lifesitenews--2020-06-08--Bishop Schneider: Catholics and Muslims share no common faith in God, no common adoration

June 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Bishop Athanasius Schneider has once more raised his voice concerning the controversial February 4 , 2019 Abu Dhabi Statement on Human Fraternity where Pope Francis and a Grand Imam jointly declared , among other problematic statements , that God wills a “ diversity ” of religions .
Bishop Schneider ’ s intervention ( read full text below ) comes after Cardinal Gerhard Müller wrote an extensive interpretation and explanation of that document .
While Cardinal Müller presents an “ interpretative key ” with the help of which one might be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manner , Bishop Schneider points out those aspects of the document which are not in accordance with Catholic Tradition and thus need to be criticized .
Writing for the Catholic journal Communio ( 3/2020 ) , Cardinal Müller stated that it is “ sensational ” that , “ for the first time in the eventful and conflict-ridden history of the two largest faith communities of the world – comprising together of 3 billion people – the highest authority of the Catholic Church and a high-ranking religious and academic authority of the Islamic world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from their faithful “ a consent which binds them in their consciences.
” The German prelate explained that he wishes to present a “ reading aid ” for this document , which he assesses as being “ not an act of the Magisterium ” with regard to the revealed faith and morals , but still a document by the highest authority in the Church interpreting the natural moral law .
For the German prelate , this document “ corresponds in its intention with the General Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealing with faith in God and His Grace .
He continued to explain that both in the Christian and in the Islamic tradition , the “ faith in God ” calls for “ fraternity as a vocation and a demand upon man in his conscience.
” Modern ideologies which aim at destruction and which have a sort of social-Darwinist world view , Cardinal Müller wrote , have to be opposed by “ those who believe in God the almighty and benevolent Creator , ” and this with the help of “ the principle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon the importance and essential element of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Trinity , he thinks still that there can be , on the natural level and by virtue of our creation , a “ natural brotherhood of all people.
” Cardinal Müller , later on , added that “ any violence and any force ” with regard to matters of faith is unacceptable .
Here , he stressed the important duty of “ any religious or civil authority ” of accepting “ the fundamental , supranational human right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same time insisting that this does not mean a relativism with regard to the revealed truth .
Cardinal Müller , who endorsed the Abu Dhabi document in its essential claims while at the same time providing some fundamental Catholic principles involved , added that neither Pope Francis nor the Grand Imam “ abandoned their individual confessions of faith which stand , in important matters , in contradiction to one another by virtue of their content.
” This document , he continued , “ is not rooted in a relativism concerning God 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go into the direction of a unified religion as it is being favored by progressive and socialist elites.
” Touching upon the criticism of the Abu Dhabi statement as it has been expressed by bishops and theologians , the German prelate stated that one “ can ” interpret the one sentence of the document regarding the “ diversity of religions ” as “ willed by God ” in a relativistic manner , but that it “ must ” not necessarily be done .
Here , he insisted that one has rather to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and terminology ( which had passed in the process through numerous hands ) “ with a view on the good intention of their authors rather than with a view on the academic precision in its expressions.
” “ It seems obvious , ” Müller continued , “ that one wanted to formulate in a positive manner and in view of the authority of God the Creator that which otherwise would have been formulated in a negative manner , namely , that no one may be discriminated because of his religion , skin color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Abu Dhabi statement , Cardinal Müller goes on to say that “ the irritation about the above-mentioned sentence ” could have been “ avoided if one not simply had talked of the ( absolute ) will of God , as it is part of His Being with His Eternal Wisdom and Reason , ” but , rather , in light of “ His universal salvific will as it unfolds itself throughout history ” which aims at leading all “ pagans to the obedience of the Faith.
” ( Rom .
16,25ff ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permissive will of God , ” which stands in relation to the “ evil as a defect of nature or evil as contradiction to the intended good.
” Important in this context is that the German cardinal questions whether a Pope can at all sign a document with a Muslim “ in the name of God , ” as the Abu Dhabi statement does , since Muslim monotheism is opposed to the Catholic belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation .
Catholics can not speak about the Father without His Son .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in spite of these differences , “ the dignity of man and the human rights can be founded in the transcendence and majesty of God.
” While we can not “ pray together to God in prayer , since a Christian can only speak to the Father through Christ in the Holy Ghost , ” Müller wrote , we still can “ begin the dialogue and the collaboration and assure us of the most fundamental elements that we have in common – that God exists , that He is One ( Deum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in His Benevolence , created the world and that men are , based on their freedom , accountable before Him for their deeds.
” As can be seen in this short summary of the new intervention of Cardinal Müller , he tries to interpret the Abu Dhabi document in a less controversial manner , similar to how he had approached , in 2017 , the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia .
At the time , he insisted that this document , which was used by shepherds in various places around the world as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarried ” Catholics currently living in adulterous unions , is not heretical .
Or , as a title by the Website Crux put it in 2017 : “ Müller ’ s defense of ‘ Amoris Laetitia ’ reads it in Church tradition.
” With regard to Müller 's statement on the Abu Dhabi text , both Katholisch.de – the German bishops ' new website – as well as Vatican News reviewed it in a positive way .
However , there are different positions on how to approach some of these controversial documents by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chosen to directly confront the errors or ambiguities that are to be found in the Abu Dhabi statement .
Only a few days ago , he already made a statement on the Abu Dhabi document opposing the view that God positively wills the diversity of religions .
In that statement , Schneider discussed some problems regarding the Second Vatican Council 's teaching on religious freedom which might need a future correction , just as it has been done in the past with other conciliar statements of previous centuries .
In his new statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bishop of German origin points out that the same above-mentioned sentence – namely , that the diversity of religions is willed by God , just as the diversity of color , sex , and more – is “ the most erroneous and dangerous affirmation ” of the text .
Bishop Schneider also criticizes the document 's formulation about a common faith in God .
By quoting Holy Scripture , he insists : “ There is only 'one Lord , one Faith , one Baptism ' ( Eph .
4:5 ) , 'for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 Thess .
3:2 ) ” In essence , there is only one true Faith , the Catholic Faith , and the other religions are false religions .
Further distinguishing between the Catholic Faith and the Muslim faith – and pointing to the Second Vatican Council 's ambiguous teaching in this specific matter – the German prelate writes : “ To state that Muslims adore together with us the one God ( 'nobiscum Deum adorant ' ) , as Vatican II Council did in Lumen Gentium n. 16 , is theologically a highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Muslims the one God is not true .
We do not adore with them .
In the act of adoration , we always adore the Holy Trinity , we do not simply adore 'the one God ' but , rather , the Holy Trinity consciously—Father , Son , and Holy Ghost .
Islam rejects the Holy Trinity .
When the Muslims adore , they do not adore on the supernatural level of faith .
Even our act of adoration is radically different.
” Moreover , he adds , we Catholics have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muslims might adore God on a natural level ; they “ can adore God on the level of the natural knowledge of the existence of God .
They adore in a natural act of adoration the same God , whom we adore in a supernatural act and with supernatural faith in the Holy Trinity.
” “ But these are two essentially different acts of adoration , Schneider concludes .
The prelate further explains the many other differences between the Catholic and Muslim understanding of God 's nature , of who Jesus and Mary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the Son of God , therefore they can not adore Him properly ) .
Bishop Schneider also insists that Muslims have a different conception of mercy than Christians .
“ According to Surah 9:29 , ” he writes “ Muslims are to 'fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture— [ fight ] until they give the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are humbled . '
” “ One can not agree , ” Schneider continues , “ with the thesis that says that a proper reading of the Koran is opposed to every form of violence .
First , this is not true simply based on a plain reading of the Koran .
The later Surahs of the Koran are very violent toward non-Muslims and call for the occupation of non-Muslim countries by violence .
Even in our days , this is well understood by many Muslims to be the legitimate method to read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Muslims have a different understanding of fraternity .
For us Catholics , the fraternity of Christ is the basis of our own understanding of fraternity .
Says Bishop Schneider : “ The only stable universal fraternity is the fraternity in Christ .
Only in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit He sent , people can truly be children of God and truly say to God 'Father ' and consequently be truly brethren : 'For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God .
You have received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by whom we cry , 'Abba !
Father ! '
The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God , and , if children , then heirs – heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ ' ( Rm .
8:14-17 ) .
Therefore , the author comes to a clear conclusion with regard to the Abu Dhabi document : “ From the theological point of view it is , therefore , misleading and confusing that the Roman Pontiff signed a common document with an Islamic religious authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' , 'pluralism and diversity of religions ' , 'fraternity , ' though these terms have substantially different meanings in the teachings of the Koran and in the Divine Revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
” There is no common faith in God nor common adoration of God shared by Catholics and Muslims The most erroneous and dangerous affirmation of the Abu Dhabi Document on “ Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together ” ( signed by Pope Francis and The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmad Al-Tayyeb on February 4 , 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pluralism and the diversity of religions , colour , sex , race and language are willed by God in His wisdom , through which He created human beings .
This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.
” It contradicts Divine Revelation to say that , just as God positively wills the diversity of the male and female sexes and the diversity of nations , so in the same way he also wills the diversity of religions .
The Abu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith in God , for instance : “ It is a document that invites all persons who have faith in God and faith in human fraternity.
” Here the meaning of faith itself is ambiguous and , moreover , the meaning of faith in God is put on the natural level of believing “ in human fraternity.
” This is theologically wrong and misleading .
The meaning of the term “ faith ” is given by Jesus Christ Himself , hence by Divine Revelation .
There is only “ one Lord , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
4:5 ) , “ for all men have not faith.
” ( 2 Thess .
3:2 ) Jesus Christ , the Incarnate Son of God , is the “ the author and perfecter of our faith.
” ( Hebr .
12:2 ) Whoever does not believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God has no faith and does not please God , as the Lord says : “ Whoever does not believe is condemned already , because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not believe in the Son , shall not see life ; but the wrath of God remains on him.
” ( Jn 3:36 ) The Catechism of the Catholic Church says : “ For a Christian , believing in God can not be separated from believing in the One he sent , his “ beloved Son , ” in whom the Father is “ well pleased ” ; God tells us to listen to him .
( cf .
Mk 1:11 ) The Lord himself said to His disciples : “ Believe in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Jn 14:1 ) ( CCC n. 151 ) “ Faith ” and “ believe ” does not mean the knowledge of God by the natural light of the reason , but a supernatural gift of God “ aroused and aided by divine grace , receiving faith by hearing , believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised.
” ( Council of Trent , Decree on Justification , sess .
6 , chap .
6 ) The Church always taught with the First Vatican Council that “ the situation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of faith have embraced the Catholic truth , is by no means the same as that of those who , led by human opinions , follow a false religion ” ( Dogmatic Constitution “ Dei Filius ” , chap .
3 ) The same Council teaches : “ The perpetual agreement of the Catholic Church has maintained and maintains this too : that there is a twofold order of knowledge , distinct not only as regards its source , but also as regards its object .
With regard to the source , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason , at the other level by divine faith .
With regard to the object , besides those things to which natural reason can attain , there are proposed for our belief certain mysteries hidden in God which , unless they are divinely revealed , are incapable of being known.
” ( Dogmatic Constitution “ Dei Filius ” , chap .
4 ) To state that Muslims adore together with us the one God ( “ nobiscum Deum adorant ” ) , as the II Vatican Council did in Lumen Gentium n. 16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That we Catholics adore with the Muslims the one God is not true .
We do not adore with them .
In the act of adoration , we always adore the Holy Trinity , we do not simply adore “ the one God ” but , rather , the Holy Trinity consciously—Father , Son , and Holy Ghost .
Islam rejects the Holy Trinity .
When the Muslims adore , they do not adore on the supernatural level of faith .
Even our act of adoration is radically different .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to God and adore Him as children who are constituted within the ineffable dignity of divine filial adoption , and we do this with supernatural faith .
However , the Muslims do not have supernatural faith .
The Muslims have only a natural knowledge of God .
The Koran is not the revelation of God , but a kind of anti-revelation of God , because the Koran expressly denies the divine revelation of the Incarnation , of the eternal divinity of the Son of God , of the redemptive sacrifice of Christ on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth of God , the Holy Trinity .
Of course , when a person sincerely adores God the Creator—as the majority of simple Muslim people do—they adore God with a natural act of worship , based on the natural knowledge of God , the Creator .
Every non-Christian , every non-baptized person , including a Muslim , can adore God on the level of the natural knowledge of the existence of God .
They adore in a natural act of adoration the same God , whom we adore in a supernatural act and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But these are two essentially different acts of adoration : the one is an act of natural knowledge and the other is an act of supernatural faith .
The acts of adoration , and the acts of knowing on which they are based , are substantially different , though the object is the same in that it is the same God .
Perhaps one could formulate in this way : “ Muslims adore God in an act of natural worship , and thus in a way substantially different from what we Catholics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with supernatural faith.
” The subjective act of adoration of the Muslims is also different because their understanding of God is different from ours .
One should bear in mind the fact that Muslims , accepting propositions asserted of God that are not of divine origin , are in danger of offering a false knowledge and a false worship to God even on the natural level .
The Document of Abu Dhabi speaks of “ the basis of our common belief in God.
” However , those who follow Islam see God as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and this is a very defective idea of God .
A considerable portion of Muslims have a distorted and false image of God as One who is unable to communicate personally with us , and whom we can not truly and personally love as our Father and as our Redeemer .
One must also consider the fact that the Muslim conception of Jesus is a rejection of the Christian idea : for the Koran states that God can not have a Son , and so they reject the Incarnation even if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is inaccurate to equate their veneration of Jesus with our adoration of Him as God Incarnate and the Redeemer of mankind ; and their veneration of Mary is not the same as our veneration of her as the Mother of God .
Hence , we can not learn from them how to relate properly to Jesus or Mary .
In addition , their understanding that life is “ for ” God is not the same as ours , for Jesus taught that God is our Father , that we live for Him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Him and be happy with Him forever , whereas their conception of living for God is as a slave lives to serve a powerful Master .
Finally , the Muslim conception of mercy is different from the Christian conception of mercy , for we are merciful as God the Father was merciful to us , sending His Son to die for us when we were still His enemies , something which the Muslims deny .
According to Surah 9:29 , Muslims are to “ fight those who do not believe in Allah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture— [ fight ] until they give the tribute [ jizyah ] willingly while they are humbled.
” One can not agree with the thesis that says that a proper reading of the Koran is opposed to every form of violence .
First , this is not true simply based on a plain reading of the Koran .
The later Surahs of the Koran are very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occupation of non-Muslim countries by violence .
Even in our days this is well understood by many Muslims to be the legitimate method to read the Koran .
Further , the majority of Muslims agree that the later ( more violent ) Surahs have more authority .
Usually , Muslims understand the Koran literally as they have no spiritual or allegorical exegesis .
Maybe some exceptional persons , some good Islamic scholars will do this , but they do not represent Islam as such .
They have no ultimate authority .
From the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , therefore , misleading and confusing that the Roman Pontiff signed a common document with an Islamic religious authority using the terms “ God ” , “ Faith ” , “ pluralism and diversity of religions ” , “ fraternity , ” though these terms have substantially different meanings in the teachings of the Koran and in the Divine Revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ .
Furthermore , one has also to keep in mind the fact , that the Muslims have no authority to settle disputes with a universal authority , since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is no authority to represent Islam as such , and that there is no central authority in Islam to decide doctrinal questions for all Muslims .
The only stable universal fraternity is the fraternity in Christ .
Only in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit He sent , people can truly be children of God and truly say to God “ Father ” and consequently be truly brethren : “ For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God .
You have received the Spirit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cry , 'Abba !
Father ! '
The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God , and , if children , then heirs – heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ ” ( Rm .
8:14-17 ) .
The only true and stable peace is the peace of Christ .
The following teaching of Pope Pius XI from almost a hundred years ago , faithfully transmits what Jesus Christ , Our Divine Teacher and Redeemer , and the constant Magisterium of the Church taught throughout the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to which the analysis of the Abu Dhabi Document has be submitted : “ We do not need a peace that will consist merely in acts of external or formal courtesy , but a peace which will penetrate the souls of men and which will unite , heal , and reopen their hearts to that mutual affection which is born of brotherly love .
The peace of Christ is the only peace answering this description : 'let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts . '
( Col. 3:15 ) Nor is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Christ gave to His disciples ( Jn .
14:27 ) for since He is God , He 'beholds the heart ' ( 1 Kings 16:7 ) and in our hearts His kingdom is set up .
Again , Jesus Christ is perfectly justified when He calls this peace of soul His own for He was the first Who said to men , 'all you are brethren . '
( Matt .
23:8 ) He gave likewise to us , sealing it with His own life 's blood , the law of brotherly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is my commandment , that you love one another , as I have loved you . '
( Jn .
15:12 ) 'Bear ye one another 's burdens ; and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ . '
( Gal .
6:2 ) ” ( Encyclical Ubi arcano Dei Consilio , 33 ) .
“ True peace , the peace of Christ , is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity , unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private life.
” ( Encyclical Ubi arcano Dei Consilio , 47 ) “ The re-establishment of Christ 's kingdom , we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace.
” ( Encyclical Ubi arcano Dei Consilio , 49 ) “ Only in this Kingdom of Christ can we find that true human equality by which all men are ennobled and made great by the selfsame nobility and greatness , for each is ennobled by the precious blood of Christ.
” ( Encyclical Ubi arcano Dei Consilio , 58 ) + Athanasius @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Saint Mary in Astana

PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus! Sign the petition here.
June 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Bishop Athanasius Schneider has once more raised his voice concerning the controversial February 4, 2019 Abu Dhabi Statement on Human Fraternity where Pope Francis and a Grand Imam jointly declared, among other problematic statements, that God wills a “diversity” of religions.
Bishop Schneider’s intervention (read full text below) comes after Cardinal Gerhard Müller wrote an extensive interpretation and explanation of that document. While Cardinal Müller presents an “interpretative key” with the help of which one might be able to read this document in a less controversial manner, Bishop Schneider points out those aspects of the document which are not in accordance with Catholic Tradition and thus need to be criticized.
Writing for the Catholic journal Communio (3/2020), Cardinal Müller stated that it is “sensational” that, “for the first time in the eventful and conflict-ridden history of the two largest faith communities of the world – comprising together of 3 billion people – the highest authority of the Catholic Church and a high-ranking religious and academic authority of the Islamic world present a common text” which expects from their faithful “a consent which binds them in their consciences.”
The German prelate explained that he wishes to present a “reading aid” for this document, which he assesses as being “not an act of the Magisterium” with regard to the revealed faith and morals, but still a document by the highest authority in the Church interpreting the natural moral law.
For the German prelate, this document “corresponds in its intention with the General Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations (1948),” beside its dealing with faith in God and His Grace. He continued to explain that both in the Christian and in the Islamic tradition, the “faith in God” calls for “fraternity as a vocation and a demand upon man in his conscience.”
Modern ideologies which aim at destruction and which have a sort of social-Darwinist world view, Cardinal Müller wrote, have to be opposed by “those who believe in God the almighty and benevolent Creator,” and this with the help of “the principle of the universal brotherhood.” While insisting upon the importance and essential element of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Trinity, he thinks still that there can be, on the natural level and by virtue of our creation, a “natural brotherhood of all people.” Cardinal Müller, later on, added that “any violence and any force” with regard to matters of faith is unacceptable. Here, he stressed the important duty of “any religious or civil authority” of accepting “the fundamental, supranational human right to religious freedom,” while at the same time insisting that this does not mean a relativism with regard to the revealed truth.
Cardinal Müller, who endorsed the Abu Dhabi document in its essential claims while at the same time providing some fundamental Catholic principles involved, added that neither Pope Francis nor the Grand Imam “abandoned their individual confessions of faith which stand, in important matters, in contradiction to one another by virtue of their content.” This document, he continued, “is not rooted in a relativism concerning God's claim to truth, nor does it go into the direction of a unified religion as it is being favored by progressive and socialist elites.”
Touching upon the criticism of the Abu Dhabi statement as it has been expressed by bishops and theologians, the German prelate stated that one “can” interpret the one sentence of the document regarding the “diversity of religions” as “willed by God” in a relativistic manner, but that it “must” not necessarily be done. Here, he insisted that one has rather to “interpret” the text and its hermeneutic and terminology (which had passed in the process through numerous hands) “with a view on the good intention of their authors rather than with a view on the academic precision in its expressions.”
“It seems obvious,” Müller continued, “that one wanted to formulate in a positive manner and in view of the authority of God the Creator that which otherwise would have been formulated in a negative manner, namely, that no one may be discriminated because of his religion, skin color and so on.”
Further commenting on the Abu Dhabi statement, Cardinal Müller goes on to say that “the irritation about the above-mentioned sentence” could have been “avoided if one not simply had talked of the (absolute) will of God, as it is part of His Being with His Eternal Wisdom and Reason,” but, rather, in light of “His universal salvific will as it unfolds itself throughout history” which aims at leading all “pagans to the obedience of the Faith.” (Rom. 16,25ff) Here, Müller speaks of the “permissive will of God,” which stands in relation to the “evil as a defect of nature or evil as contradiction to the intended good.”
Important in this context is that the German cardinal questions whether a Pope can at all sign a document with a Muslim “in the name of God,” as the Abu Dhabi statement does, since Muslim monotheism is opposed to the Catholic belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. Catholics cannot speak about the Father without His Son. However, according to the German prelate, in spite of these differences, “the dignity of man and the human rights can be founded in the transcendence and majesty of God.” While we cannot “pray together to God in prayer, since a Christian can only speak to the Father through Christ in the Holy Ghost,” Müller wrote, we still can “begin the dialogue and the collaboration and assure us of the most fundamental elements that we have in common – that God exists, that He is One (Deum esse unum), that He, in His Benevolence, created the world and that men are, based on their freedom, accountable before Him for their deeds.”
As can be seen in this short summary of the new intervention of Cardinal Müller, he tries to interpret the Abu Dhabi document in a less controversial manner, similar to how he had approached, in 2017, the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia. At the time, he insisted that this document, which was used by shepherds in various places around the world as a justification to give Holy Communion to “remarried” Catholics currently living in adulterous unions, is not heretical. Or, as a title by the Website Crux put it in 2017: “Müller’s defense of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ reads it in Church tradition.”
With regard to Müller's statement on the Abu Dhabi text, both Katholisch.de – the German bishops' new website – as well as Vatican News reviewed it in a positive way.
However, there are different positions on how to approach some of these controversial documents by Pope Francis. Bishop Athanasius Schneider has chosen to directly confront the errors or ambiguities that are to be found in the Abu Dhabi statement. Only a few days ago, he already made a statement on the Abu Dhabi document opposing the view that God positively wills the diversity of religions. In that statement, Schneider discussed some problems regarding the Second Vatican Council's teaching on religious freedom which might need a future correction, just as it has been done in the past with other conciliar statements of previous centuries.
In his new statement as sent to LifeSiteNews, the Kazakh bishop of German origin points out that the same above-mentioned sentence – namely, that the diversity of religions is willed by God, just as the diversity of color, sex, and more – is “the most erroneous and dangerous affirmation” of the text. Bishop Schneider also criticizes the document's formulation about a common faith in God. By quoting Holy Scripture, he insists: “There is only 'one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism' (Eph. 4:5), 'for all men have not faith.' (2 Thess. 3:2)” In essence, there is only one true Faith, the Catholic Faith, and the other religions are false religions.
Further distinguishing between the Catholic Faith and the Muslim faith – and pointing to the Second Vatican Council's ambiguous teaching in this specific matter – the German prelate writes: “To state that Muslims adore together with us the one God ('nobiscum Deum adorant'), as Vatican II Council did in Lumen Gentium n. 16, is theologically a highly ambiguous affirmation. That we Catholics adore with the Muslims the one God is not true. We do not adore with them. In the act of adoration, we always adore the Holy Trinity, we do not simply adore 'the one God' but, rather, the Holy Trinity consciously—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Islam rejects the Holy Trinity. When the Muslims adore, they do not adore on the supernatural level of faith. Even our act of adoration is radically different.”
Moreover, he adds, we Catholics have a “supernatural faith,” while Muslims might adore God on a natural level; they “can adore God on the level of the natural knowledge of the existence of God. They adore in a natural act of adoration the same God, whom we adore in a supernatural act and with supernatural faith in the Holy Trinity.” “But these are two essentially different acts of adoration, Schneider concludes.
The prelate further explains the many other differences between the Catholic and Muslim understanding of God's nature, of who Jesus and Mary are (they do not believe Jesus is the Son of God, therefore they cannot adore Him properly).
Bishop Schneider also insists that Muslims have a different conception of mercy than Christians.
“According to Surah 9:29,” he writes “Muslims are to 'fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture—[fight] until they give the tribute [jizyah] willingly while they are humbled.'”
“One cannot agree,” Schneider continues, “with the thesis that says that a proper reading of the Koran is opposed to every form of violence. First, this is not true simply based on a plain reading of the Koran. The later Surahs of the Koran are very violent toward non-Muslims and call for the occupation of non-Muslim countries by violence. Even in our days, this is well understood by many Muslims to be the legitimate method to read the Koran.”
In this sense, the Muslims have a different understanding of fraternity. For us Catholics, the fraternity of Christ is the basis of our own understanding of fraternity.
Says Bishop Schneider: “The only stable universal fraternity is the fraternity in Christ. Only in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit He sent, people can truly be children of God and truly say to God 'Father' and consequently be truly brethren: 'For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. You have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and, if children, then heirs – heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ' (Rm. 8:14-17).
Therefore, the author comes to a clear conclusion with regard to the Abu Dhabi document: “From the theological point of view it is, therefore, misleading and confusing that the Roman Pontiff signed a common document with an Islamic religious authority using the terms 'God', 'Faith', 'pluralism and diversity of religions', 'fraternity,' though these terms have substantially different meanings in the teachings of the Koran and in the Divine Revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
***
Full statement by Bishop Athanasius Schneider:
There is no common faith in God nor common adoration of God shared by Catholics and Muslims
The most erroneous and dangerous affirmation of the Abu Dhabi Document on “Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” (signed by Pope Francis and The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmad Al-Tayyeb on February 4, 2019) is the following: “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.” It contradicts Divine Revelation to say that, just as God positively wills the diversity of the male and female sexes and the diversity of nations, so in the same way he also wills the diversity of religions.
The Abu Dhabi Document speaks also about a common faith in God, for instance: “It is a document that invites all persons who have faith in God and faith in human fraternity.” Here the meaning of faith itself is ambiguous and, moreover, the meaning of faith in God is put on the natural level of believing “in human fraternity.” This is theologically wrong and misleading.
The meaning of the term “faith” is given by Jesus Christ Himself, hence by Divine Revelation. There is only “one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism” (Eph. 4:5), “for all men have not faith.” (2 Thess. 3:2) Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, is the “the author and perfecter of our faith.” (Hebr. 12:2) Whoever does not believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God has no faith and does not please God, as the Lord says: “Whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (Jn 3:18) and “Whoever does not believe in the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God remains on him.” (Jn 3:36)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “For a Christian, believing in God cannot be separated from believing in the One he sent, his “beloved Son,” in whom the Father is “well pleased”; God tells us to listen to him. (cf. Mk 1:11) The Lord himself said to His disciples: “Believe in God, believe also in me.” (Jn 14:1) (CCC n. 151) “Faith” and “believe” does not mean the knowledge of God by the natural light of the reason, but a supernatural gift of God “aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised.” (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, sess. 6, chap. 6)
The Church always taught with the First Vatican Council that “the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion” (Dogmatic Constitution “Dei Filius”, chap. 3)
The same Council teaches: “The perpetual agreement of the Catholic Church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief certain mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.” (Dogmatic Constitution “Dei Filius”, chap. 4)
To state that Muslims adore together with us the one God (“nobiscum Deum adorant”), as the II Vatican Council did in Lumen Gentium n. 16, is theologically a highly ambiguous affirmation. That we Catholics adore with the Muslims the one God is not true. We do not adore with them. In the act of adoration, we always adore the Holy Trinity, we do not simply adore “the one God” but, rather, the Holy Trinity consciously—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Islam rejects the Holy Trinity. When the Muslims adore, they do not adore on the supernatural level of faith. Even our act of adoration is radically different. It is essentially different. Precisely because we turn to God and adore Him as children who are constituted within the ineffable dignity of divine filial adoption, and we do this with supernatural faith. However, the Muslims do not have supernatural faith. The Muslims have only a natural knowledge of God. The Koran is not the revelation of God, but a kind of anti-revelation of God, because the Koran expressly denies the divine revelation of the Incarnation, of the eternal divinity of the Son of God, of the redemptive sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and therefore denies the truth of God, the Holy Trinity. Of course, when a person sincerely adores God the Creator—as the majority of simple Muslim people do—they adore God with a natural act of worship, based on the natural knowledge of God, the Creator. Every non-Christian, every non-baptized person, including a Muslim, can adore God on the level of the natural knowledge of the existence of God. They adore in a natural act of adoration the same God, whom we adore in a supernatural act and with supernatural faith in the Holy Trinity. But these are two essentially different acts of adoration: the one is an act of natural knowledge and the other is an act of supernatural faith. The acts of adoration, and the acts of knowing on which they are based, are substantially different, though the object is the same in that it is the same God. Perhaps one could formulate in this way: “Muslims adore God in an act of natural worship, and thus in a way substantially different from what we Catholics do, since we adore God always with supernatural faith.”
The subjective act of adoration of the Muslims is also different because their understanding of God is different from ours. One should bear in mind the fact that Muslims, accepting propositions asserted of God that are not of divine origin, are in danger of offering a false knowledge and a false worship to God even on the natural level.
The Document of Abu Dhabi speaks of “the basis of our common belief in God.” However, those who follow Islam see God as distant, devoid of a personal interrelationship, and this is a very defective idea of God. A considerable portion of Muslims have a distorted and false image of God as One who is unable to communicate personally with us, and whom we cannot truly and personally love as our Father and as our Redeemer.
One must also consider the fact that the Muslim conception of Jesus is a rejection of the Christian idea: for the Koran states that God cannot have a Son, and so they reject the Incarnation even if they accept the Virgin Birth. Therefore, it is inaccurate to equate their veneration of Jesus with our adoration of Him as God Incarnate and the Redeemer of mankind; and their veneration of Mary is not the same as our veneration of her as the Mother of God. Hence, we cannot learn from them how to relate properly to Jesus or Mary. In addition, their understanding that life is “for” God is not the same as ours, for Jesus taught that God is our Father, that we live for Him, in order to increase our love for Him and be happy with Him forever, whereas their conception of living for God is as a slave lives to serve a powerful Master. Finally, the Muslim conception of mercy is different from the Christian conception of mercy, for we are merciful as God the Father was merciful to us, sending His Son to die for us when we were still His enemies, something which the Muslims deny.
According to Surah 9:29, Muslims are to “fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture—[fight] until they give the tribute [jizyah] willingly while they are humbled.”
One cannot agree with the thesis that says that a proper reading of the Koran is opposed to every form of violence. First, this is not true simply based on a plain reading of the Koran. The later Surahs of the Koran are very violent toward non-Muslims and call for the occupation of non-Muslim countries by violence. Even in our days this is well understood by many Muslims to be the legitimate method to read the Koran. Further, the majority of Muslims agree that the later (more violent) Surahs have more authority. Usually, Muslims understand the Koran literally as they have no spiritual or allegorical exegesis. Maybe some exceptional persons, some good Islamic scholars will do this, but they do not represent Islam as such. They have no ultimate authority.
From the theological point of view, it is, therefore, misleading and confusing that the Roman Pontiff signed a common document with an Islamic religious authority using the terms “God”, “Faith”, “pluralism and diversity of religions”, “fraternity,” though these terms have substantially different meanings in the teachings of the Koran and in the Divine Revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, one has also to keep in mind the fact, that the Muslims have no authority to settle disputes with a universal authority, since they have no magisterium, and that there is no authority to represent Islam as such, and that there is no central authority in Islam to decide doctrinal questions for all Muslims.
The only stable universal fraternity is the fraternity in Christ. Only in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit He sent, people can truly be children of God and truly say to God “Father” and consequently be truly brethren: “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. You have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and, if children, then heirs – heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ” (Rm. 8:14-17).
The only true and stable peace is the peace of Christ. The following teaching of Pope Pius XI from almost a hundred years ago, faithfully transmits what Jesus Christ, Our Divine Teacher and Redeemer, and the constant Magisterium of the Church taught throughout the ages, and which remain the criteria to which the analysis of the Abu Dhabi Document has be submitted:
“We do not need a peace that will consist merely in acts of external or formal courtesy, but a peace which will penetrate the souls of men and which will unite, heal, and reopen their hearts to that mutual affection which is born of brotherly love. The peace of Christ is the only peace answering this description: 'let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts.' (Col. 3:15) Nor is there any other peace possible than that which Christ gave to His disciples (Jn. 14:27) for since He is God, He 'beholds the heart' (1 Kings 16:7) and in our hearts His kingdom is set up. Again, Jesus Christ is perfectly justified when He calls this peace of soul His own for He was the first Who said to men, 'all you are brethren.' (Matt. 23:8) He gave likewise to us, sealing it with His own life's blood, the law of brotherly love, of mutual forbearance – 'This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you.' (Jn. 15:12) 'Bear ye one another's burdens; and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ.' (Gal. 6:2)” (Encyclical Ubi arcano Dei Consilio, 33).
“True peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life.” (Encyclical Ubi arcano Dei Consilio, 47)
“The re-establishment of Christ's kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace.” (Encyclical Ubi arcano Dei Consilio, 49)
“Only in this Kingdom of Christ can we find that true human equality by which all men are ennobled and made great by the selfsame nobility and greatness, for each is ennobled by the precious blood of Christ.” (Encyclical Ubi arcano Dei Consilio, 58)
June 4, 2020
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
Follow Maike Dr. Maike Hickson was born and raised in Germany. She holds a PhD from the University of Hannover, Germany, after having written in Switzerland her doctoral dissertation on the history of Swiss intellectuals before and during World War II. She now lives in the U.S. and is married to Dr. Robert Hickson, and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits. Dr. Hickson published in 2014 a Festschrift, a collection of some thirty essays written by thoughtful authors in honor of her husband upon his 70th birthday, which is entitled A Catholic Witness in Our Time. Hickson has closely followed the papacy of Pope Francis and the developments in the Catholic Church in Germany, and she has been writing articles on religion and politics for U.S. and European publications and websites such as LifeSiteNews, OnePeterFive, The Wanderer, Rorate Caeli, Catholicism.org, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Notizie Pro-Vita, Corrispondenza Romana, Katholisches.info, Der Dreizehnte, Zeit-Fragen, and Westfalen-Blatt.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-08--Court mostly affirms NY law forcing pro-life orgs to accept pro-abortion employees

