book review will in the world

• ADMIN AREA MY BOOKSHELF MY DASHBOARD MY PROFILE SIGN OUT SIGN IN

Awards & Accolades

National Book Award Finalist

National Book Critics Circle Finalist

Pulitzer Prize Finalist

WILL IN THE WORLD

How shakespeare became shakespeare.

by Stephen Greenblatt ‧ RELEASE DATE: Sept. 27, 2004

An imaginative voyage to the undiscovered country in company with a master mariner. (16 pp. color illustrations, not seen)

A re-sifting and re-imagining of the Shakespeare evidence in an attempt to discover how the Stratford lad became the celebrated poet and playwright.

Greenblatt (Humanities/Harvard; Marvelous Possessions: The Wonder of the New World , 1991) begins and ends with the acknowledgement that there will probably never be definitive answers to our most fundamental questions about Shakespeare, for the world’s most luminous writer left no personal writing at all—no letters, diaries, manuscripts. So scholars are left to infer the writer’s external life from assorted legal documents and his internal one from his creations. Even a renowned scholar like Greenblatt, who has an encyclopedic knowledge of Elizabethan England, of Shakespeare’s material world, of his literary works and who has a capacious imagination equal to the task of writing the life of someone who died 400 year ago—even such a scholar must populate his paragraphs with those vague characters named Seems and Probably. That said (and Greenblatt, to his credit, says it more than once), this is a remarkably informative and enlightening look at Will Shakespeare. Greenblatt speculates that the young man, charmed by the touring player companies that visited the region, left home (and wife and child) to pursue his alluring dream. Greenblatt examines in the Bard’s work the many allusions to the countryside, to leather craft (after all, he was a glover’s son), and even to Roman Catholicism, the religion his queen had outlawed but that his father could not surrender. Greenblatt describes Shakespeare as a sort of hybrid chameleon and sponge: He could find a way to fit with any group and could absorb from it the language and practices that later gave his plays such verisimilitude. Greenblatt also offers new ways to view the Bard’s strange epitaph, to understand the mysterious motives of Hamlet, Iago, and Lear. He ignores Oxfordian conspiracy theories and speculates that Shakespeare retired to be with his beloved daughter Susanna.

Pub Date: Sept. 27, 2004

ISBN: 0-393-05057-2

Page Count: 384

Publisher: Norton

Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010

Kirkus Reviews Issue: July 1, 2004

BIOGRAPHY & MEMOIR | GENERAL BIOGRAPHY & MEMOIR

Share your opinion of this book

More by Stephen Greenblatt

BOOK REVIEW

by Stephen Greenblatt

translated by James Simpson ; introduction by Stephen Greenblatt

by Elie Wiesel & translated by Marion Wiesel ‧ RELEASE DATE: Jan. 16, 2006

The author's youthfulness helps to assure the inevitable comparison with the Anne Frank diary although over and above the...

Elie Wiesel spent his early years in a small Transylvanian town as one of four children. 

He was the only one of the family to survive what Francois Maurois, in his introduction, calls the "human holocaust" of the persecution of the Jews, which began with the restrictions, the singularization of the yellow star, the enclosure within the ghetto, and went on to the mass deportations to the ovens of Auschwitz and Buchenwald. There are unforgettable and horrifying scenes here in this spare and sombre memoir of this experience of the hanging of a child, of his first farewell with his father who leaves him an inheritance of a knife and a spoon, and of his last goodbye at Buchenwald his father's corpse is already cold let alone the long months of survival under unconscionable conditions. 

Pub Date: Jan. 16, 2006

ISBN: 0374500010

Page Count: 120

Publisher: Hill & Wang

Review Posted Online: Oct. 7, 2011

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Jan. 15, 2006

BIOGRAPHY & MEMOIR | HOLOCAUST | HISTORY | GENERAL BIOGRAPHY & MEMOIR | GENERAL HISTORY

More by Elie Wiesel

by Elie Wiesel ; edited by Alan Rosen

by Elie Wiesel ; illustrated by Mark Podwal

by Elie Wiesel ; translated by Marion Wiesel

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS

From mean streets to wall street.

by Chris Gardner with Quincy Troupe ‧ RELEASE DATE: June 1, 2006

Well-told and admonitory.

Young-rags-to-mature-riches memoir by broker and motivational speaker Gardner.

Born and raised in the Milwaukee ghetto, the author pulled himself up from considerable disadvantage. He was fatherless, and his adored mother wasn’t always around; once, as a child, he spied her at a family funeral accompanied by a prison guard. When beautiful, evanescent Moms was there, Chris also had to deal with Freddie “I ain’t your goddamn daddy!” Triplett, one of the meanest stepfathers in recent literature. Chris did “the dozens” with the homies, boosted a bit and in the course of youthful adventure was raped. His heroes were Miles Davis, James Brown and Muhammad Ali. Meanwhile, at the behest of Moms, he developed a fondness for reading. He joined the Navy and became a medic (preparing badass Marines for proctology), and a proficient lab technician. Moving up in San Francisco, married and then divorced, he sold medical supplies. He was recruited as a trainee at Dean Witter just around the time he became a homeless single father. All his belongings in a shopping cart, Gardner sometimes slept with his young son at the office (apparently undiscovered by the night cleaning crew). The two also frequently bedded down in a public restroom. After Gardner’s talents were finally appreciated by the firm of Bear Stearns, his American Dream became real. He got the cool duds, hot car and fine ladies so coveted from afar back in the day. He even had a meeting with Nelson Mandela. Through it all, he remained a prideful parent. His own no-daddy blues are gone now.

Pub Date: June 1, 2006

ISBN: 0-06-074486-3

Page Count: 320

Publisher: Amistad/HarperCollins

Kirkus Reviews Issue: March 15, 2006

GENERAL BIOGRAPHY & MEMOIR | BIOGRAPHY & MEMOIR | BUSINESS

• Discover Books Fiction Thriller & Suspense Mystery & Detective Romance Science Fiction & Fantasy Nonfiction Biography & Memoir Teens & Young Adult Children's
• News & Features Bestsellers Book Lists Profiles Perspectives Awards Seen & Heard Book to Screen Kirkus TV videos In the News
• Kirkus Prize Winners & Finalists About the Kirkus Prize Kirkus Prize Judges
• Magazine Current Issue All Issues Manage My Subscription Subscribe
• Writers’ Center Hire a Professional Book Editor Get Your Book Reviewed Advertise Your Book Launch a Pro Connect Author Page Learn About The Book Industry
• More Kirkus Diversity Collections Kirkus Pro Connect My Account/Login
• About Kirkus History Our Team Contest FAQ Press Center Info For Publishers
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Reprints, Permission & Excerpting Policy

© Copyright 2024 Kirkus Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Popular in this Genre

Hey there, book lover.

We’re glad you found a book that interests you!

Please select an existing bookshelf

Create a new bookshelf.

We can’t wait for you to join Kirkus!

Please sign up to continue.

It’s free and takes less than 10 seconds!

Already have an account? Log in.

Trouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.

Almost there!

• Industry Professional

Welcome Back!

Sign in using your Kirkus account

Contact us: 1-800-316-9361 or email [email protected].

Don’t fret. We’ll find you.

Magazine Subscribers ( How to Find Your Reader Number )

If You’ve Purchased Author Services

Don’t have an account yet? Sign Up.

• 23:06 - Oct 20, 2024

• Get Started
• Did You Know?
• Ask the Expert

Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakepeare

• By David Noon
• July 3, 2024
• No comments

S tephen Greenblatt’s book  Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare is an enlightening biographical study of not only William Shakespeare , but also of England in the late 1500s. One of the most prominent Renaissance scholars of his generation, Greenblatt is John Cogan University Professor of the Humanities at Harvard University and the author of several books about Shakespeare and his works. He is also a co-editor of The Norton Shakespeare college textbook.

Will in the World is a Pulitzer Prize finalist and a New York Times Bestseller. Greenblatt is heralded by critics as one of the world’s best interpreters of the Bard’s plays, and he is recognized as one of the most acclaimed Shakespeare scholars alive.

The author takes the reader through the playwright’s life in 16th century England, starting with his native Stratford-upon-Avon and finishing in London, where Shakespeare spent most of his time acting and writing.

Although the book is supposed to be primarily about Shakespeare’s life, it is also a historical summary of Elizabethan England as it outlines various issues and concerns of the era, such as infighting between Catholics and Protestants, the expulsion of Jews, racism, sexism, women’s place in society, the role of the monarchy, and social mores. Given the scarcity of factual information about Shakespeare, Greenblatt’s sources were limited, and a lot of the information he provides is speculative.

The book attempts to do a chronological documentation of Shakespeare’s life and his writings by first mentioning the title of his work and then events that were purported to be occurring during that time frame. In many cases, however, the timelines are not accurate or in sync with documentary evidence. For example, A Midsummer Night’s Dream is introduced early in the biography when Shakespeare was still living in Stratford, although documentary evidence suggests that it was probably written in 1595 or 1596 while Shakespeare was living in London.

Will in the World begins with the supposition of how Shakespeare may have developed his fascination with language and the magic of words. “It is a very safe assumption that it began early, perhaps from the first moment his mother whispered a nursery rhyme in his ear,” Greenblatt writes.

The writer is somewhat critical of Shakespeare when he speaks of how the playwright often borrowed heavily from other writers of his time. Of Falstaff in Henry IV , Greenblatt writes that, like many of Shakespeare’s other characters, “Falstaff is made out of multiple materials, much of it not from life but from literature.”

In writing the book, the author drew conclusions and assumptions from the omissions in Shakespeare’s plays. For instance, no work mentions Anne, his wife of 34 years, so the author deduces that he did not care for her. That assumption is bolstered by the fact that the couple lived apart, and he left her only the “second best bed” in the will while bequeathing the rest of his estate to one of his daughters.

The writer attempts to tie in homosexual tendencies based on some sonnets Shakespeare had written, even though he was married and the father of three children, with one reportedly conceived out of wedlock.

The book reveals that the entire Jewish community was expelled from England in 1290 during the reign of Edward I. “There was no precipitating crisis, as far is known, no state of emergency, not even any public explanation.” Still, the exiled population provided fodder for Shakespeare, who wrote in Much Ado About Nothing , “If I do not love her, I am a Jew.” Greenblatt explains that Shakespeare’s generation equated being Jewish with being unnatural and coldhearted.

The writer describes how Shakespeare made history by being able to write plays that were “beyond perfect” in three different genres: comedy, history, and tragedy. Shakespeare’s most famous tragedies are Macbeth , Romeo and Juliet , and Hamlet . His beyond-perfect comedies were A Midsummer Night’s Dream  and Much Ado About Nothing while his most popular history plays included Henry IV and Richard II .

Greenblatt closes the character sketch of Shakespeare by reflecting on his ordinariness. While many writers of his time had extraordinary characteristics and habits that made them appear eccentric and wild, Shakespeare was quite ordinary in comparison, a quality that made him unique. His plays are not necessarily ordinary as they are filled with death, love, wives, tragedy, and humor, but he also believes in Kings and authority, although Greenblatt states, “he does not believe too much in those things.”

