on December 17, 2010 in Rome:

“Taking account of the experience of several decades since then, of doctrinally and pastorally confused interpretations that are contrary to the more than two millennia continuity of doctrine and prayer of the faith, the need and urgency rise for a specific and authoritative intervention by the pontifical Magisterium for an authentic interpretation of the conciliar texts with completions and doctrinal clarifications: a type of Syllabus errorum circa interpretationem Concilii Vaticani II.

“There is need for a new Syllabus, this time directed not so much against errors coming from outside the Church, but against errors spread inside the Church on the part of those who maintain a thesis of discontinuity and rupture with its doctrinal, liturgical and pastoral application. Such a Syllabus would consist of two parts: a part marking errors and a positive part with propositions of doctrinal clarification, completion and precision.” (3)

Questioned about his position on Vatican II by the Fratres in Unum blog in Brazil, he said:

“We should keep good sense and the sentire cum Ecclesia. It [the Council] is a text of our mother, the Church. … With Vatican II the Church did not stop being our mother, even if there are points to correct and perfect. For this reason, I say that there are also many good things in the texts of the Council. Why should we not value this? This has been forgotten in the debates.

“For example: there is a norm in Sacrosanctum Concilium on liturgy that says: ‘No one in the Church – neither a priest, bishop, cardinal nor even pope – has the right to change by himself something in the liturgical celebration. He cannot change, take off or add anything.’ This is a very strong norm, which does not exist even in the Council of Trent.

“If we quote this norm without referring to the source, if we were to make a test among the majority of progressivist clergy, they would say that it is a norm of the Council of Trent; they would say that such a rigid norm cannot come from the Vatican II. This is only a small example. I know of a book in Germany called The Silenced Council in which the author listed expressions of Vatican II that are actually traditional ones.” (4)

On ecumenism & inter-religious dialogue

On ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue, the French newspaper La Croix reported these words by Schneider:
  • “Anything that can bring about a mutual knowledge and respect between religions is a good thing.” (5)

  • “Ecumenism is necessary in order to be in contact with our separated brethren and in order to love them. From the depth of the challenge offered to us by the new paganism, we may and we must collaborate with non-Catholics who seriously wish to defend the revealed Divine Truth and the Natural Law that God created.” (6)
On Pope Francis, he made this general assessment less than one year ago, on May 30, 2014:

“Let us be grateful to God that Pope Francis has not spoken in the manner that was expected by the media. Up to now, he expresses in all his official homilies the beautiful Catholic doctrine.” (7)

These are some samples of the compromises of the “great hero” who is charming so many conservatives and even traditionalists. In my opinion he is clearly a false-right who has been put onstage by the progressivist Vatican to be sure that it controls both the left and the right reactions at the upcoming October Synod.


Bishop Schneider at a inter-confessional meeting

On March 18, 2013, Bishop Schneider pictured in Astana, Kazakhstan, in a meeting with Protestants, Schismatics and Jews

  1. Cf. Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, passim;
  2. L’Homme Nouveau, number 1500, apud here; he repeated this same statement in an interview given to the French newspaper Présent on January 10, 2015;
  3. Cf. Proposals for a Correct Reading of the Second Vatican Council;
  4. Interview to Fraters in Unum blog here;
  5. La Croix July 5, 2009, here;
  6. Ibid.
  7. Interview with the Latin Mass Society, here