PETITION : Demand Planned Parenthood return $ 80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund !
Sign the petition here .
June 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York has upheld most of a law allowing the Empire State to force pro-life organizations to employ workers who oppose their religious values and pro-life mission while throwing out one provision of the law as compelling speech .
The law forbids New York employers from engaging in “ discrimination ” or “ retaliatory personnel action ” against employees on the basis of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or from requiring them to sign any “ document which purports to deny an employee the right to make their own reproductive health care decisions.
” It contains no religious exemption .
Last fall , Alliance Defending Freedom ( ADF ) took up the case on behalf of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates ( NIFLA ) , First Bible Baptist Church in Hilton , and the pro-life pregnancy care service CompassCare , arguing that the law “ intentionally and by design sacrifices the associational , speech , and religious freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ the government ’ s desire to promote abortion rights.
” On June 5 , the district court ruled against the pro-life groups , the Religion Clause blog reported .
“ The limitations here are not on the speech for which the Plaintiffs contend they associate , but instead threaten to create a situation where hearers might perceive that not all employees ... of the Plaintiffs practiced what they preached , ” the court concluded .
“ The danger that others be able to call the Plaintiffs hypocrites is not a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to associate.
” The court did side with pro-lifers on one element of the law , however : its requirement that employers affirm employees ’ “ reproductive rights ” in their handbooks .
“ The Court finds that the statute compels Defendants to use language they otherwise would not , ” the ruling states .
“ The notice provision , therefore , is subject to strict scrutiny .
No issue of professional speech applies here , which could raise an issue concerning some other level of scrutiny.
” “ This law is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of religion , freedom of speech , and freedom of association , ” CompassCare says of the legal mandate .
“ To be clear , obeying this law would force CompassCare to violate its mission and beliefs .
CompassCare can not in good conscience obey this law .
We sue not because we want to but because it is needed to ensure pro-life Christians can continue expressing their convictions publicly and peaceably.
” The law was signed by New York Democrat Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , and is only the latest instance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic self-identification .
Last year , Cuomo infamously signed a law codifying a “ right ” to third-trimester abortions , erasing the state ’ s recognition of preborn babies as potential homicide victims , removing abortion from the penal code entirely , and allowing non-doctors to commit abortions .