While a Shakespeare biography can never be totally accurate with so many gaps that must be filled, Will in the World provides insightful information on the playwright, his work, and the Elizabethan era. This story, while not perfect, is nevertheless an essential and important documentary piece in helping explain the brilliance of Shakespeare.

MOST POPULAR

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR PODCST

Popular tags.

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Registration confirmation will be emailed to you.

• Sign in / Join

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

Current Discussions

Popular covers.

Melvil Decimal System (DDC)

Lc classification.

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author .

Much Madness is Divinest Sense

Books, poetry, baking, life, the universe, and everything, review: will in the world: how shakespeare became shakespeare, stephen greenblatt.

I especially liked Greenblatt’s commentary on the ways in which Robert Greene may have influenced Shakespeare’s characterization of one of his most memorable characters: Sir John Falstaff. Greenblatt makes a compelling case for Greene as the model of the dissolute knight. Also interesting was some of the speculation about the possibility that Shakespeare’s family were recusants (secret Catholics). Greenblatt’s discussion of the ghost of Hamlet’s father connects to this line of speculation but with a troubling twist that helps explain Hamlet’s inaction much more clearly:

What does it mean that a ghost from purgatory erupts into the world of Hamlet pleading to be remembered? Even setting aside for a moment that purgatory, according to the Protestant church, did not exist, the allusions to it here are an enigma, for spirits in God’s great penitentiary could not by definition ask anyone to commit a crime. After all, they are being purged of their sins in order to ascend to heaven. Yet this ghost is not asking for Masses and alms; he is preempting God’s monopoly on revenge by demanding that his son kill the man who murdered him, seized his crown, and married his widow … Hamlet worries about it, and his paralyzing doubts and anxieties displace revenge as the center of the play’s interest. (320)

Shakespeare’s source material for this play recounts Prince Hamlet’s story quite differently: too young to avenge the death of his father, he feigns madness in order to convince his murderous uncle that he is no threat. Then he waits. When the time is right, he kills his uncle and his uncle’s entire retinue in the best spirit of the adage that “revenge is a dish best served cold.” Shakespeare rightly realizes that carrying out such a story would be impossible on stage, and he makes the conflict more about Hamlet’s inner feelings. The passage above really gave me a new understanding of what is really going on in Hamlet’s mind.

Equally interesting to me were the origins of the witches in Macbeth , in particular, the possibility (strong, given allusions written in the play) that Shakespeare read Reginald Scot’s The Discovery of Witchcraft , a book that challenges Jacobean notions of witchcraft, possibly leading to King James’s decision to have all copies of the book burned.

If I have one major quibble with the book, it is that it becomes bogged down with the language of speculation. Phrases such as “let us imagine,” “perhaps,” “could possibly,” “presumably,” and the like almost start to become distracting, making the book sound like so much speculation. I realize that Greenblatt is merely being careful with language, but his speculation is based on solid historical research, and I wonder if he might not have found a way to express that more clearly.

In all, I believe that James Shapiro’s books A Year in the Life of Shakespeare: 1599 and Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? were more engaging and focused. In some ways, I think Shakespeare’s story is too big to confine to a single volume, and Shapiro manages to focus on two aspects: one important year in Shakespeare’s life and the authorship controversy. Still, I am glad I read Will in the World , and I have some good information to share with students next time I teach Hamlet or Macbeth .

Related posts:

2 thoughts on “ review: will in the world: how shakespeare became shakespeare, stephen greenblatt ”.

I tend to prefer Shapiro as well. Any biography of Shakespeare necessarily has to rely heavily on speculation — and it is frustrating to read — but Shapiro gets around that reasonably well by, as you say, maintaining a quite narrow focus.

Agreed. I need to pull 1599 off the shelf.

Comments are closed.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1465 access attempts in the last 7 days.

• By Illustrator
• Non-Book Index
• Top Ten Book Lists

Review of “Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare” by Stephen Greenblatt

William Shakespeare, widely considered the greatest writer in the English language, lived from 1564 to 1616. This book, by the John Cogan University Professor of the Humanities at Harvard University and editor of the The Norton Shakespeare (2015) is a book about what life was like in the time and place in which Shakespeare lived and worked. Some of it also speculates about what Shakespeare himself thought and felt, mostly based on common themes in his plays, sonnets, and narrative poems, since there is not much documentation on Shakepeare’s actual life.

Occasionally I thought Greenblatt’s speculation went a bit too far, especially about Shakespeare’s childhood. But still, it showed what a childhood in that period may have been like, even if it did, or did not, necessarily apply to Shakespeare. And I greatly enjoyed learning about the history of that era in Elizabethan England. Greenblatt highlighted the religious wars of the time, the fears over the sometimes harsh laws, the ever-present threat of recurring bouts of Bubonic plague, and the variety of entertainments available to the populace for escapism.

I have seen two main criticisms of the book. One is that, of course, much of the content about Shakespeare’s life is conjecture. But the author clearly identifies it as such, and adduces much evidence for why it could have, or might have, been true. In any event, all the historical information about the period is well documented, and is very interesting.

The Merchant of Venice starring Al Pacino as Shylock

The second is that the author seems to fall into the “apologist” camp for “The Merchant of Venice,” focusing on Shakespeare’s addition of humanizing aspects to Shylock, the reviled Jewish merchant. While it is certainly true that Shylock is perhaps (incredibly enough) the most humane portrayal of a Jew from that time period (c.f. Christopher Marlowe’s “The Jew of Malta”), there is in fact a good reason why “The Merchant of Venice” was a favorite in the early Nazi era between 1933 and 1939, during which time it was produced about 50 times. In any event, Greenblatt’s analysis is thought-provoking, and also teaches us about the sensational (at the time) case of the suspected treason, trial, and execution of Queen Elizabeth’s physician, Rodrigo Lopez, who may have been an inspiration for Shylock.

Rodrigo Lopez

I listened to this engaging book on audio, and I think that medium added immeasurably to my enjoyment. To demonstrate the points he makes, the author quotes at length from many passages in the plays and sonnets. Here is where an audio version shines, especially with this narrator, Peter Jay Fernandez, an acclaimed Shakespearean actor. Not only does he read the passages beautifully, but through his intonation, provides meaning often missed just be reading the text. (In addition, the author adds explanations for the context and meaning of Shakespeare’s words that greatly add to the reader’s (or listener’s) understanding and enjoyment.)

Conjectural reconstruction of the Globe theatre by C. Walter Hodges based on archeological and documentary evidence

If you love Shakespeare, you will love the book, and if you aren’t as familiar with Shakespeare, you may become a new fan.

Rating: 4/5

Published in hardback by W. W. Norton & Company, 2010

A Few Notes on the Audio Production:

As indicated above, Peter Jay Fernandez is a Shakespearean actor and he is terrific. (If you watched the 2016 Tony Awards, you might find it amusing to know that Fernandez has also appeared on “Law and Order.”)

Published unabridged on 13 CDs (15.25 listening hours) by Recorded Books, 2004

Note: You can access the complete works of Shakespeare here . You can also learn more about Shakespeare’s life here . Last but not least, this terrific site instructs on how to “decode” Shakespeare and includes excellent analyses of a number of the sonnets and plays.

Share this:

About rhapsodyinbooks

7 responses to review of “will in the world: how shakespeare became shakespeare” by stephen greenblatt.

Vance loves Shakespeare so I have a feeling he’d love this book. I think all the speculation might bother me.

I liked this book too! Like, reasonably well. I do get frustrated with Shakespeare people who continue to insist that things are fine in some of his most problematic plays. I can like Shakespeare and also recognize that Taming of the Shrew is hella sexist and Merchant of Venice is hella anti-Semitic.

This sounds interesting. I’ve only read Romeo and Juliet – I should read more of his plays. My mom is a big fan. She used to have a pair of dogs named Troilus and Cressida. I’m sure Shakespeare would be happy to hear that.

I know I listened to this in audio, but I can’t find my review. It was fascinating.

I really need to go back and reread some Shakespeare. We read Merchant of Venice in high school and I read many more in college. I’d like to go back and see if I still love a few of my favorites now that so much time has passed.

I’m really not a fan of conjecture in a biographical work but as long as the author is clear that it is just that, I imagine it would work for me. Unlike the book I recently read which kept saying things like “Ona would probably have” or “Ona must have felt…”

Really interesting, good read!

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Contact Us!

Want more history click on the picture below to check our sister site, legal legacy.

Feedly Reader

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

• Search for:

Follow me on Twitter

© Rhapsody In Books, 2008-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Rhapsody In Books with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Recent Posts

• Review of “The Man Who Died Twice” by Richard Osman
• Kid Lit Review of “Amazing Architecture:  Amazing Museums” by Anita Nahta Amin
• Review of “The Thursday Murder Club” by Richard Osman
• Review of “Decade of Disunion” by Robert Merry
• Kid Lit Review of “Kingdoms of Life” by Carly Allen-Fletcher
• Review of “The Leadership Journey: How Four Kids Became President” by Doris Kearns Goodwin
• Review of “Spirit Crossing” by William Kent Krueger
• Review of “Reykjavik: A Crime Story” by Ragnar Jónasson and Katrín Jakobsdóttir
• Review of “Blue Graffiti” by Calahan Skogman
• Review of “The Road to Roswell: A Novel” by Connie Willis

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Stephen Greenblatt

Will in the world.

Select a format:

A vast shelf of biographies of the Bard exists, but this is the book I would take with me to a desert island

About the  author

More from this author.

Sign up to the Penguin Newsletter

By signing up, I confirm that I'm over 16. To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• 168,891 literary resources
• 172 content providers
• 53,470 books

Will in the World Summary and Analysis

FreeBookNotes found 6 sites with book summaries or analysis of Will in the World . If there is a Will in the World SparkNotes, Shmoop guide, or Cliff Notes, you can find a link to each study guide below.

Among the summaries and analysis available for Will in the World , there are 1 Short Summary and 5 Book Reviews.

Depending on the study guide provider (SparkNotes, Shmoop, etc.), the resources below will generally offer Will in the World chapter summaries, quotes, and analysis of themes, characters, and symbols.

Will in the World

By stephen greenblatt, full book notes and study guides.

Sites like SparkNotes with a Will in the World study guide or cliff notes. Also includes sites with a short overview, synopsis, book report, or summary of Stephen Greenblatt’s Will in the World.

We found no such entries for this book title. Please see the supplementary resources provided below for other helpful content related to this book.

Short Book Summaries

Sites with a short overview, synopsis, book report, or summary of Will in the World by Stephen Greenblatt.

SuperSummary (Plot Summaries) - Will in the World

Book reviews.

Sites with a book review or quick commentary on Will in the World by Stephen Greenblatt.

LondonReviewOfBooks - Will in the World

Estimated Read Time : 13 minutes

Word Count: 3782

BookPage - Will in the World

Estimated Read Time : 2 minutes

Word Count: 482

ReviewsOfBooks - Will in the World

Word Count: 149

KirkusReviews - Will in the World

Estimated Read Time : 1 minute

Word Count: 364

GoodReads - Will in the World

Estimated Read Time : 3 minutes

Word Count: 850

More Books by Stephen Greenblatt

FreeBookNotes has 3 more books by Stephen Greenblatt, with a total of 16 study guides.

