Michael Voris: Your Excellency, so it was three years ago, almost.
Bishop Schneider: At the end of 2010, about two and a half years.
Michael Voris: You mentioned that there should be almost a syllabus of errors produced because of the bad interpretations of the Second Vatican Council. In that context, what do you think are some of the biggest, most important misinterpretations of the council documents?
Bishop Schneider: First, I think it is the general perception and understanding of Vatican II. The major interpretations of the council itself are either liberal or traditional, and therefore, it is necessary to have an official interpretation that states that the Second Vatican Council did not intend to make a break with the past. When we carefully read all the speeches given by Pope John XXIII at the beginning of the council, and also Pope Paul VI, we can see that they stressed the council had no intention of proclaiming new doctrines, only to explain the truth of the faith more deeply and to protect Catholic truth. This was the purpose stated by John XXIII: to protect and deepen, not to make new doctrines. This is the key to interpreting the words of the magisterium, not the interpretations of theologians or some bishops, but of the supreme magisterium.
We also know the famous speech of Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 to the Roman Curia, where he stated officially that the council must be accepted and interpreted in continuity with all tradition. This is the general principle. Of course, there are some specific moments in the documents that need clarification, because they are open to different interpretations.
Michael Voris: You are aware that in April this year, Cardinal Kasper published an article saying there were compromise formulas written into the documents. Many people were surprised that he would say that.
Bishop Schneider: Yes, he admitted it. But, of course, Cardinal Kasper is not speaking as the magisterium. My point is that the magisterium itself, meaning the Pope, must give clarifications or indications about the misinterpretations. We need to be very concrete because we are living in a situation of much confusion, with many voices speaking about the council. We must ask the magisterium with humility to give very clear interpretations on some specific subjects.
For example, in Lumen Gentium, in the numbers about collegiality, the episcopacy, and the relationship with the Pope, even the council itself recognized some ambiguity. The Pope admitted that the text about collegiality was not clear enough. Therefore, Pope Paul VI ordered the famous explanatory note, the Notificativa Explicativa Previa, which was added at the end of the document. It is not a text of the council itself but an explanatory note that, according to the Pope, should be read together with the document. This was intended to clarify collegiality and primacy. It would be useful to review how, in these fifty years, this subject of collegiality and primacy has been interpreted. I think the magisterium can make a clear statement about this.
This clarification is important to avoid the misunderstanding that the universal Church is ordinarily governed by the College of Bishops. This is not the structure Christ gave us. Christ gave authority to Peter to govern his flock, shepherd of the sheep and the lambs, and the bishops are the successors of the apostles. Every bishop is a pastor of his own diocese, but by his consecration, he also has responsibility, in some way, for the universal Church, because we are one body, the Mystical Body of Christ. The Pope and the bishops are all part of this one body. Therefore, the council rightly stressed unity and collegiality. The responsibility of all bishops for the whole Church has always existed throughout the two thousand years of the Church. In ecumenical councils, bishops together with the Pope governed the Church, but always under Peter. It is not the ordinary structure Christ gave, so we must be attentive here. There were centuries without councils, and the Church was governed, sometimes very well, sometimes poorly. It would be very helpful if the magisterium clarified the correct manner of interpreting and exercising collegiality.
Another example in Lumen Gentium, number 16, contains an expression that, to my understanding, needs explanation.
There is that saying that we Catholics, together with the Muslims, adore the one God. It has to be clarified, because there are two substantially different levels. As Catholics, we adore God always as Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Our adoration is an adoration of faith, supernatural faith, not just to worship God as creator only or as one God only. There is no need for faith in that case; the use of reason is sufficient. This is a dogma of the First Vatican Council, that every human person is able, by natural reason alone, without the light of faith, to recognize the existence of one God as creator, and consequently to worship him according to natural reason. These are the Muslims. They have no supernatural faith, and therefore they have no supernatural act of worship. Even the Jews, who rejected Jesus as God, as the Trinity, have no faith in this sense, and therefore their worship is also natural, not supernatural.
Michael Voris: May I ask you, Your Excellency, then, when I don’t know if you’re aware or not, last week Cardinal Dolan of New York was visiting a mosque. He said, and it got quoted all over the secular press, “Hold on to the Muslims, hold on to your faith, and we worship the same God.”
Bishop Schneider: Yes, therefore, I say this expression of Lumen Gentium, perhaps the cardinal was referring to this expression of the council. You are now observing that it is really necessary to stress this distinction. This is an essential distinction. We Catholics never worship at the natural level, always at the supernatural level. One example, which has to be clarified, is only a small example, thanks be to God, not so much. We also have to stress the majority of expressions in the text of the council, which are very rich and traditional. Often, we forget this and only focus on controversial or ambiguous expressions, which are not very important. In this, we forget the richness of the council. In Germany, there exists a book written by one bishop, I think Austrian, titled The Forgotten Council. There, he collected all the beautiful traditional expressions of the council. Another expression also has to be not only explained, but developed and clarified, besides Lumen Gentium 16. Gaudium et Spes 12 says that all the things which exist on Earth are directed and oriented to man as their aim and supreme purpose.
Michael Voris: And Kuhlmann, the culmination, how to say the combinations?