One of the groups called the ruling the 'trifecta of constitutional violations, hindering freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.'
PETITION: Demand Planned Parenthood return $80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund! Sign the petition here.
June 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York has upheld most of a law allowing the Empire State to force pro-life organizations to employ workers who oppose their religious values and pro-life mission while throwing out one provision of the law as compelling speech.
The law forbids New York employers from engaging in “discrimination” or “retaliatory personnel action” against employees on the basis of their “reproductive health decision-making,” or from requiring them to sign any “document which purports to deny an employee the right to make their own reproductive health care decisions.” It contains no religious exemption.
Last fall, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) took up the case on behalf of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), First Bible Baptist Church in Hilton, and the pro-life pregnancy care service CompassCare, arguing that the law “intentionally and by design sacrifices the associational, speech, and religious freedom of employers in New York State” to “the government’s desire to promote abortion rights.”
On June 5, the district court ruled against the pro-life groups, the Religion Clause blog reported.
“The limitations here are not on the speech for which the Plaintiffs contend they associate, but instead threaten to create a situation where hearers might perceive that not all employees … of the Plaintiffs practiced what they preached,” the court concluded. “The danger that others be able to call the Plaintiffs hypocrites is not a significant limitation on Plaintiffs’ speech or right to associate.”
The court did side with pro-lifers on one element of the law, however: its requirement that employers affirm employees’ “reproductive rights” in their handbooks. “The Court finds that the statute compels Defendants to use language they otherwise would not,” the ruling states. “The notice provision, therefore, is subject to strict scrutiny. No issue of professional speech applies here, which could raise an issue concerning some other level of scrutiny.”
“This law is a trifecta of constitutional violations, hindering freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association,” CompassCare says of the legal mandate. “To be clear, obeying this law would force CompassCare to violate its mission and beliefs. CompassCare cannot in good conscience obey this law. We sue not because we want to but because it is needed to ensure pro-life Christians can continue expressing their convictions publicly and peaceably.”
The law was signed by New York Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and is only the latest instance of his pro-abortion priorities starkly contrasting against his Catholic self-identification. Last year, Cuomo infamously signed a law codifying a “right” to third-trimester abortions, erasing the state’s recognition of preborn babies as potential homicide victims, removing abortion from the penal code entirely, and allowing non-doctors to commit abortions.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-08--Asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 ‘very rare,’ World Health Org admits