Radicalizing Learning for a Just World: Book Review

‘The Summer Book’ Review: Glenn Close Takes a Healing, Very Hygge Holiday

Following a bereaved three-generation family over the course of one idyllic Nordic summer, Charlie McDowell's film version of Tove Jansson's 1972 novel is high on comfort and low on incident.

By Guy Lodge

Film Critic

• ‘On Falling’ Review: An Episode in the Life of a Warehouse Picker, Told With Grace and Urgency 2 days ago
• ‘The Summer Book’ Review: Glenn Close Takes a Healing, Very Hygge Holiday 3 days ago
• ‘Joy’ Review: Thomasin McKenzie and Bill Nighy Fight the System to Pioneer IVF in a Crowd-Pleasing Medical Biopic 5 days ago

Related Stories

Disneyland Price Hikes Show Disney’s Faith in Planned Expansions for Reigniting Demand

'Else' Review: A Pandemic Romance Morphs Into Bleak Body Horror in Bonkers French Flick

Popular on variety.

Sophia’s father, a soft-spoken illustrator, retreats into his work, pushing his feelings down so deep within himself that his daughter begins to fear he no longer loves her. In his relative emotional absence, Sophia’s grandmother is left to do the work of two parents, thinking up no end of activities to keep the girl’s lively mind occupied, and serving as a constant conversational partner, ever-ready with an answer to questions that range from trivial to whimsical to searching. No phones or computers here: The film’s eminently analog period is suggested solely by their absence. The characters’ nubbly Nordic knitwear, necessary even on a summer’s eve, feels more like a constant.

A pragmatic, self-sufficient type, the grandmother at one point tartly chides her son for excessive self-pity, but she’s consistently gentle with Sophia — humoring her flights of fancy and guiding her toward playful distractions, but also encouraging the girl to solve her own problems, candid about the fact that she won’t be around much longer. Attentive to characterful details of accent and posture, Close plays this tender-tough old bird beautifully, resisting twinkly sentimentality while maintaining a palpably affectionate rapport with Matthews, who’s appealingly restless but not overly precocious in her screen debut.

It’s in the grandmother’s moments to herself, smoking hand-rolled cigarettes on the porch at dusk or haltingly hobbling her way across a landscape she once darted through as a girl, that her face silently clouds with darker anxieties: fear, perhaps, for the shape of her beloved family when only two remain. Yet as the summer progresses, raw wounds begin to scab over, as father and daughter begin to truly see each other once more — though the film, restrained to the last, holds off on any grandly cathartic embraces or gestures of reconciliation. Danielsen Lie, always welcome on screen, gets less to do than his female co-stars, but the film counts considerably on his tacit, reserved decency as a performer.

An unexpected departure from the cool genre workings of his previous features, most recently the Netflix neo-noir “Windfall,” McDowell’s film doesn’t always find the spiritual echo in such physical aspects that Jansson’s sneakily haunting book does: A new poplar tree planted amid the rocks, as a gesture of faith in the future, is as mawkishly demonstrative as things get. Indeed, “The Summer Book” is a film mostly besotted with the craggly pebble beaches, pine-needle carpets and stonewashed skies of its landscape, all exquisitely shot by the great Norwegian cinematographer Sturla Brandth Grøvlen (“Victoria,” “Another Round”) in compositions focused less on sweeping postcard perfection than the particular, tactile details of light and texture that come to color lifelong memories.

Reviewed at London Film Festival (Special Presentations), Oct. 12, 2024. Running time: 94 MIN.

• Production: (U.S.-Finland-U.K.) A Free Range Films, Stille Productions, High Frequency Entertainment, Helsinki-filmi production in association with Case Study Films, MUV Capital. (World sales: Charles, Paris.) Producers: Aleksi Bardy, Kevin Loader, Kath Mattock, Charlie McDowell, Duncan Montgomery, Alex Orlovsky, Helen Vinogradov. Executive producers: Victoria Castelli, Lily Collins, Arthur Farache, Niki Leskinen, Jack Selby.
• Crew: Director: Charlie McDowell. Screenplay: Robert Jones, based on the novel by Tove Jansson. Camera: Sturla Brandth Grøvlen. Editor: Jussi Rautaniemi. Music: Hania Rani.
• With: Glenn Close, Emily Matthews, Anders Danielsen Lie, Ingvar Sigurdsson, Pekka Strang, Sophia Heikkilä. (English dialogue)

More from Variety

‘Karate Kid: Legends’ First Footage: Jackie Chan and Ralph Macchio Train New Student and Kick Some Ass at New York Comic Con

What Film Fund From AI Startup Runway Means for Content’s Future

Why the Video Game Industry Can’t Shake Its Struggles

More from our brands, fans mourn liam payne at london memorial.

This $5.2 Million Lakeside Mansion Is Nestled in a Historic Resort Enclave Near Savannah

WNBA Business Turns the Corner—But Its Home Stretch Is Complicated

The Best Loofahs and Body Scrubbers, According to Dermatologists

Tracker Gets Supernatural in Jensen Ackles’ Return — What Did We Learn About Colter and Russell’s Father?

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Ross Douthat

Is the World Ready for a Religious Comeback?

By Ross Douthat

Opinion Columnist

The heyday of the new atheism in Western life, when anti-God tracts by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens bestrode best-seller lists, did not arrive because brilliant new arguments for God’s nonexistence were suddenly discovered.

Rather, it arrived because specific events and deeper forces made the time ripe for unbelief — because the early internet served as a novel transmission belt for skepticism, because Sept. 11 advertised the perils of religious fundamentalism, because the Catholic Church’s sex abuse crisis undermined the West’s strongest bastion of organized Christianity and because the digital-era retreat from authority and institutions hit religious institutions first.

The point of listing such forces is not to diminish the influence of Dawkins and the rest. By seizing their opportunity, the anti-God polemicists pushed secularization and de-Christianization farther than they might otherwise have gone. It’s just to emphasize that success in the battle of ideas is often about recognizing when the world is ready to go your way, when audiences are suddenly primed to give your ideas a fuller hearing than before.

Such an opportunity confronts religious writers today. The new-atheist idea that the weakening of organized religion would make the world more rational and less tribal feels much more absurd in 2024 than it did in 2006. Existential anxiety and civilizational ennui, not rationalist optimism and humanist ambition, are the defining moods of secular liberalism nowadays. The decline of religious membership and practice is increasingly seen as a social problem rather than a great leap forward. People raised without belief are looking for meaning in psychedelics, astrology, U.F.O.s. And lately the rise of the “Nones” — Americans with no religious affiliation — has finally leveled off .

So the world seems primed for religious arguments in the same way it was primed for the new atheists 20 years ago. But the question is whether the religious can reclaim real cultural ground — especially in the heart of secularism, the Western intelligentsia — as opposed to just stirring up a vague nostalgia for belief.

It’s one thing to get nonbelievers to offer kind words for “ cultural” Christianity or endorse the sociological utility of churchgoing. The challenge is to go further, to persuade anxious moderns that religion is more than merely pragmatically useful, more than just a wistful hope — that a religious framework actually makes much more sense of reality than the allegedly hardheaded materialist alternative.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• [ October 20, 2024 ] Pope Francis canonizes 14 new saints, including martyrs from Syria News Briefs
• [ October 20, 2024 ] ‘Transformational’ Catholic college-prep program serves low-income families News Briefs
• [ October 19, 2024 ] Synod delegates urge young Catholics to learn how to listen to others in a polarized world News Briefs
• [ October 19, 2024 ] Here’s what’s happening during the last week of the Synod on Synodality News Briefs
• [ October 19, 2024 ] Islamic terrorists massacre 150 in Burkina Faso News Briefs

The weaknesses and flaws in Bishop Schneider’s Credo : A traditionalist’s review

Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s recent “Compendium of the Catholic Faith” often appears to be oversimplistic, hasty, and reactive, and sometimes reads more like a polemic than a catechism.

October 19, 2024 Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Books , Essay , Features 35 Print

Dr. Scott Hahn congratulates Schnieder for “filling [ Credo ] with pure doctrine,” and Cardinal Robert Sarah calls Credo , a “faithful, succinct, profound, and truly up-to-date exposition of the teaching of the Catholic Church.” Fr. Michael Fiedrowicz, Chair of Ancient Church History and Patrology, Theological Faculty of Trier, Germany, says that with his new catechism, Schneider “unswervingly defends and proclaims the depositum fidei entrusted to him.” The work has received the imprimatur of the Bishop of Manchester, New Hampshire, Peter Libasci, and enjoys an average 4.5 star rating from readers on Goodreads and a 4.8 rating on Amazon.

In his endorsement of Credo , Cardinal Sarah laments that “So much is said by so many about the Catholic Faith today — some of it is confusing, some is downright erroneous,” an affirmation that is lamentably true. Sadly, however, it must be said that the same description could be made of  Credo  itself, a work that contains numerous salutary affirmations of long-forgotten truths, but unfortunately is also marred by ambiguities and serious errors that counteract its purpose as a reliable corrective.

It first must be acknowledged that  Credo  abounds with important points of doctrine that have been mostly lost in many modern catechetical works. For example, Schneider clearly reaffirms the politically-incorrect but vital doctrine of the authority of husbands over wives, a teaching stated at least five times in the New Testament but virtually missing from modern catechisms. He also restates the Catholic doctrine, so well-established in the Papal Magisterium, on the duties of the state to God and the Church, and includes important notes on ecumenism and the danger of errors in other religions that have been deemphasized or ignored in recent years.  Credo offers countless other examples of this kind, and for these, of course, I am grateful.

However,  Credo  also contains a disturbing number of affirmations that must be said to be misleading or even clearly erroneous regarding important truths of the Catholic Faith, and this can only undermine Bishop Schnieder’s noble purpose. It seems that the good bishop, in his eagerness to counteract false interpretations of the faith, has allowed himself to go to opposite extremes that may also lead to error. His work in this sense often appears to be oversimplistic, hasty, and reactive, and sometimes reads more like a polemic than a catechism. In this sense,  Credo is sadly characteristic of the often deficient response that Catholic traditionalists—of whom I have counted myself one for decades—have offered to the neo-modernist tendencies in the Church in the last sixty years.

Given that Schneider seeks to correct what he sees as errors and ambiguities in the more recent magisterium of the Church, I will show in my critique below that in fact his response is sometimes far from “traditional”, and that in these unfortunate cases he appears to be contradicting not only recent statements by Church authorities, but also teaching contained in Scripture, the Church Fathers, Aquinas, ecumenical councils, traditional catechisms, and older pre-Vatican II papal magisterial documents. My purpose is not to accuse Bishop Schneider of bad faith or question his orthodoxy, but merely to call attention to the need for care and rigor in projects such as these, lest the very cause for which they were undertaken be harmed rather than helped.