Bishop Schneider: Kuhlmann in Latin means finality and the top, the pinnacle, the summit. I think this expression, “all the things on Earth are directed to man as their aim and summit,” is ambiguous. It is not correct, because all things which exist on Earth ultimately have their aim in God and are meant to glorify God as the summit. We say plenissima uncele etera, Gloria tua, all things that exist are created for the glory of God. All things are created for Christ, through Him, and for Him. Christ is the aim of all created things, even those on Earth.
Of course, I understand the aim of this expression: that God created all non-rational things for the service of man, and man is the ruler or king of these created things. God gave man such dignity. But we cannot express it only in this manner. We have to stress that even though created things exist for man, they are ultimately for God, and He is the summit. Otherwise, it becomes anthropocentric. This anthropocentric vision has been one of the problems and crises of the last fifty years, not only in thought but also in Christian life, liturgy, and theology. It is the biggest danger for the Church because anthropocentrism was the first sin of Adam and Eve, and it is very dangerous. Expressions from the council text could be misused in this way, so we need to clarify and add an explanation.
For example, in the document on Christian unity, there is an expression that God can use even non-Catholic communities or churches as a means of salvation. This could be misinterpreted in the sense of the Anglican branch theory, which suggests there are several branches of Christianity, all of which are ways of salvation. We must clarify that God can use other Christians individually, but only as baptized members united to the Mystical Body of Christ. What St. Augustine said is important: whatever non-Catholics have, they received from the Church. He even said they “stole” it from the Church; it is not originally theirs. We have to explain this so it is not misunderstood.
Another issue is religious liberty, in the document Dignitatis Humanae. This must be clarified and stressed. For example, it is only a declaration, not a decree or constitution, and therefore has a very low level in the hierarchy of council documents. I think the council intentionally chose this level, so it is open for further clarification or addition. We should not worry about this; it is open for the first edition.
Michael Voris: Do you think, Your Excellency, that in the West, in Western nations, among churchmen, Dignitatis Humanae has been poorly interpreted, and that poor interpretation has been carried out in parishes and chanceries? So there is, of course, almost a sense of equality of religions.
Bishop Schneider: This is the nature of the misunderstanding about equality of religions, and we have to correct it. It exists in the minds of many theology teachers, religious educators, and in catechism teaching, and we have to address it. One aspect of traditional teaching of the magisterium is that all human beings, all creation, and even human society, are directed to God, not for themselves. Civil society cannot be atheistic or neutral toward God; it must honor God, even as society globally, not only as Church but also as civil society. We cannot separate civil society from the ultimate goal, which is eternal life and the glorification of God, at least as creator. A government or society that ignores God goes against creation and the plan of God. Throughout human history, there has never been a government or civil society without God. Human beings are naturally religious, homo naturaliter religiosus, or as Tertullian said, homo naturaliter christianus. Not Christian because they are oriented to be Christian, but Catholic, I would say, homo naturaliter catholicus. Christian means Catholic because there is only one truth and one Church. As we confess in the Creed every Sunday, “I believe in one Church.” Therefore, Christian means Catholic, and there is only one Church.
This principle extends to human society, civic society, and government, which must recognize God in some manner and ultimately recognize the true God, not false gods or idolatry. The true God is the Trinity, and the manner of worship is Catholic worship because there is only one Church.
Even Pope Pius XII discussed the development of Church teaching on religious liberty. Starting with Emperor Constantine and Theodosius the Great, by the end of the fourth century, the Roman Empire admitted only one religion, the Catholic Church, even after the Arian crisis. During the first centuries, the Church was cautious about the use of force to defend the faith. For example, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine did not support punishing heretics by death. Later, in the Middle Ages, with heretical movements in the 12th century in Southern France, the Inquisition was established as a response. When times changed, after the French Revolution, with no Christian governments in Europe, the Church developed new approaches for religious liberty and tolerance. By the end of the Thirty Years’ War and the Peace of Westphalia, coexistence with other believers was recognized. In some regions, such as Germany, different confessions lived together, de facto, without recognizing each other’s errors, but maintaining coexistence.
Pius IX allowed private freedom for non-Catholic worship in the 19th century, and Pius XII extended tolerance to official non-Catholic worship, not recognizing it as true, but tolerating it depending on historical circumstances, always oriented toward the common good. At the beginning of the Council, this principle was maintained. We must continue with this principle: we have to live together and tolerate one another, even official worship, but theologically we must uphold that the Catholic Church is the only true Church.
Thanks be to God, Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger issued Dominus Jesus, which clarified the issue of equality of religions. It is consistent with the Council that a Catholic state could exist. In such a state, the government recognizes the one true God and the full true worship, Catholic worship. This does not violate religious liberty. We can tolerate other religions, avoid persecution, and recognize human dignity, but where Catholicism is the majority, the tradition should be preserved and passed on to future generations. We are convinced there is only one true religion. In such a context, the majority religion may have privileges, consistent with democratic principles, without discriminating against others.
These points could be added and read together with future documents. For example, reading such a document along with the notes explicative previa during the Council, which could be gathered in one document. That is my explanation. Thank you very much.