PETITION : Thank President Trump for halting U.S. funding to pro-abortion World Health Organization !
Sign the petition here .
June 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The medical establishment is backing away from yet another piece of conventional wisdom about COVID-19 , with the World Health Organization ’ s ( WHO ’ s ) admission Monday that individuals without symptoms are unlikely to spread the coronavirus .
World governments ’ initial decision to impose drastic restrictions on public activity , including widespread mask-wearing and “ social distancing ” of six feet or more between individuals , was based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 could easily spread among people who were unaware of being infected .
But now the WHO is calling that theory into doubt , CNBC reported .
“ From the data we have , it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual , ” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove , head of WHO ’ s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit , told the United Nations on Monday .
While adding that more data is needed to “ truly answer ” the question , Van Kerkhove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ very detailed contact tracing ” in which “ they ’ re following asymptomatic cases .
They ’ re following contacts .
And they ’ re not finding secondary transmission onward .
It ’ s very rare.
” Based on these findings , she said the public health focus should be on “ following the symptomatic cases .
If we actually followed all of the symptomatic cases , isolated those cases , followed the contacts and quarantined those contacts , we would drastically reduce ” the outbreak .
This latest acknowledgement echoes what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been saying for months , to the scorn of politicians and so-called experts who have supported the lockdowns , and insisted that reopenings will bring about widespread death .
The news is particularly relevant for the demands that healthy people wear masks in public , which offer little protection to the wearer yet theoretically keep him from passing the virus to others .
If asymptomatic spread is not a serious danger after all , then the case for asymptomatic people wearing them all but evaporates , as those confirmed to have COVID-19 are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first place , with or without a mask .
As of June 8 , the world is estimated to have seen more than 7.1 million COVID-19 cases , with more than 407,000 deaths and 3.4 million recoveries .
An estimated 40 percent of those deaths across the United States , and an equal or higher share among more than a dozen other countries , have come from nursing homes .
In the United States , the lockdowns , which were based in large part on the theory of asymptomatic spread , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thousands of jobs , more than 33 million Americans filing for unemployment , fears that tens of thousands of small businesses will never reopen , and a range of other physical and mental health woes , due to everything from delayed medical procedures to social isolation to anxiety over being unable to work .
Fortunately , various states lifting or softening their lockdowns last month led to the U.S. Labor Department announcing Friday that a record 2.5 million jobs were restored in May .
Readers can click here for LifeSiteNews ’ live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all over the world .

A person who shows no symptoms may be unlikely to pass the virus on to others, which calls into question the necessity of public lockdowns.
PETITION: Thank President Trump for halting U.S. funding to pro-abortion World Health Organization! Sign the petition here.
UPDATE, June 9, 2020: This post has been updated to include follow-up statements from WHO officials.
June 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The medical establishment is backing away from yet another piece of conventional wisdom about COVID-19, with the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) admission Monday that individuals without symptoms are unlikely to spread the coronavirus, although the embattled medical body subsequently took pains to “clarify” its statements.
World governments’ initial decision to impose drastic restrictions on public activity, including widespread mask-wearing and “social distancing” of six feet or more between individuals, was based in large part on the belief that COVID-19 could easily spread among people who were unaware of being infected. But now the WHO is calling that theory into doubt, CNBC reported.
“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, told the United Nations on Monday.
While adding that more data is needed to “truly answer” the question, Van Kerkhove explained that several countries are currently conducting “very detailed contact tracing” in which “they’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare.”
Based on these findings, she said the public health focus should be on “following the symptomatic cases. If we actually followed all of the symptomatic cases, isolated those cases, followed the contacts and quarantined those contacts, we would drastically reduce” the outbreak.
The admission provoked a strong backlash among supporters of continued lockdowns, prompting follow-up statements from Van Kerkhove on Tuesday, the Daily Caller reports. She suggested that she misspoke when she called asymptomatic spread “very rare,” and “was just trying to articulate what we know” from a “very small subset of studies.”
Van Kerkhove admitted Tuesday that the true number of asymptomatic carriers was still a question mark, but has been estimated anywhere from 6% to 40%. “What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.
Summary: WHO said yesterday that per actual tracking, Covid’s spread from asymptomatic cases is “very rare.” WHO clarifies (does NOT walk back) today A) It is only 2-3 studies B) But not yet WHO’s adapted view C) Theory of mass spread from asymptomatic cases are just models. — Yossi Gestetner (@YossiGestetner) June 9, 2020
So now asymptomatic transmission is a thing. Says @who.
Yep, I'm shocked, shocked that @who would change an important health recommendation or message around #COVID in the face of political and media pressure. It's only happened at least three times so far… https://t.co/Zlqwfp5uKA — Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) June 9, 2020
Regardless, the original acknowledgement echoes what skeptics of the COVID-19 lockdown policies have been saying for months, to the scorn of politicians and so-called experts who have supported the lockdowns, and insisted that reopenings will bring about widespread death.
The news is particularly relevant for the demands that healthy people wear masks in public, which offer little protection to the wearer yet theoretically keep him from passing the virus to others. If asymptomatic spread is not a serious danger after all, then the case for asymptomatic people wearing them all but evaporates, as those confirmed to have COVID-19 are not supposed to go out in public in the first place, with or without a mask.
As of June 8, the world is estimated to have seen more than 7.1 million COVID-19 cases, with more than 407,000 deaths and 3.4 million recoveries. An estimated 40 percent of those deaths across the United States, and an equal or higher share among more than a dozen other countries, have come from nursing homes.
In the United States, the lockdowns, which were based in large part on the theory of asymptomatic spread, have led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, more than 33 million Americans filing for unemployment, fears that tens of thousands of small businesses will never reopen, and a range of other physical and mental health woes, due to everything from delayed medical procedures to social isolation to anxiety over being unable to work. Fortunately, various states lifting or softening their lockdowns last month led to the U.S. Labor Department announcing Friday that a record 2.5 million jobs were restored in May.
Readers can click here for LifeSiteNews’ live updates on the coronavirus and its impact all over the world.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-08--Trust that God is allowing this chastisement to bring us back to Him

To help keep this and other programs on the air , please donate here .
Watch Mother Miriam 's Live @ @ @ @ @ , Mother reminds us to trust in God during these tough times .
Especially during @ @ @ @ @ to trust that He is allowing these sufferings so we can grow closer to Him @ @ @ @ @ the Trinity and the Holy Spirit .
You can tune in daily at 10 am @ @ @ @ @ Facebook Page .