Created in God’s image and likeness

Among the greatest defects in Schneider’s catechism is his misleading statements about the nature of man created in the image and likeness of God, a question that is also closely related to the understanding of God as Father of all of mankind, as well as the innate dignity and fraternity of all human beings. In fact, it appears that it is his enthusiasm for denying an innate dignity in all human beings that drives Schneider to attack the claim that all of mankind bears God’s image. It is clear that the bishop is seeking to counteract naturalistic tendencies in recent Catholic theology stemming from the Enlightenment, but by overreacting he does violence to traditional Catholic doctrine regarding the goodness of man’s created nature.

In Part I, paragraph 224, Schneider asks, “Is the dignity of the human person rooted in his creation in God’s image and likeness?” and answers that “This was true for Adam, but with the Original Sin the human person lost this resemblance and dignity in the eyes of God,” adding “he recovers this dignity through baptism.” However, this has never been the Church’s understanding; rather, the notion of man as bearing the image of God has always been rooted in his nature as a rational and spiritual creature, who is capable of knowing and loving God. In this most fundamental sense, human nature is not lost through original sin, but is corrupted only in secondary senses.

St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae (I, 93.4) states this explicitly, noting that the “principal signification” of man being made in the image and likeness of God lies in our “intellectual nature,” which is shared by all humanity. He notes that because of his rational intellect, “man possesses a natural aptitude for understanding and loving God; and this aptitude consists in the very nature of the mind, which is common to all men” and therefore the image of God “is found in all men” according to the natural sense. He recognizes that there are two supernatural senses in which man may also be in the image and likeness of God: first, insofar as man is just, and second, insofar as he is among the blessed in heaven. But they are both predicated on the first, which is man’s spiritual nature and rational faculty.

This understanding of the meaning of man bearing the “image and likeness of God” is found as well in the writings of the Fathers such as Augustine (De Trinitate, VII) who notes that “man was made after the image of Him that created him…according to the rational mind”. It is also found in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X (“God the Father”, q. 33), which tells us that we bear God’s image “because the human soul is spiritual and rational, free in its operations, capable of knowing and loving God and of enjoying Him forever.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes virtually the same statement in paragraph 1705, stating that man is in God’s image “by virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will.”

But wasn’t our nature corrupted by the sin of Adam and Eve? In an important sense, yes, but Aquinas makes it clear that in the primary and most fundamental sense, the same that constitutes the image of God, the good of our nature remains intact. In the Summa Theologiae (I-II, 85, 1), Aquinas notes that the good of nature is not diminished by sin in “the principles of which nature is constituted, and the properties that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth” but only in the secondary sense that our “natural inclination to virtue” is diminished, and the original justice from sanctifying grace is also lost. This is an important distinction to note, lest we fall into the “total depravity” doctrine of Luther condemned by the Council of Trent.

Inequality of dignity?

In furtherance of his dispute against natural human dignity, Schneider goes on (in part 1, par. 225) to answer the question, “Then human dignity is not the same in all persons?” “No,” he responds. “The human person loses his dignity in proportion to his free choice of error or evil.”

It should be noted that our innate human dignity flows from the same principles in man’s nature that make him in the image and likeness of God (his rational intellect and freedom of will, which enable him to choose God). As Aquinas tells us (Sum. The. III 4.1), this great “dignity,” which made man a fitting subject for the Incarnation, exists in man because “human nature, as being rational and intellectual, was made for attaining to the Word to some extent by its operation, viz. by knowing and loving Him.” Given that this dignity is derived from man’s created nature, how can it not be fundamentally the same in all human beings who share that nature? Aquinas affirms that it is, noting that “By nature all men are equal” (Sum. The. II-II 104.5).

With regard to the fundamental natural dignity of every human person, the Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes St. Catherine of Sienna affirming that our dignity arises from the same natural principles that make us an image of God, which would imply a fundamental equality of dignity at the natural level of our being. Catherine is quoted as asking God, “What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good” (par. 356).

Schneider’s point would be an important and useful one to make if it were clearly in reference to the sense of the supernatural dignity attaching to sanctifying grace and original justice that was lost after the fall. Moreover, as Aquinas observes, individuals may also differ in dignity for a variety of reasons attaching to their social circumstances (for example, parents have a higher dignity in the hierarchy of the family than their children), a notion Aquinas calls “personal dignity” (Sum. The. II-II 63.1). Schneider could have made such distinctions here, but his careless language, rather than clarifying this point, muddies it further.

Such careful distinctions are crucial for Christian ethics, which must guide our conduct not only with regard to other Christians, but all of humanity, who bear God’s image whether or not they are baptized or in the state of grace. It is clear that Christians are morally bound always to recognize the natural and innate dignity of every human being, born and unborn, whether or not they have received the grace of baptism or have the virtue of faith. Those who forget this truth, even if out of some misguided zeal for moral purity, may legitimize injustices and atrocities against non-Christians, whose natural rights they are bound to respect. It was for this very reason that the eminent theologians of the School of Salamanca established the foundations of human rights law, seeking to correct injustices against the non-Christian inhabitants of the New World.

Children of God

Having denied that all human beings bear the likeness of God, Schneider continues with the same poor reasoning in part 1, paragraph 226, where he quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church (par. 2212), asking, “Isn’t every human person ‘a son or daughter of the one who wants to be called “our Father”?’” “No,” he answers flatly. “One becomes a child of God only through explicit faith in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God, being reborn of God…through the sacrament of baptism”. In a footnote he calls the statement “a regrettable affirmation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,” but in fact it is Schneider’s deficient catechesis that is regrettable here.

In reality, the Church has always used the concept of divine filiation or sonship with regard to human persons in two senses: their relation to God as creature to creator (that is, by their nature created in God’s image) and adoption by supernatural grace, each corresponding to the senses in which man bears the image of God. This is distinguished from the natural filiation of God the Son by way of procession from the Father.

The Angelic Doctor, in his work on the Lord’s Prayer (“Expositio in orationem dominicam”), teaches this in no uncertain terms, stating expressly that all men are sons of God and brothers because of their creation by God in his image and likeness, and distinguishing this sense of sonship from supernatural adoption. He cites numerous passages of Scripture in support of both senses.

Commenting on the phrase “our Father” in the Lord’s Prayer, Aquinas notes that “God is called ‘Father’ by reason of our special creation, in that He created us in His image and likeness, which he did not impress upon other inferior creatures: ‘Is not He thy Father, that made thee, and created thee’ (Deut., 32: 6)?” Aquinas then distinguishes this sense from the sense of “sonship” as adoption by supernatural grace: “[God is our Father] also by reason of adoption, because to other creatures He has given but a small gift, but to us an inheritance, and this because we are sons, and ‘if sons, heirs also’ (Rom., 8:17).”

Aquinas expounds on this point further in the same work, noting that “this shows that we owe two things to our neighbors. First we owe them love, because they are our brothers, for all are sons of God: ‘For he that loveth not his brother whom he seeth, how can he love God whom he seeth not (1 John 4: 20)?’ We also owe them reverence because they are children (“filii” or “sons”) of God: ‘Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us? Why then does everyone of us despise his brother?’ (Mal., 2: 10).” To these Scripture passages one could easily add the example of St. Paul’s statement to the pagan Athenians that “we are his (God’s) offspring” (Acts 17: 28-29) and the genealogy of Christ in the Gospel of Luke (3: 23-38), which speaks of Adam as though he were God’s son.

The distinction is further made by early Church Father St. Iranaeus of Lyons ( Against Heresies , book 4, chap. 41) who states, “According to nature, then — that is, according to creation, so to speak — we are all sons of God, because we have all been created by God. But with respect to obedience and doctrine we are not all the sons of God: those only are so who believe in Him and do His will.” It is also mentioned in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X (“Second Article of the Creed,”, q. 3) acknowledges the same two senses of divine sonship applicable to human beings: created human nature and supernatural adoption: “Jesus Christ is called the only Son of God the Father, because He alone is His Son by nature, whereas we are His sons by creation and adoption.”

To support his denial of the common sonship of man in relation to God as Creator, Schneider uses a quote from Romans 9:8 out of context: “It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants.” He fails to mention that this passage is directed against those who count themselves as God’s covenantal children by way of physical descent from Abraham, rather than by participation in the Abrahamic covenant by way of faith, which is evident from the preceding sentence (verses 6-7): “…For all are not Israelites that are of Israel. Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” The passage clearly refers to supernatural sonship by covenantal grace, not the sense of sonship through creation by God.

Are all men brothers? Schneider on “basic human fraternity”

Schneider asks the question (part 1, par. 228), “Does Christian humanism radically affirm the dignity of every person as a child of God, thereby establishing a basic fraternity?” In a footnote to the quote, Schneider calls this statement “a confusing claim of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1676” and flatly answers, “No. It is the sacrament of baptism that establishes basic human fraternity”.

Schneider supports his rejection of a “basic fraternity” among human beings by quoting a passage from the First Vatican Council’s Dei Filius, chapter 3, out of context. He translates the passage as stating, “There is no parity between the condition of those who have adhered to the Catholic truth by the heavenly gift of faith, and the condition of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion.” The original Latin would be more clearly translated as “the condition of those who have adhered to Catholic truth by the heavenly gift of faith, and of those who, led by human opinion, follow a false religion, is not at all the same (or “not at all equal”) (“minime par est conditio eorum, qui per caeleste fidei donum catholicae veritati adhaeserunt, atque eorum, qui ducti opinionibus humanis, falsam religionem sectantur”). He quotes a similar passage from the corresponding dogmatic canon in Dei Filius .

The quotation, taken alone, does little to support Schneider’s rejection of a “basic human fraternity” among men, and even less when seen in full context. The purpose of this statement from Dei Filius is clearly given in the surrounding text and in the dogmatic canon. The explanatory text states: “For those who have received the faith under the magisterium of the Church can never have any just cause for changing or revoking the same out of doubt” (“illi enim, qui fidem sub Ecclesiae magisterio susceperunt, nullam umquam habere possunt iustam causam mutandi, aut in dubium idem eandem revocandi”).

In other words, the difference in “condition” is that a non-Catholic who is influenced by a false religion may have just cause for questioning and doubting the truths of that religion, but a properly-instructed and baptized Catholic does not have the same just cause for casting into doubt the Catholic faith. The same paragraph explains that this is because God gives the believing Catholic grace to receive and persevere in the faith: “Those whom God has transferred into his admirable light, he confirms in the same light with his grace so that they may persevere, not deserting them, unless he himself is deserted” (“eos, quos de tenebris transtulit in admirabile lumen suum, in hoc eodem lumine ut perseverent, gratia sua confirmat, non deserens, nisi deseratur”).

The same is made clear in the corresponding sixth dogmantic canon on Faith from Dei Filius: “If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and of those who have not yet come to the one true faith are the same,  such that Catholics might have a just reason for suspending their assent and calling the faith into doubt until they carry out a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith , let them be anathema (italics mine)” (“Si quis dixerit, parem esse conditionem fidelium atque eorum, qui ad fidem unice veram nondum pervenerunt,  ita ut catholici iustam causam habere possint, fidem, quam sub Ecclesiae magisterio iam susceperunt, assensu suspenso in dubium vocandi, donec demonstrationem scientificam credibilitatis et veritatis fidei suae absolverint ; anathema sit.”)