To help keep this and other programs on the air, please donate here.
Watch Mother Miriam's Live show on 6.8.2020. Today, Mother reminds us to trust in God during these tough times. Especially during this chastisement, we need to trust that He is allowing these sufferings so we can grow closer to Him. She also speaks about the Trinity and the Holy Spirit.
You can tune in daily at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our Facebook Page.
Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live here.


lifesitenews--2020-06-08--Trump issues huge warning to world governments to respect religious freedom

June 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Trump Administration has been a stalwart defender of religious liberty at home .
Now a new presidential order puts America squarely on the side of protecting and advancing religious liberty abroad .
The new executive order , signed on June 2 , is called “ Advancing International Religious Freedom.
” Its intent is to put religious freedom on an equal footing with the many other American interests that our diplomats are charged to advance .
Such an order has long been sorely needed .
As someone who has worked on human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personally attest to the fact that human rights concerns in general , and religious freedom issues in particular , are neglected in U.S. foreign policy .
Economic , trade , and security issues are put in one “ basket , ” and are pursued with vigor and persistence .
Religious freedom issues are placed in a second “ basket ” , which is all too often given much less attention by America ’ s diplomats .
If you are learning about the new executive order for the first time , you are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprisingly , has almost totally ignored the President ’ s action .
For the most part , its “ reporters ” are too busy breathlessly hyping the orchestrated anarchy that has gripped American streets , too busy concocting false narratives about the actions of this President , and far too hostile to religious believers in general , to even bother taking notice .
“ Religious freedom , America ’ s first freedom , is a moral and national security imperative .
Religious freedom for all people worldwide is a foreign policy priority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States will respect and vigorously promote this freedom … our Founders understood religious freedom not as a creation of the state , but as a gift of God to every person and a right that is fundamental for the flourishing of our society.
” Lest anyone discount this as mere rhetoric , the executive order follows with a series of concrete action items , beginning with what is essentially a warning to governments to respect religious freedom : “ It is the policy of the United States to engage robustly and continually with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including those in foreign countries — to inform United States Government policies , programs , and activities related to international religious freedom.
” In other words , if you persecute people of faith , we will find out about it , and there will be consequences .
The executive order calls for the drafting of a plan to prioritize international religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy , budgets at least $ 50 million a year for programs that advance it , and mandates that all federal employees stationed overseas receive training in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The order also states that “ faith-based and religious entities , including eligible entities in foreign countries shall not be discriminated against ” when they apply for funding .
The executive order then lays out a series of actions that the U.S. will take against countries and individuals who engage in such persecution .
Countries that engage in systemic , ongoing , and serious violations of religious freedom will lose foreign aid and access to U.S. visas , while those individuals and groups persecuted will receive assistance .
As far as those government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Communist Chinese officials who tear down churches , imprison millions , and rewrite the Bible -- they will be submitted to the Magnitsky Act , and forfeit any property they may own in the U.S .
This past week , to illustrate his commitment to religious freedom , the President paid two visits to Christian sites .
For this , he was viciously criticized by those who , for the most part , are only too eager to discard , or at least not defend , America ’ s Christian heritage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the White House to the historic St. John ’ s Church , which had been firebombed two nights before , and stood before it , Bible in hand .
What was denounced as a “ photo op ” was actually a sign of respect for America ’ s cultural heritage and a visual vow to protect the country ’ s places of worship from those anarchists and rioters who might be tempted to destroy them .
After all , the executive order he signed the next day pledges the US to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ houses of worship and public spaces for all faiths ; and to protect and preserve the cultural heritages of religious communities.
” On the morning of the signing , he made his second visit , this one to the St. John Paul II National Shrine in Northeast Washington .
President Trump and first lady Melania Trump , who is Catholic , laid a wreath and prayed quietly in front of a statue of the late pope .
They also visited the Madonna icon , a blood relic of the pope , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very low-key visit , yet for some reason , it served to arouse the wrath of Archbishop Wilton Gregory .
You would think Catholic Archbishop of Washington , D.C. , would be pleased that the highest-ranking elected officials in the U.S. was praying—with his Catholic wife—at a Catholic shrine .
Instead , he was infuriated : “ I find it baffling and reprehensible that any Catholic facility would allow itself to be so egregiously misused and manipulated in a fashion that violates our religious principles , which call us to defend the rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we might disagree .
Saint Pope John Paul II was an ardent defender of the rights and dignity of human beings .
His legacy bears vivid witness to that truth .
He certainly would not condone the use of tear gas and other deterrents to silence , scatter or intimidate them for a photo opportunity in front of a place of worship and peace.
” This prompted a scathing response from Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano , the former Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S. , who criticized Archbishop Gregory in no uncertain terms as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life is full of lies , deceits , lust and corruption.
” The shrine itself responded by noting that the President was about to sign an executive order on international religious freedom .
The visit was “ fitting given St. John Paul II was a tireless advocate of religious liberty throughout his pontificate .
… The shrine welcomes all people to come and pray and learn about the legacy of St. John Paul II.
” I would add only that Saint John Paul II was also an ardent anti-Communist , who would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent riots for what they were—Left-wing thugs of Marxist inspiration who seek only to destroy .
President Trump , along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , and Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom Sam Brownback , should be commended for the new executive order , which will be enormously useful in addressing specific violations of religious freedom around the world , including those committed against Catholics in places like China and Nigeria .
This is something all Catholics should be celebrating .
Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asia : Why China ’ s Dream is the New Threat to World Order .

Trump’s International Religious Freedom Executive Order means that if world govts persecute people of faith, the US will find out about it, and there will be consequences
PETITION: Ask Archbishop Gregory to apologize to President Trump and the Knights of Columbus! Sign the petition here.
June 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Trump Administration has been a stalwart defender of religious liberty at home. Now a new presidential order puts America squarely on the side of protecting and advancing religious liberty abroad.
The new executive order, signed on June 2, is called “Advancing International Religious Freedom.” Its intent is to put religious freedom on an equal footing with the many other American interests that our diplomats are charged to advance.
Such an order has long been sorely needed. As someone who has worked on human rights issues for decades, I can personally attest to the fact that human rights concerns in general, and religious freedom issues in particular, are neglected in U.S. foreign policy. Economic, trade, and security issues are put in one “basket,” and are pursued with vigor and persistence. Religious freedom issues are placed in a second “basket”, which is all too often given much less attention by America’s diplomats.
If you are learning about the new executive order for the first time, you are not alone. The mainstream media, not surprisingly, has almost totally ignored the President’s action. For the most part, its “reporters” are too busy breathlessly hyping the orchestrated anarchy that has gripped American streets, too busy concocting false narratives about the actions of this President, and far too hostile to religious believers in general, to even bother taking notice.
“Advancing International Religious Freedom” begins with a resounding declaration:
“Religious freedom, America’s first freedom, is a moral and national security imperative. Religious freedom for all people worldwide is a foreign policy priority of the United States, and the United States will respect and vigorously promote this freedom … our Founders understood religious freedom not as a creation of the state, but as a gift of God to every person and a right that is fundamental for the flourishing of our society.”
Lest anyone discount this as mere rhetoric, the executive order follows with a series of concrete action items, beginning with what is essentially a warning to governments to respect religious freedom: “It is the policy of the United States to engage robustly and continually with [religious communities and organizations]— including those in foreign countries — to inform United States Government policies, programs, and activities related to international religious freedom.”
In other words, if you persecute people of faith, we will find out about it, and there will be consequences.
The executive order calls for the drafting of a plan to prioritize international religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy, budgets at least $50 million a year for programs that advance it, and mandates that all federal employees stationed overseas receive training in the concept and practice of religious freedom. The order also states that “faith-based and religious entities, including eligible entities in foreign countries shall not be discriminated against” when they apply for funding.
The executive order then lays out a series of actions that the U.S. will take against countries and individuals who engage in such persecution. Countries that engage in systemic, ongoing, and serious violations of religious freedom will lose foreign aid and access to U.S. visas, while those individuals and groups persecuted will receive assistance. As far as those government actors who persecute religious believers–such as the Communist Chinese officials who tear down churches, imprison millions, and rewrite the Bible–they will be submitted to the Magnitsky Act, and forfeit any property they may own in the U.S.
This past week, to illustrate his commitment to religious freedom, the President paid two visits to Christian sites. For this, he was viciously criticized by those who, for the most part, are only too eager to discard, or at least not defend, America’s Christian heritage.
On Monday, the President walked out of the White House to the historic St. John’s Church, which had been firebombed two nights before, and stood before it, Bible in hand. What was denounced as a “photo op” was actually a sign of respect for America’s cultural heritage and a visual vow to protect the country’s places of worship from those anarchists and rioters who might be tempted to destroy them. After all, the executive order he signed the next day pledges the US to “improve the safety and security of houses of worship and public spaces for all faiths; and to protect and preserve the cultural heritages of religious communities.”
On the morning of the signing, he made his second visit, this one to the St. John Paul II National Shrine in Northeast Washington. President Trump and first lady Melania Trump, who is Catholic, laid a wreath and prayed quietly in front of a statue of the late pope. They also visited the Madonna icon, a blood relic of the pope, and the Luminous Mysteries Chapel.
It was a very low-key visit, yet for some reason, it served to arouse the wrath of Archbishop Wilton Gregory. You would think Catholic Archbishop of Washington, D.C., would be pleased that the highest-ranking elected officials in the U.S. was praying—with his Catholic wife—at a Catholic shrine. Instead, he was infuriated:
“I find it baffling and reprehensible that any Catholic facility would allow itself to be so egregiously misused and manipulated in a fashion that violates our religious principles, which call us to defend the rights of all people even those with whom we might disagree. Saint Pope John Paul II was an ardent defender of the rights and dignity of human beings. His legacy bears vivid witness to that truth. He certainly would not condone the use of tear gas and other deterrents to silence, scatter or intimidate them for a photo opportunity in front of a place of worship and peace.”
This prompted a scathing response from Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S., who criticized Archbishop Gregory in no uncertain terms as a “false shepherd whose way of life is full of lies, deceits, lust and corruption.”
The shrine itself responded by noting that the President was about to sign an executive order on international religious freedom. The visit was “fitting given St. John Paul II was a tireless advocate of religious liberty throughout his pontificate. … The shrine welcomes all people to come and pray and learn about the legacy of St. John Paul II.”
I would add only that Saint John Paul II was also an ardent anti-Communist, who would have recognized the anarchists and instigators of the recent riots for what they were—Left-wing thugs of Marxist inspiration who seek only to destroy.
President Trump, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom Sam Brownback, should be commended for the new executive order, which will be enormously useful in addressing specific violations of religious freedom around the world, including those committed against Catholics in places like China and Nigeria.
This is something all Catholics should be celebrating.
Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order.
Follow Steven Steven Mosher is an internationally recognised authority on China and population issues as well as an acclaimed author and speaker and founder and head of the Population Research Institute. He was the first American social scientist to visit mainland China in 1979 where he witnessed women being forced to have abortion under the new “one-child-policy” which he then exposed to the world. Mr. Mosher was a pro-choice atheist at the time, but witnessing these traumatic abortions led him to reconsider his convictions and to eventually become a practicing, pro-life Roman Catholic. Mosher has appeared numerous times before the US Congress as an expert in world population, China and human Rights abuses. He has also made TV appearances on Good Morning America, 60 Minutes, The Today Show, 20/20, FOX and CNN news, as well as being a regular guest on talk radio shows across the nation. He is the author of the best-selling A Mother’s Ordeal: One woman’s Fight Against China’s One-Child-Policy. His latest book is Bully of Asia, exposing the threat of China to the entire world at this time. Articles by Steve have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Reader’s Digest, The New Republic, The Washington Post, National Review, Reason, The Asian Wall Street Journal, Freedom Review, Linacre Quarterly, Catholic World Report, Human Life Review, First Things, and numerous other publications. Steven Mosher lives in Virginia with his wife, Vera, and their nine children.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-08--TikTok deletes priest’s video explaining why Christians shouldn’t support ‘Pride’ Month

DROP Disney+ : New teen film 'Out ' features openly homosexual main character !
Sign the petition here .
June 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – With June ushering in a wave of odes to LGBT “ Pride ” Month across traditional and social media from political , activist , and corporate voices , a Catholic priest ’ s video explaining why the celebration is incompatible with Christian principles drew a flurry of hate from left-wing voices , and a censorship action from video sharing platform TikTok .
On the first of the month , Fr .
Simon Esshaki @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a short video explaining that the faithful are called to love everyone , including those struggling with same-sex attraction , and part of that love means meeting sin with truth , not reinforcement .
“ Christians should not participate in or support Pride Month , ” he said .
“ And it ’ s not because we hate men and women with same-sex attraction .
It ’ s because we know that according to the law of nature and the law of God , marriage should be between man and woman .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ love all those with homosexual tendencies.
” Esshaki was referring to Paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church , which states that homosexual tendencies are “ objectively disordered , ” and those afflicted by them “ must be accepted with respect , compassion , and sensitivity ” while being “ called to fulfill God 's will in their lives and , if they are Christians , to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord 's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
” “ Just because you love somebody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree with them in every single action that they do , ” Esshaki continued .
“ To love someone means to want what ’ s best for them , and it ’ s not best for someone that they are supported in their sinful actions , and it could be homosexual actions , it could be any other type of lustful actions , or any other type of sin .
All sin is bad , and we are all sinners , we all struggle , but we all need the grace of God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Catholics actually dedicate this month to the Sacred Heart of Jesus , so instead of conforming to our sinful desires , let ’ s conform to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and try to become like him , ” the video concluded .
“ Pray for all sinners , love them , but do not support their sinful actions.
” The calm , respectful video was flooded with hostile reactions , ranging from replies accusing Esshaki “ of hate ” to people suggesting with no evidence that he himself was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a certain subset of LGBT activists ) , even a since-deleted image that crudely pasted Esshaki ’ s photo into a gay chat app .
In addition , TikTok temporarily locked Esshaki out of his account , citing unspecified “ Community Guideline violations.
” Esshaki noted the website ’ s hypocrisy in doing so while allowing the posts attacking him to continue : On June 4 , Esshaki made a follow-up statement revealing that he had also received death threats for his stance , and explaining that he briefly deactivated his Twitter account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Esshaki concluded the message by reiterating Christ ’ s command to “ Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you , ” which compelled him to “ continue to love and pray for all the people ” attacking him .
“ I encourage you all to do the same.
” TikTok , which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance , is no stranger to censorship controversies .
In January , it temporarily banned the account of pro-life group Live Action , and last year it temporarily suspended 17-year-old Feroza Aziz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s persecution of the country ’ s Uighur Muslim population .
For months , TikTok has also been a subject of ongoing privacy and even national security concerns , stemming from its ties to the Chinese regime .
In December , a class-action lawsuit was filed against the company for allegedly harvesting user data in secret and sending it back to China .

The Chaldean Catholic priest has been subjected to hostile reactions on social media and even death threats.
DROP Disney+: New teen film 'Out' features openly homosexual main character! Sign the petition here.
June 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – With June ushering in a wave of odes to LGBT “Pride” Month across traditional and social media from political, activist, and corporate voices, a Catholic priest’s video explaining why the celebration is incompatible with Christian principles drew a flurry of hate from left-wing voices, and a censorship action from video sharing platform TikTok.
On the first of the month, Fr. Simon Esshaki of St. Peter Chaldean Catholic Cathedral released a short video explaining that the faithful are called to love everyone, including those struggling with same-sex attraction, and part of that love means meeting sin with truth, not reinforcement.
“Christians should not participate in or support Pride Month,” he said. “And it’s not because we hate men and women with same-sex attraction. It’s because we know that according to the law of nature and the law of God, marriage should be between man and woman. The Catholic Church actually teaches that we should love all those with homosexual tendencies.”
Esshaki was referring to Paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states that homosexual tendencies are “objectively disordered,” and those afflicted by them “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” while being “called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
“Just because you love somebody doesn’t mean you have to agree with them in every single action that they do,” Esshaki continued. “To love someone means to want what’s best for them, and it’s not best for someone that they are supported in their sinful actions, and it could be homosexual actions, it could be any other type of lustful actions, or any other type of sin. All sin is bad, and we are all sinners, we all struggle, but we all need the grace of God to be able to overcome our sins.”
“Catholics actually dedicate this month to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, so instead of conforming to our sinful desires, let’s conform to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and try to become like him,” the video concluded. “Pray for all sinners, love them, but do not support their sinful actions.”
The calm, respectful video was flooded with hostile reactions, ranging from replies accusing Esshaki “of hate” to people suggesting with no evidence that he himself was a closeted homosexual (a common trope among a certain subset of LGBT activists), even a since-deleted image that crudely pasted Esshaki’s photo into a gay chat app.
In addition, TikTok temporarily locked Esshaki out of his account, citing unspecified “Community Guideline violations.” Esshaki noted the website’s hypocrisy in doing so while allowing the posts attacking him to continue:
It’s very disappointing that TikTok allows videos of people defaming me and yet does not allow me to defend myself. @tiktok_us, please fix this. pic.twitter.com/5mCZawR4Ph — Fr. Simon Esshaki (@fathersimon3) June 4, 2020
On June 4, Esshaki made a follow-up statement revealing that he had also received death threats for his stance, and explaining that he briefly deactivated his Twitter account in hopes of defusing the onslaught:
Esshaki concluded the message by reiterating Christ’s command to “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” which compelled him to “continue to love and pray for all the people” attacking him. “I encourage you all to do the same.”
TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, is no stranger to censorship controversies. In January, it temporarily banned the account of pro-life group Live Action, and last year it temporarily suspended 17-year-old Feroza Aziz over a video discussing the Chinese government’s persecution of the country’s Uighur Muslim population.
For months, TikTok has also been a subject of ongoing privacy and even national security concerns, stemming from its ties to the Chinese regime. In December, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the company for allegedly harvesting user data in secret and sending it back to China.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-08--Priest in Germany tells laity to say Mass prayers over bread and wine at home