Given that all human beings are descended from Adam, and all have God as their Father in the sense of being creatures in his image and likeness, it follows that a basic and natural fraternity exists between all human beings, even if there is not an equality of their spiritual condition. We have already seen that not only does the Catechism of the Catholic Church state this, but but also St. Thomas Aquinas quotes the prophet Malachai (2:10) to this effect. Strangely, in the very next paragraph of his  Credo  (part 1, par. 228), Schneider also acknowledges that a fraternity of “blood” exists between human beings that is “based on nature” and our common descent from Adam, although he again fails to recognize that this fraternity ultimately arises from the fatherhood of God as Creator.

“There are two kinds of fraternity: that of blood, in Adam and Eve, and that of grace in Jesus Christ, given through his Church and sacraments,” states Schneider, adding that “perfect human dignity and fraternity for all human beings can only have one source: Jesus Christ.” In the next paragraph (229), he denies that “a merely human fraternity is sufficient for man” and warns in the following paragraph (230) that “the promotion of a purely human fraternity easily leads toward a universal religion in the Freemasonic sense.”

All of these affirmations are true and good, even if Schneider fails to acknowledge that God is our common Father as our creator, but how does this deny a “basic human fraternity” among men? In fact, if we are to accept the scholastic dictum derived from Sts. Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, that “grace builds on nature” as its foundation, hasn’t Schneider rather proven the existence of a “basic human fraternity” by way of man’s natural fraternity?

The sacred liturgy: glorification vs sanctification?

Schneider’s excessive polemicism also extends to his critique of modern liturgical abuses. As Cardinal Josef Ratzinger and numerous other critics of the liturgical reform observed, the versus populum orientation and other aspects of modern liturgical practice may lead to the impression that the liturgy is oriented to man in his community rather than orienting the worshiper to God, a very legitimate criticism that is more relevant today than ever. In his  Credo , Schneider had the opportunity to clarify this important point without doing violence to the truth that the primary purpose of the sacraments (which are the principal part of the liturgy) does in fact include and entail the sanctification of the faithful. Instead, he appears to deny this in certain passages, making the sanctification of the faithful appear “secondary” and non-essential.

In Part III, q. 755, Schneider asks, “Is the liturgy primarily for the instruction or edification of man?” He answers, “No. The liturgy is primarily for the glorification of God. In a connected but secondary way, it is also a source of instruction and sanctification for those who participate in it.”

Although Schneider has some ground to stand on here, his statement is ill-explained and potentially misleading. The whole purpose of creation is the glorification of God, as the First Vatican Council dogmatically defines (“On God the Creator”, can. 5), and of course this is supremely true of the worship of God by his creatures in the sacred liturgy, as St. Thomas observes in the Summa Theologiae (II-II, 93, 2) . However, as Aquinas points out in the same work (I, 65, 2), the glorification of God in our created world is accomplished through the perfection of creation (his intrinsic glory is absolute and infinite and cannot be altered).

Given that man is God’s greatest creation among physical creatures, and is perfected through his sanctification, how can the glorification of God and the sanctification of man be separated from one another? They are clearly two ways of expressing the same relation, one in reference to the cause, and the other in relation to the effect, as Aquinas also  instructs us  (Sum. The. III, 60, 5). In other words, God sanctifies us through our glorification of him, and we glorify him through the sanctity he has given us, as he is “glorified in his saints” (2 Thess. 1:10).

This equation of the glorification of God and the sanctification of man in the sacrificial economy of the Church is made very clearly by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical on the liturgy, Mediator Dei (1947). Pius states that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross enables each person to “set about the personal task of achieving his own sanctification, so rendering to God the glory due to Him.” He also states that, in Christ’s sacrifice, the glorification of the Father and his act of sanctifying man are one “single aim”: “At the Last Supper He celebrates a new Pasch with solemn rite and ceremonial, and provides for its continuance through the divine institution of the Eucharist. On the morrow, lifted up between heaven and earth, He offers the saving sacrifice of His life, and pours forth, as it were, from His pierced Heart the sacraments destined to impart the treasures of redemption to the souls of men. All this He does with but a single aim: the glory of His Father and man’s ever greater sanctification.”

As his only source for his claim, Schneider refers us to session 22 of the Council of Trent (the Decree on the Sacrifice of the Mass), chapter one. However, the text not only fails to support him, but rather undermines his claim, stating clearly that the reason for Christ’s priesthood and the Mass is our perfection through sanctification.

The text of chapter one begins, “Whereas, under the former Testament, according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection due to the weakness of the Levitical priesthood, it was proper for God, the Father of mercies, to ordain that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, our Lord Jesus Christ, who might consummate, and lead to perfection, as many of those who were to be sanctified” (translation mine).

The chapter continues with the same theme, informing us that Christ offered himself on the cross “to operate an eternal redemption;” and established the Mass to represent and perpetuate the memory of this sacrifice, which is to be “applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit”. In other words, to sanctify us. No explicit mention is made of the glorification of God, although of course this is entailed in our sanctification.

It is notable that that Trent only mentions glorification once in session 22, in its “Decree on what is to be observed and avoided in the celebration of the Mass,” and that is to order its reforms so that “due honor and cult may, for the glory of God and the edification of the faithful people, be restored,” therefore joining together the glory of God and the edification of the faithful.

It’s understandable that Schneider might wish to counteract the tendency in modern liturgical practice to understand the Mass as “the community celebrating itself,” as Cardinal Josef Ratzinger rightly decried in his memoir La mia vita (2005), removing its orientation to God as primary. The versus populum orientation and the tendency of priests to innovate the Roman rite in other ways clearly contribute to this tendency. However, Schneider’s incautious language seems to imply that the sanctification of man is only a secondary byproduct of the Mass and the liturgy in general, when in fact it is intrinsic to it and inseparable from it.

Although “liturgy” includes all of the official, public rites of the Church, its supreme expression is found in the sacraments, and above all, in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. In the eastern rites, the word “liturgy” is mainly used in reference to the Eucharist, which is called the Divine Liturgy. The Roman Catechism, issued by the Holy See to implement the reforms of the Council of Trent, repeatedly tells us that sacraments in general are to be defined as “a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted for our justification” (De sacramentis, I, V), an understanding derived from the writings of St. Augustine (De catechizandis rudibus, XXVI). In other words, they exist to restore or preserve the original justice given to us by sanctifying grace.

To be fair to Schenider, post-Tridentine theologians of the last two hundred years have placed a strong emphasis on the purpose of the Mass as the honor of God, normally listing it first among its purposes, which is appropriate because it most explicitly makes God the end of the liturgy. The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X (“The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”, q. 9) lists as first of the ends of the Mass as “to honor him (God) properly” and the Baltimore Catechism #3 (q. 922) lists the first end for which the sacrifice of the cross was offered as “to honor and glorify God”. Both place the obtainment of grace as fourth in the list, which could easily be read as corresponding to sanctification, although it doesn’t have to be understood that way. In fact, the word “sanctification” doesn’t appear in the list of purposes in those catechisms.

Nineteenth and early twentieth century theological manuals sometimes had similar content, for example, the famous Sacrae Theologiae Summa (book 4, tract. 3, par. 213), states with regard to the Mass that “Latria (adoration) is the essential and primary purpose of any sacrifice, and it is therefore the first effect that follows from it.” Pope Pius XII, again in Mediator Dei, listed the purposes of the Mass as “adoration”, “thanksgiving,” “expiation,” and “petition” or “impetration”, and a similar list is given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church . However, it would seem wrong to read these purposes as if they exclude sanctification, which, again, is not named as a distinct purpose among the others.

Glorification vs. communion?

In a similar vein, in part 3, q. 448, Schneider asks, “To assist well at Mass, must we receive Holy Communion?” He answers, “No. As Mass exists first to glorify God, our assistance is primarily one of adoration, to which Holy Communion may be added if we are properly disposed. This is why we are bound to attend Mass at least once per week (on Sundays), but are bound to receive communion only once per year.”

Of course it is true that the faithful in general are not strictly obligated to receive the consecrated species at each Mass, and this is a point made by Pope Pius XII in  Mediator Dei  and enshrined in canon law for centuries. As Schneider states, on can participate well in the Mass by uniting one’s self spiritually with the action of sacrifice and in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. However,  Mediator Dei  also observes that the reception of Holy Communion is not at all an optional part of the Mass itself; the sacred minister who celebrates the Mass is absolutely required to communicate under both species, every time. Moreover, the faithful in general are exhorted by the Church to receive as frequently as possible, preferably every time they participate in the Mass, assuming they have the proper dispositions and are free from mortal sin.

This is not a novelty established in recent decades, but an ancient teaching of the Church found in the very words of the Lord’s Prayer as they appear in the original Greek and St. Jerome’s translation of the Gospel of Matthew “Give us this day our supersubstantial bread” (6:11) – a clear reference to the Eucharist. This is why the Council of Trent (sess. 22, ch. 6) declared that “The holy council wishes indeed that at each mass the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire but also by the sacramental partaking of the Eucharist, that thereby they may derive from this most holy sacrifice a more abundant fruit”.

The  Roman Catechism , citing St. Augustine, instructs pastors to urge the faithful to receive Holy Communion as often as possible, preferably every day: “Let not the faithful imagine that it is enough to receive the body of the Lord once a year only, in obedience to the decree of the Church. They should approach oftener; but whether monthly, weekly, or daily, cannot be decided by any fixed universal rule. St. Augustine, however, lays down a most certain norm: Live in such a manner as to be able to receive every day. It will therefore be the duty of the pastor frequently to admonish the faithful that, as they deem it necessary to afford daily nutriment to the body, they should also feel solicitous to feed and nourish the soul every day with this heavenly food”.

Pope Pius X blamed infrequent communion on the Jansenist heresy and sought to encourage frequent and daily communion, in his Decree on Frequent and Daily Reception of Holy Communion, issued in 1905. Even Schneider himself (part 3, q. 400) mentions “frequent communion” as one of several means to “prove our love and devotion to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament”.

This matter might have supplied the opportunity to Schneider to mention the fundamental relationship between a sacrifice and meal in the sacramental economies of the Old and New Testaments. Most sacrifices of the Old Testament, including the daily sacrifices of the Temple and particularly the Passover supper, involved eating part or all of the sacrificial victim. The Last Supper is seen by Scripture scholars as the first part of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, in which the sacrificial lamb is Jesus himself. This is why the crucifixion took place on the Passover, and it is why the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can never be separated from the reception of Holy Communion by the celebrant. “For Christ our pasch is sacrificed. Therefore let us feast…” (1 Cor. 5:7-8).

Careless language about the Incarnation

In his apparent eagerness to reject naturalistic systems of thought that deny the reality or the importance of the Incarnation of Christ, Schneider makes vague and ambiguous statements that could easily be misread and do little to shed light on Catholic doctrine.

One of these is the strange assertion that “all life and existence hinges on the Incarnation of the Son of God.” The statement appears rather suddenly in part 1, par. 294, and is accompanied by no clear explanation. Schneider adds that those who deny the Incarnation “will have suffering in this life and be eternally lost in the next,” a statement that is obviously true given the proper caveats regarding non-culpable ignorance, but whose relation to the topic at hand is not clear.

It is hard to imagine what possible meaning this first phrase could have. In light of the statement that follows, does Schneider mean “salvation” when he refers to “all life and existence”? If so, why does he use the latter phrase, which has vastly different implications? Is he is thinking of Scripture passages appropriating to the Son the act of creating and sustaining the existence of the world, such as “All things were made by him”, “All things were created through him and for him”, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together,” etc.? Indeed, the whole Trinity, including the Son, created the world and all it contains. However, this doesn’t mean that creation depends on the Incarnation for its existence; after all, the Incarnation is itself a created and contingent reality (as Aquinas observes in the  Summa Theologiae  III, 2), and didn’t exist at the creation of the world.

One might dismiss the above quotation as simply ambiguous language rather than an exaggeration of the doctrine of the Incarnation. However, the paragraph immediately prior to it partakes of the same tendency, appearing to elevate the Incarnation to the principal dogma of the faith, upon which all others depend. Schneider states (part 1, par. 293) that “Every departure from Catholic doctrine is essentially an error about the Incarnation.” Again, he gives no explanation for this vast claim, and one must ask how this could possibly be, particularly given that the greatest and most sublime of all of doctrines is clearly the Blessed Trinity, which is the “central mystery of the Christian faith and life” and “the source of all the other mysteries of faith” ( Catechism of the Catholic Church , par. 234).

It is true that all of the Church’s doctrines are directly or indirectly interrelated, so we could argue that denying any one undermines the others, but then this statement would be applicable to all doctrines, and not just the doctrine of the Incarnation. Given that the Incarnation is not a necessary and absolute reality, as is the divine Trinitarian nature but a created and contingent one, how is it that all other doctrines depend on it? For example, do Trinitarian heresies, like the denial of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, somehow entail a denial of the Incarnation? If so, how?

Fudging the definition of schism

In Part I, par. 564, Schneider sets a trap for himself by falsely defining schism, which undermines his legitimate efforts to clarify the limits of obedience to ecclesiastical authority. The traditional definition found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law is the act of “refusing to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or to maintain communion with members of the Church who are subject to him”. The current CIC has virtually the same definition. However, Schneider tells us (Part I, par. 254) that schism is to be defined simply as “refusing to recognize the Supreme Pontiff,” an insufficient and ambiguous phrase that opens him to the charge of redefining the term for his own convenience, given that his catechism contains other statements about the limitation of obedience owed to prelates.

This is particularly awkward for Schneider, who has recently made common cause with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, an organization of dubious canonical status that for years was led by excommunicated bishops and whose priests were regarded as automatically suspended a divinis. Moreoever, Schneider’s own position as a dissident of the Francis papacy also makes him an easy target of accusations of schismatic disobedience, however unfair such accusations might be. Why raise the issue by this clearly watered-down definition of schism?

History of the canon of Scripture rewritten

In his eagerness to defend the faith, Schneider falls into at least one major historical error as well. It appears in paragraph 29 of the Introduction, in which Schneider makes the strange claim that the canon of Scripture was “uncontested” from the fifth century until Luther denied the Greek and Aramaic Old Testament scriptures (often called the “deuterocanonicals”) as a way of rejecting proof-texts for Catholic doctrine.

It is true that Luther wrongly took this position in order to attack Catholic doctrine, and it is also true that the canonicity of various deuterocanonical books were repeatedly affirmed by popes and councils over many centuries. Such facts should be clearly stated in addressing this issue. However, it is simply false to claim that the canon of Scripture was uncontested in the Church before Luther. No dogmatic declaration was made regarding the canon until the Council of Trent in 1546, and in the preceding centuries that numerous authorities freely denied the canonicity of various Old Testament deuterocanonical books.

Jerome’s prefaces to his Vulgate translation openly denied the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals, and although Jerome himself appears to have at least partially retracted his view later, these prefaces were widely republished throughout the Middle Ages in many editions of the Vulgate as well as the famous Scripture commentaries of the Glossa Ordinaria, with no caveats. Among the many Medieval theologians who rejected some or all deuterocanonicals was Gregory the Great (later Pope), who explicitly denied the canonicity of the first book of Maccabees in his famous sixth century commentaries on the Book of Job ( book 19, chapter 34 ), and Thomas Cajetan, a cardinal and the most eminent theologian of the early 16 th  century, who flatly denied the canonicity of all the deuterocanonicals, claiming Jerome’s authority exceeded even councils and doctors of the Church ( In omnes authenticos veteris testamenti historiales libros commentarii,   481b-482a .)

God is not the cause of physical evil?

In part 1, paragraphs 56-57 Schneider strangely claims that physical evils (which he calls “imperfections of creation”) are merely “permitted” by God to exist, stating that God “can only cause good.” Even more strangely, this assertion is immediately undermined by a quotation he makes of Ephriam the Syrian, who notes that God “smites” his creatures for their sins, a transitive term in the active voice, which certainly implies more than a passive permission for physical evils. Similar language appears countless times in both Old and New Testaments in reference to God’s punishments.

Aquinas (Sum. The. I 49.2) on this point is clear: God is indeed the author of the evil of punishment, but not the evil of fault (which caused by our own moral deficiencies). In the same article, Aquinas notes that God also causes evil in nature for the purpose of perfecting the general order of creation, and further cites divine punishments for sin as an example of physical evils caused by God. Aquinas makes a similar distinction (Sum. The. I-II 79.2) between sin and its accompanying act, noting that God is not the cause of the former but is in fact the cause of the latter.

Adam and Eve “perfectly fulfilled” in the Garden of Eden?

In Part I, paragraph 165, Schneider makes the unfortunate statement that Adam and Eve were “perfectly fulfilled” in the Garden of Eden. However, this is at best bad theology. As Aquinas observes ( Sum. The. I 94.), Adam and Eve enjoyed the preternatural gifts and had sanctifying grace but did not enjoy the beatific vision of God, which is necessary for the perfect happiness of man ( Sum. The . I-II 3.8).

Is Schneider making the novel claim that Adam and Eve enjoyed the Beatific Vision in the Garden of Eden? Presumably not, but given that that is man’s perfect fulfillment, he would certainly seem to be implying it. Whether it’s sloppy and hasty writing or bad theology, it’s misleading.

Redemption for  Credo ?

Although  Credo , in my estimation, must be said to fail in its purpose, its successful publication and its eager reception by Catholic clergy and laity are a reminder of the deep need in the Church for a reaffirmation of so many truths of the faith that have been obscured in recent decades. The project of producing a comprehensive and careful response to modern confusion is a worthy one that would seem to exceed the limits of a mere question-and-answer catechism, and would require careful preparation and critical review by theologians who are thoroughly acquainted with the Church’s organic, bimilennial tradition in all of its principal elements.

What is certain is that such a project must avoid being merely reactive to the Second Vatican Council and the more recent magisterium’s tendency to novel formulations that appear to be theologically deficient or otherwise problematical. A sound response is one that answers ambiguity with clarity, and the statement of partial truths or the overemphasis on certain truths with a complete and proportional presentation of the matter in question.

Those of us who count ourselves as “traditionalists” often fall into the trap of knee-jerk reaction that falls into the other side of a false either-or proposition, when a “both-and” response is what is truly necessary, filling in the gaps and providing the context that is lost in the ambiguous statements of modernist theologians. We should strive to present Catholic doctrine in a fundamentally positive way, not as a refutation of some other system of thought, as if it is merely the answer to some error but, rather, as the supreme expression of reality as it really is, prepared to stand on its own and provide a better alternative to deficient and incomplete expressions of the truth. It is the task of the traditional theologian to offer something better, deeper, and more comprehensive, rather than simply reacting to error and denying what is wrong. That challenge is still awaiting faithful Catholic theologians with the patience and determination to carry it out.

Credo: Compendium of the Catholic Faith By Bishop Athanasius Schneider Sophia Institute Press, 2023 Hardcover, 402 pages

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

34 Comments

“For example, Schneider clearly reaffirms the politically-incorrect but vital doctrine of the authority of husbands over wives, a teaching stated at least five times in the New Testament but virtually missing from modern catechisms.”

Yeah, no. I’ve asked around about this, and there are reasons why the older teaching has faded out over the past several decades. One is that the New Testament never actually says that wives are to obey their husbands (Fr. Francis Martin notes this in his great critique of feminist theology, noting that there is only one occasion where it might *indirectly* be affirmed). As far as I can tell, the Roman Catechism’s formulation of “wifely obedience” is as relevant as its discussion of limbo. This is hardly to deny the traditional testimony, but rather to note that these traditions are not Tradition. Ephesians commands wives to respect their husbands and husbands to sacrificially love their wives. The teachings of modern popes increasingly grasp this essence: Leo XIII and Pius XI command that wives be recognized as independent persons, companions and not servants, and John Paul the Great draws out the spirit of the passage in speaking of “mutual submission” (which, contrary to certain accusations, he did not regard as “identical submission”).

In reality, the Scripture repeatedly and clearly states that wives must obey their husbands, and it was always interpreted that way by the Fathers, and as you point out, it’s in the Roman Catechism (by the way your jab at limbo is misplaced — the Church never rejected the doctrine outright but simply allows for other possibilities, according to the CDF, now DDF).

You mention Pius XI’s statements about this doctrine in a misleading way. He clearly restates the doctrine that wives must obey their husbands, although of course this obedience is not meant as something slavish or demeaning, nor absolute. Here are his own words in paragraph 26 of Casti Connubii: “Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that ‘order of love,’ as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: ‘Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.'”

Yes, Pius XI does qualify this in the next paragraph by stating that women have a proper dignity and liberty and that obedience has limits. A wife does not have to “obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors…”

It must be remembered that in Christianity, leadership is an act of service, undertaken out of love and care for the whole society that is governed. So this doesn’t imply an arbitrary dictatorship of the husband nor of any degrading treatment of his wife, but quite the opposite. As Jesus states in Matthew 20:25-28, “whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister: And he that will be first among you, shall be your servant. Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.”

As a better metallurgist than a theologian, as best that I can discern. I would add the appreciation the role of the Greatest Commandment that to love God to the fullest is to be obedient to God whom desires the best for us, to be in full communion with Him on both sides of the grave. As a man, a steward of God’s gift of husband and father I love my wife, to desire the best for her no different that God desires the best for me. As a woman, steward, wife and mother she would love her husband, desiring the best for him respectfully in their mutual obedience to God and love of God. Our love and trust for each other would the be aligned with our respective love of God, Our Father our Patriarch. Thank you for your comment that provide clarification and food for thought. In closing, I find these articles as disturbing as enlightening with a deeper appreciation for how readily what has been shared and taught has not been quite right to the point that I sense that the laity, called to the active life style have been scattered to the wilderness with no idea how scattered and lost we are, may God have mercy on our souls.

This is deeply misguided. In the first place, bare assertion without argument or evidence merely confirms my point: the New Testament does not teach “wives obey your husbands.” Cite it, if you can.

Second, you will note that I did not say about limbo what you claim I said. I stated it was no longer relevant. Which is true; the Church has disclaimed the opinion, which it never formally taught. In the same way, I am deeply skeptical that you can find any dogmatic statement that wives are to obey their husbands (which is a different request from “any statement”).