WÜRZBURG , Germany , June 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Several parishes in the German diocese of Würzburg are publishing texts for worship services at home that include having the laity say words of “ consecration ” over bread , an action that is strictly reserved for priests .
As churches begin to open up , the same parishes are having laity bring bread in a “ lunch box ” that they will hold in their hands during Mass and then self-communicate .
Fr .
Bernhard Albert of Frammersbach , near Frankfurt , had provided the faithful of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worship services amid the coronavirus pandemic .
“ I deliberately inserted the communion part and asked the people at home to take a piece of bread , ” the 65-year-old priest told local newspaper Main-Post on June 3 .
Even after public Masses were allowed again by the government and the dioceses , Fr .
Albert asked his parishioners to bring their own bread to church in a lunch box .
“ That ’ s not a problem .
Everyone has bread and a box at home , ” he said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with them.
” The members of Fr .
Albert ’ s parishes seem to see no problem with the practice .
“ People are very pleased , ” the priest said .
“ They report that they experience communion much more intensely than usual.
” He also said the practice “ couldn ’ t be more hygienic.
” At the time of this writing , texts for three different days are available on the website of Fr .
Albert ’ s three parishes , namely for Pentecost Sunday , Pentecost Monday , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germany , and Trinity Sunday .
The faithful at home make the sign of the cross over bread and wine , say a short prayer , and consume bread and wine .
For the bread , they are to say , “ We take and eat the bread : it is for us the body of Jesus , which was given up for us .
We do this in his memory.
” Similarly , for the wine , the parishioners say , “ We take and drink the wine : It is for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Covenant in His blood , which was shed for us for the forgiveness of sins.
” The texts for Trinity Sunday no longer mention that bread and wine are “ for us ” the body and blood of Christ .
Instead , bread and wine are blessed , and the faithful are told to “ eat the blessed bread ( and drink the wine ) in remembrance of Jesus and the certainty of his whole union in love to us.
” For Pentecost , the wording at that point was “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , whenever a priest or a bishop says the words of consecration over bread and wine , “ the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about .
Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself , living and glorious , is present in a true , real , and substantial manner : his Body and his Blood , with his soul and his divinity.
” However , “ Only validly ordained priests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
” According to the Code of Canon Law , “ The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed .
The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling .
The wine must be natural from the fruit of the vine and not spoiled.
” Additionally , “ the priest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eucharistic celebration whenever he offers it.
” Austrian Catholic news website kath.net had asked the diocese of Würzburg whether it would make sure that the liturgical laws and regulations of the Church are kept .
Also , kath.net asked about simulating the Eucharist during worship services at home without a priest .
Diocesan spokesman Bernhard Schweßinger merely responded , “ First : The diocese of Würzburg is dealing responsibly with the liturgical guidelines .
Second : The diocese of Würzburg is clarifying the issue with the pastor responsible in direct contact.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the diocese of Würzburg , Fr .
Stefan Redelberger of Ansbach , also asked his parishioners to come to Mass with some bread in a lunch box , as pointed out by kath.net .
In his announcement , the priest starts out with an unattributed quote , probably summarizing the sentiments of many faithful .
“ Since mid-March , we ’ ve had to cut back .
It ’ s time for everything to get back to normal !
I don ’ t think we need to be so strict with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explain the new practice of Holy Communion in his parishes , which goes against the rules set by the Church .
“ In order to avoid the two dangerous moments of the Eucharistic celebration ( going to the distribution of Communion and the presentation of the Host ) , each person/couple/family or community sharing an apartment brings a lunch box with the appropriate number of pieces of bread , ” he wrote .
“ During the consecration , you will hold the lunch box in your hands .
For the reception of Communion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bread and communicate in your place.
” The priest attempted to justify the way of receiving the Eucharist as “ a very common practice in Church history .
Depending on the circumstances , the two signs of the Eucharistic celebration , bread and wine , were adapted to the requirements .
”

'I deliberately inserted the communion part and asked the people at home to take a piece of bread'
PETITION: Join faithful German Catholics in resisting bishops’ plan to ‘Protestantize’ Church! Sign the petition here.
WÜRZBURG, Germany, June 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Several parishes in the German diocese of Würzburg are publishing texts for worship services at home that include having the laity say words of “consecration” over bread, an action that is strictly reserved for priests. As churches begin to open up, the same parishes are having laity bring bread in a “lunch box” that they will hold in their hands during Mass and then self-communicate.
Fr. Bernhard Albert of Frammersbach, near Frankfurt, had provided the faithful of his parishes with texts for their own worship services amid the coronavirus pandemic. “I deliberately inserted the communion part and asked the people at home to take a piece of bread,” the 65-year-old priest told local newspaper Main-Post on June 3.
Even after public Masses were allowed again by the government and the dioceses, Fr. Albert asked his parishioners to bring their own bread to church in a lunch box.
“That’s not a problem. Everyone has bread and a box at home,” he said. “Jesus always celebrated with what people had with them.”
The members of Fr. Albert’s parishes seem to see no problem with the practice. “People are very pleased,” the priest said. “They report that they experience communion much more intensely than usual.”
He also said the practice “couldn’t be more hygienic.”
At the time of this writing, texts for three different days are available on the website of Fr. Albert’s three parishes, namely for Pentecost Sunday, Pentecost Monday, which is a holy day of obligation in Germany, and Trinity Sunday.
The faithful at home make the sign of the cross over bread and wine, say a short prayer, and consume bread and wine. For the bread, they are to say, “We take and eat the bread: it is for us the body of Jesus, which was given up for us. We do this in his memory.” Similarly, for the wine, the parishioners say, “We take and drink the wine: It is for us the blood of Jesus, the New Covenant in His blood, which was shed for us for the forgiveness of sins.”
The texts for Trinity Sunday no longer mention that bread and wine are “for us” the body and blood of Christ. Instead, bread and wine are blessed, and the faithful are told to “eat the blessed bread (and drink the wine) in remembrance of Jesus and the certainty of his whole union in love to us.”
For Pentecost, the wording at that point was “the blessed and consecrated” bread and wine.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, whenever a priest or a bishop says the words of consecration over bread and wine, “the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.”
However, “Only validly ordained priests,” as well as bishops, “can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.”
According to the Code of Canon Law, “The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling. The wine must be natural from the fruit of the vine and not spoiled.”
Additionally, “the priest is to use unleavened bread in the eucharistic celebration whenever he offers it.”
Austrian Catholic news website kath.net had asked the diocese of Würzburg whether it would make sure that the liturgical laws and regulations of the Church are kept. Also, kath.net asked about simulating the Eucharist during worship services at home without a priest.
Diocesan spokesman Bernhard Schweßinger merely responded, “First: The diocese of Würzburg is dealing responsibly with the liturgical guidelines. Second: The diocese of Würzburg is clarifying the issue with the pastor responsible in direct contact.”
The priest responsible for another group of parishes in the diocese of Würzburg, Fr. Stefan Redelberger of Ansbach, also asked his parishioners to come to Mass with some bread in a lunch box, as pointed out by kath.net.
In his announcement, the priest starts out with an unattributed quote, probably summarizing the sentiments of many faithful. “Since mid-March, we’ve had to cut back. It’s time for everything to get back to normal! I don’t think we need to be so strict with the rules.”
Fr. Redelberger proceeded to explain the new practice of Holy Communion in his parishes, which goes against the rules set by the Church.
“In order to avoid the two dangerous moments of the Eucharistic celebration (going to the distribution of Communion and the presentation of the Host), each person/couple/family or community sharing an apartment brings a lunch box with the appropriate number of pieces of bread,” he wrote. “During the consecration, you will hold the lunch box in your hands. For the reception of Communion, you take your own piece of bread and communicate in your place.”
The priest attempted to justify the way of receiving the Eucharist as “a very common practice in Church history. Depending on the circumstances, the two signs of the Eucharistic celebration, bread and wine, were adapted to the requirements.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-08--Archbishop Viganò’s letter to President Trump: There is an eternal struggle between good and evil

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has released this powerful letter today to President Trump warning him that the current crises over @ @ @ @ @ George Floyd riots are a part of the eternal spiritual struggle between the forces of @ @ @ @ @ encourages the president to continue the fight on behalf of the “ children of light @ @

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has released this powerful letter today to President Trump warning him that the current crises over the coronavirus pandemic and the George Floyd riots are a part of the eternal spiritual struggle between the forces of good and evil. He encourages the president to continue the fight on behalf of the “children of light.”
Share