Finally, you falsely claim that I misstate papal teaching. Again, this is inaccurate, because I did not endeavor to precisely state this teaching in the first place. Rather, the burden is on you to demonstrate that these passages, scant as they are, constitute irreformable doctrine. And that is impossible, since there are multiple parallel passages from contemporary popes that have not been thus received: e.g., Leo XIII and Pius XII on the absolute inerrancy of Scripture under the model “what is affirmed is inerrant” (Ratzinger and those who follow him dramatically reinterpret “affirmed”) or Pius XII’s “the soul and the body of the Church are separate” (already rejected pre-Vatican II by the unimpeachable Cardinal Journet).

You’re apparently not reading what I wrote above. Quoting Pope Pius XI quoting Scripture isn’t “bare assertion.”

If you are attempting spin these passages to reinterpret “submit” to mean something other than obey, then your dispute is with the popes and the Fathers. The Church has always interpreted those passages that way, and who can believe that Christ’s Church wouldn’t understand its own scriptures for 2,000 years? That’s the absurd claim of Protestantism.

Limbo is not a place. The word refers to the unknown status of unbaptized who die free of mortal sin.

Great clarification. The Church has always taught that God Created Mankind equal in Dignity while being complementary as a beloved son or daughter, Willed By God, The Blessed Trinity, worthy of Redemption. It is up to us, however, to repent and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy, and thus affirm our inherent Dignity.

Mr. Hoffman with all do respect to your time and effort critiquing Bishop Athanasius book how do you explain, Dr. Scott Hahn, Cardinal Robert Sarah, and Fr. Michael Fiedrowicz, praising the book as well the imprimatur of Bishop Peter Libasci? If the errors you describe are real then Mr. Hahn, Cardinal Sarah, Fr. Fiedrowicz and Bishop Labasci also are in error.

Ephesians 2

Remember, this was written when daily life was basically hand-to-mouth. Someone has to be in charge in those scenarios. 33 says ‘However, let each one of you also love his wife just as he loves himself; and let the wife respect her husband.” In more recent times, Bishop Sheen remarked, “Men used to run the world, and women used to run society.” I guess everyone knew their place, unlike today’s world with so much consternation of one’s purpose. I would guess most of us past 30 understand women and men are better at certain tasks than the other sex.

The church still states that the main purpose of the marriage is to raise children,

Are not the Gospels laminated in His Truth?

“One is that the New Testament never actually says that wives are to obey their husbands.”

You might want to actually read the New Testament before commenting about it. And James Martin is the last person in the church people should be looking to for guidance about biblical teachings about relationships. That should be obvious.

Perhaps you should read my comment before commenting on it: I clearly said “Francis Martin,” not “James,” an exegete of unimpeachable orthodoxy.

Again, claiming the New Testament commands wives to “obey” their husbands proves nothing. Cite it.

Yup, nothing suffices for these types who want to go back to 1962 & we’re faced with the other side who wants us to be the church of nice… Dominus flevit…

Fr. J, Spend an hour before the Blessed Sacrament for seven days, re-read your present response, and see if it doesn’t taste like dust in your mouth. There is altogether too little Wisdom put out flowing from the seasoned habit of Eucharistic Adoration. “These TYPES . . “?? Is Bishop Schneider a “type”? Are you a “type”? Where is Charity in this UN-kind of conversation? Grown cold ??

No, the good father is absolutely correct. If anything, the lack of charity flows from you. Schneider represents an ultraconservative wing with little use for the Vatican II-era’s development of doctrine. This does not represent the future of the Church. If you wish to see the future, look to Matthew Levering, Thomas Joseph White, Guy Mansini, Abigail Favale, Erika Bachiochi, and Reinhard Hütter.

So what is wrong with 1962 and what is wrong with being nice? So few terse words explain little except that the church today is torn in limbo and Jesus once wept.

Conversely, Jesus permits; he knew it all then and knows it all now. We humans today have a perfectly clear choice between the Gift of wisdom in time-tested Tradition or the post-modern secular liberalism of Nicety and politically correct etiquette.

I personally don’t give a rake whether man obeys his wife or vice versa. What I do know is that Adam succumbed to the wiles of Eve and she succumbed to a snake. No one emerges unscathed. Sitting on a fence today takes one straight from lukewarm to being spit out of the mouth of Christ.

For those who want to make nice during the NO kiss of peace, let them and their gay trans leaders have their way. Plenty of us will never worship a fat gold calf no matter who the pope excommunicates.

What the author writes may be accurate, but my guess is that Bishop Schneider is writing in response to a dominant theology in the Church since the 1960’s that tells us there’s no such thing as individual sin – that the only sins are those which affront the social dimension and are corporate sins. If anyone doubts this, go to your local parish church and count the number of parishioners who show up for scheduled confessions (and don’t tell me they’re scheduling appointments for confession outside the normal times).

My second point is this: the average Joe Pewsitter is no theologian and doesn’t operate in the intellectual domain such as the author of this article. My guess is the average Joe Pewsitter couldn’t tell you the name of the bishop of his or her diocese.

Thank you for this effort. And thanks to Bishop Athanasius Schneider for trying to help us in the dark. As the world falls deeper into the pit of fallacies, it gets more difficult to find the balance needed to climb toward the light of Christ’s Truth. The faithful are suffering in every way from extreme errors in teaching and practice: theologically, philosophically, politically, financially, etc. Our ascent out of the darkness of error must begin with prayer, conversation with the Word of God. “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

“Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

Exactly what Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was persecuted for doing, GF. God bless CN

About binary husbands and wives, let’s not forget where we are today . . . now with some 57 personal pronouns and counting!

AND YET, even homosexual “couples” are still so backwardist as to designate each other has “husbands” and “wives”; and shepherd successors of the Apostles are synodally restyled “primarily as facilitators”; and the “hierarchical communion” of the Church (Lumen Gentium) is procedurally displaced by an “inverted pyramid” paradigm-shift”; and a Synod on Synodality (say what?) gravitates (like any other falling rock!) toward a unisex priesthood; and the prefect for the dicastery on the doctrine of the Faith snubs some 100 synodalers—unavailable for “objective” (still male?) reasons—but then offers to meet soon—after the Synod draft Final Report is already off the press?

WILL the synodal roundtables have the brass to unanimously “demand” corrections, as they did in 2018 with regard to the Synod on Youth? Where capitulation to the political term “LGBTQ” was removed over the earlier intransigence of the editorial relator-general Cardinal Baldisseri? What to do with Cardinal Hollerich who pontificates “that the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching [moral theology] is no longer correct.”

AND, who elucidates thusly: “In Japan, I got to know a different way of thinking. The Japanese don’t think in terms of the European logic of opposites [or binary/complementary sexuality?]. We say: It is black, therefore it is not white. The Japanese say: It is white, but maybe it is also black. You can combine opposites in Japan without changing your point of view” (reported at The Pillar).

Stretching the grey area! Penguin theology is in!

Fr. J, Spend an hour before the Blessed Sacrament . . . and re-read your present response. “These TYPES . . “?? Is Bishop Schneider a “type”? Are you a “type”? Is anyone?

As the publisher of Bishop Schneider’s first book in English — his excellent work on the problematic practice of Communion-in-the-hand, it pains me to have to say that this recent effort of his is disappointing, even in more ways than the present reviewer notes. He even says that Protestants and Orthodox cannot rightly be considered Christians!

On the male headship front, Catholicism and its culture have always been matriarchal. In fact, not a few of the Protestant Reformers pointed to that phenomenon as indicative of the Church’s falling away from biblical truths. Decades before Vatican II, Pius XII could say that the mother is the “sun” of the family (not the father!). And anecdotally, we must recall that in pre-Vatican II Catholic households in this country, two words were conversation-stoppers: “Sister said,” NOT “Father said.”

Father, I would be delighted if you could reference those Reformational criticisms of “matriarchy.”

Pity about Schneider. The future of Catholicism is not an ersatz past.

Just a guess. The idea of matriarchy which offended Reformers was Church teaching that Mary, Mother of God, was perpetual virgin and mother. Whether that alone qualifies Catholicism and its culture as matriarchal is the question. I would argue no. Without Jesus, Mary is as a barren fig tree.

After reading a bit on the web, it seems that the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli specifically) did NOT dissent from RCC teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity and maternity. But where and when did Protestant theology take a turn toward that dissent is unclear….do you have info on this? Thanks.

We should be clear that the the Church is not a matriarchy, but a patriarchy, and always has been. The fact that there is great respect and love for women and an acknowledgement of the spiritual equallity of the sexes (as the Church has always taught), doesn’t change that. God is Father, not Mother, and only men can be clerics. Yes, the Blessed Virgin Mary reigns with Christ, but in submission to him, who is infinitely greater than her.

I think that the problem with Americans affirming these truths is the constant fear that somehow this translates to some sort of dictatorial and exploitative understanding of authority, which is a false one (and one that is very common in the very liberal/libertarian USA) rather than the Christian understanding of leadership as loving service as Christ states in Matthew 20. When we see leadership and authority, as well as obedience to that authority, in light of Christian charity, the problem disappears.

Lots of armchair theologians here. Personally I’d like to see a critique of Credo from a sound, credentialed theologian. There’s little here of use unless you’re a right-fighter.

Who wrote the abstract? “Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s recent “Compendium of the Catholic Faith” often appears to be oversimplistic, hasty, and reactive, and sometimes reads more like a polemic than a catechism.”

The writer of the abstract apparently believes s/he has been gifted with the dogmatic authority to judge the format, content, style, and tone of a compendium or catechism of the Catholic Church. S/he judges that the Credo “sometimes reads more like a polemic than a catechism.”

Since when has Francis ever exhorted or rebuked the creative style of any ecclesiocrat in his freewheeling mess of a Vatican? Since when have the friends of Francis or Francis himself written a catechism which contains as much Catholic truth as Schneider’s Credo?

Let us count the ways Francis and friends have fostered and furthered materially heretical pastoral practices. Then let us count the flaws and imperfections in Schneider’s Credo.

Meiron: you get a big thumbs up from me on what you’ve written. Seems like a lot of swatting of gnats here.

Cullinan-Hoffman stakes his essay on the ground of Tradition, contrasting Schneider seemingly at odds. But he proceeds to interpret Aquinas without reflecting properly on the ontological, the teleological and the historical.

Christ did not come to retrieve Adam’s generation. Christ came to redeem man from eternal punishment and bring man to a new order of creation -i.e., another of those many worlds God is free to choose and make.

This means a different ontology and teleology for those who receive Him – with a parallel history with the unsaved. I haven’t read Bishop’s Schneider’s tome but from the excerpts shared above, he follows these meanings.

Theologically, Redemption is Christological not merely logical. Had Christ wanted to retrieve Adam’s generation, He would have said it plainly and the extent. His title, Son of Man, exclaims what He makes of us for the Father.

Schneider merely recaptures the sense of Canon on schism. The citation about wives being obedient also bears on the schism subject. Righteous adherence defends the Pontiff from error – in Christ’s own vision of “rock”.

Christians adhering unswervingly to Protestant doctrines in spite of baptism, are un-Christian. Matriarchy that offends equality as well as dignity is not “Catholic society” and also I see where errant men hide inside matriarchy.

Bishop Schneider is concerned to foster a dialogue for Catholicism according to our doctrines which are sound and true. I believe this motive is reflected in Credo in the choice of subjects and the simplicity of the presentation.

Perhaps the weakness of Bishop Schneider’s work lies in the way it is accepted or perceived. It is NOT an official catechism of the Roman Catholic Church but merely a commentary on the official accepted Catechism of the Church. Much like the many Jewish Rabbis over the years have done with the jewish Torah. A commentary seeks to clarify and interpret, but is not looked at being the final word. It is always subject to further refining and clarification. Perhaps the good Bishop would take these and other criticisms to heart and publish another more refined version. I don’t know if the Bishop had others critique his text before publication, but in any case it appears that further clarification is needed. He needs to be thanked for his work and concern and may God bless him richly.

When reading anyone’s writing and comparing it to another’s, it is always helpdul to consider whether that writer is using words and phrases definitively per se or analogically by way of comparison. Also, are the words and phrases being understood denotatively or connotatively? Sloppy syntax, grammar and other factors can result in misunderstanding at best and misrepresenting at worst. Be careful and charitable, all.

If it can be shown that Bishop Schneider disagrees that all Mankind is created in God’s image, that is indeed a tragic error. That dignity however is narrowed to the intellect and freedom of will. It doesn’t convey that the reprobate’s evil acts are glossed over, freeing him from retribution. All men have that dignity as described regardless of their evil acts. Does that repudiate the death penalty, or condone acts of perverted sex? No. Reprobates have besmirched the gifts of intellect and free will, though they remain sacred gifts. Indeed it’s due to their sacred nature in the image of God that abortion, that all disordered forms of sexuality deserves punishment, eternal suffering a worthy condemnation. Also, the doctrine of inherent human dignity offers us understanding why evil is permitted to exist, that Satan, who is not human but possess intellect and free will retains a modality of dignity in his acknowledgement as Prince of this World. That Satan is allowed to personally challenge Christ speaks to God’s recognition.

Another feature of dignity, also understood as a higher rank is immortality. The only creatures with that feature are angels and men who have intellect and free will in common. That is why if condemned by God, and that we share with him immortality our condemnation is eternal. As Our Lord allegedly told St Catherine of Siena in her Dialogues, We can lose grace, but we cannot lose our existence.

Cullinan Hoffman criticisms appear mostly viable, except perhaps for Adam and Eve perfectly fulfilled in the Garden. It appears Hoffman fails to consider Schneider seems to have meant all their needs were met, which would imply there wasn’t any need to disobey God. Also, regards ad orientem versus populum his citing Ratzinger on the dangers of versus populum shows his TLM traditionalist leanings. When Christ consecrated the Eucharist at the Last Supper he wasn’t facing the wall with his back to the Apostles. We could add too that sanctification of the people is Christ’s purpose, not simply that we glorify him. We glorify him by our holiness [with which ironically Hoffman agrees]. Although, all in all Cullinan Hoffman’s critique is a scholarly, excellent work for the reader to study.

1 Trackback / Pingback

• The weaknesses and flaws in Bishop Schneider’s Credo: A traditionalist’s review – seamasodalaigh

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.

© Catholic World Report

You can see how this popup was set up in our step-by-step guide: https://wppopupmaker.com/guides/auto-opening-announcement-popups/

Sign up to receive a weekly email with news, analysis, and commentary from a voice you can trust!

Email Frequency

• Teen & Young Adult
• Literature & Fiction

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

An Ember in the Ashes Paperback – February 9, 2016

• Reading age 12 - 17 years
• Book 1 of 4 An Ember in the Ashes
• Print length 480 pages
• Language English
• Grade level 7 - 9
• Lexile measure HL680L
• Dimensions 5.98 x 1.27 x 8.98 inches
• Publisher G.P. Putnam's Sons Books for Young Readers
• Publication date February 9, 2016
• ISBN-10 1595148043
• ISBN-13 978-1595148049
• See all details

From the Publisher

Editorial Reviews

About the author, excerpt. © reprinted by permission. all rights reserved., product details.

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ G.P. Putnam's Sons Books for Young Readers; Reprint edition (February 9, 2016)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 480 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1595148043
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1595148049
• Reading age ‏ : ‎ 12 - 17 years
• Lexile measure ‏ : ‎ HL680L
• Grade level ‏ : ‎ 7 - 9
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 2.31 pounds
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 5.98 x 1.27 x 8.98 inches
• #76 in Teen & Young Adult Fantasy Romance
• #86 in Teen & Young Adult Epic Fantasy
• #88 in Teen & Young Adult Dystopian

Videos for this product

Click to play video

Customer Review: An Ember in the Ashes

Aleigha young

About the author

Sabaa tahir.

Sabaa Tahir is a former newspaper editor who grew up in California's Mojave Desert at her family's eighteen-room motel. There, she spent her time devouring fantasy novels, listening to thunderous indie rock, and playing guitar and piano badly. Her #1 New York Times bestselling An Ember in the Ashes series has been translated into more than thirty-five languages, and the first book in the series was named one of TIME's 100 Best Young Adult Books of All Time. Tahir's most recent novel, All My Rage, won the National Book Award for Young People's Literature, was an instant New York Times bestseller, received eight starred reviews and won the 2022 Boston Globe-Horn Book Award for Fiction and Poetry. Visit Sabaa online at SabaaTahir.com and follow her on Instagram or Twitter @SabaaTahir and TikTok @SabaaTahirAuthor.

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 64% 27% 7% 1% 1% 64%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 64% 27% 7% 1% 1% 27%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 64% 27% 7% 1% 1% 7%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 64% 27% 7% 1% 1% 1%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 64% 27% 7% 1% 1% 1%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Customers say

Customers find the book very enjoyable, appealing, and easy to read. They describe the story as realistic, spellbinding, and inspiring. Readers praise the characters as well-developed and different. They say the book is engaging, exciting, and immersive. Customers praise the writing quality as good and beautiful. They also mention the pacing is extremely fast and flows well.

AI-generated from the text of customer reviews

Customers find the book amazing, enjoyable, and appealing. They say it's a great quality book with large, easy-to-read text. Readers also mention the world has a brutal beauty that is equally horrifying.

"...yet so completely foreign, horrible in its brutality and yet strangely beautiful in its mythology...." Read more

"...The world had a brutal beauty that was equally horrifying and mesmerizing. And while it didn’t necessarily leave me wanting for more, it’s solid!" Read more

"Guys. GUYS. THIS BOOK IS SO GOOD . I really can’t say enough about this series and I’m definitely kind of obsessing about it these days...." Read more

"...Helene is the only female student at Blackcliff. She is as beautiful as she is deadly and almost as powerful as she is loyal...." Read more

Customers find the story quality great. They say the plot pulls them in from the beginning, is spellbinding, and inspiring. Readers also appreciate the well-built atmosphere and suspense. In addition, they mention the legends are wonderfully built up.

"...Seriously his development was stellar and intricate , the way everything was woven together with the Augur Cain and seeing the many layers of himself..." Read more

"...Tahir fills Ember with vivid imagery and expertly weaves in touches of folklore and mythology until the world becomes a living breathing thing that..." Read more

"...Sabaa did a wonderful job weaving a realistic story in this fantasy world. It's violent with bloody scenes that make the story much more intense...." Read more

"...’s lives get intertwined in unexpected ways and there’s an amazing ending that will literally blow your freaking socks off.THE GOOD..." Read more

Customers find the characters well-developed. They appreciate the amazing female main character and the great supporting cast. Readers also mention the story is full of courage, strength, and cunning.

"...Even the side characters in this book were wonderful , like all of Elias and Helene’s Blackcliff friends, I almost cried with what happened to them..." Read more

"...Tahir moves between their stories effortlessly. The characters are so well developed , that even if the chapters weren’t labeled accordingly, there..." Read more

"...This book blew me away. An epic story full of courage and wonderful diverse characters...." Read more

"...Oh man, where to even begin.Laia is such an amazing female main character and I love how independent and strong she is throughout the..." Read more

Customers find the book very engaging, interesting, and exciting. They say it's fun, different, and immersive. Readers also appreciate the interesting concepts and inner thoughts that add great insight into the world. Overall, they describe the book as rich, beautiful, and deeper.

"... Laia is the most relatable , her growth from being afraid and defenseless to finding her own kind of courage is remarkable...." Read more

"...A unique fantasy world that was cruel and wonderful at the same time. I just couldn't put this book down...." Read more

"...It was a wonderful twist of fantasy into this ancient dystopian world...." Read more

Customers find the writing quality of the book really good, beautiful, and lyrical. They also appreciate the language and say it makes them want to write better. Readers mention the text is fairly large and easy to read.

"...The characters, the world, the everything. The writing was so well done that every line and moment fit within the frame of what was happening...." Read more

"...An Ember in the Ashes was masterfully written . The pace flowed steadily to the point I just read and read...." Read more

"...to the audiobook only heightened the experience because the narrators were top notch . Buckle up kids, this is gonna be a long one...." Read more

"...Tahir writes beautifully and there are so many quotable lines in the text ...." Read more

Customers find the pacing of the novel extremely fast and well-flowing. They also say it's an easy read. Readers mention the heroine is lovely, intelligent, and has a lot of girl power.

"...An Ember in the Ashes was masterfully written. The pace flowed steadily to the point I just read and read...." Read more

"...There's also a lot of girl power . Trigger warning: rape is a very real part of this society...." Read more

"...She is a lovely, intelligent young woman but as a member of that group she is a slave. She is made to be used, abused and then thrown away...." Read more

"...The first half really dragged . Seriously, if I were to base my rating on the first half of the book it would most likely be a 1.5 stars...." Read more

Customers find the world-building incredible, original, and intriguing. They say the author perfectly mixes the world-building, character development, dialogue, and believable. Readers also mention the book creates a good buildup to something that is sure to be extraordinary.

"...I’ve already rambled on too much, but I have to mention how well the world was built too...." Read more

"...most was that every single character was strongly written and well fleshed out , even the secondary characters...." Read more

"...You won't put it down. Trust me. It's a wonderful add to your library collection ." Read more

"... Everything about this was amazing and listening to the audiobook only heightened the experience because the narrators were top notch...." Read more

Customers have mixed opinions about the violence level of the book. Some mention it's horrible in its brutality, while others say it has a good bit of violence.

"...a place that’s recognizable and yet so completely foreign, horrible in its brutality and yet strangely beautiful in its mythology...." Read more

"...First, the Commandant. Ruthless , manipulative, cold-blooded and cruel, she was a walking terror. But that wasn’t my problem...." Read more

"...It's violent with bloody scenes that make the story much more intense. I gasped. I cringed. I yelled. I was a ball of nerves...." Read more

"...The trials are brutal and heart wrenching. This world is full of brutality . There is child abuse and abandonment, slavery, and rape...." Read more

Reviews with images

An Ember in the Ashes

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Top reviews from other countries

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices