Fr. Serafino: Hi, Ave Maria. Welcome, everyone, to this very special Tea with Mary show, Kathy Cases. Today we have a very important guest. We are very honored to have Bishop Schneider with us. Ave Maria, and welcome, Bishop Schneider.
Bishop Schneider: Thank you for your invitation.
Fr. Serafino: Yes, we are very honored to have you and to discuss some very difficult questions, if you want, at this dramatic moment in the Church. But I would also say it is a very special moment of grace for all Catholics. We want to understand with you why this is a double-phase moment, so to speak. On one hand, there are difficulties and an unprecedented crisis in the Church; on the other hand, grace is ready for us, a period of purification, but also a period of a new start.
Bishop Schneider, we are first interested in understanding why you recently wrote a very important book, which is a catechism, a new catechism. The book is titled Credo. I have it with me, and it is a very good book. It is available in English and soon in other languages: Italian, French, and Spanish. This is very comforting. Bishop Schneider, we want to tell our listeners, or the people watching, why you wrote this book. Another Credo already exists, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. What prompted you to write a new Credo?
Bishop Schneider: Well, it was not my idea. It was the request of a father of a large family in the United States, engaged in catechesis, who urgently asked me to do this. I reflected and agreed, accepting this as a call from the providence of God to write such a catechism. It seemed necessary because the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, published thirty years ago, did not address some timely issues that are present today.
Let us say, for example, gender ideology, increasing pagan ecologism, topics such as esoterism, yoga, New Age, and also Freemasonry. These issues must be treated. Additionally, some statements in the last decades in Church texts, like the Second Vatican Council or post-conciliar documents, even in the Catechism itself, contain a few affirmations that are unclear or ambiguous and still need clarification.
I used this opportunity of a new catechism to present a contribution for the faithful, for the Church, and for priests, to address these themes and issues clearly. I always tried to quote the valid Magisterium, which cannot be abolished because it is based on the preceding Magisterium. I also referenced the Doctors of the Church and some acts from the Acta Concilii Vaticani Secundi, the debates during the Council by the Council Fathers, which are unfortunately not accessible to the public and only available in Latin.
So, I also tried to include some of these valuable contributions of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council. This work is now given to the people. Of course, I do not claim this work is perfect. All human works are imperfect and can be improved. But it was my intention to give what I could: a clear and Catholic teaching.
Fr. Serafino: Yes, this is very interesting. I would suggest all our listeners buy this book because it is very accessible. It is a classic catechism, with a question and an immediate, straightforward answer, very easy to understand, while tackling very delicate issues.
In my opinion, Bishop Schneider, your main contribution to this Credo is clarifying some ambiguities coming from the Second Vatican Council. In fact, the new catechism and some ambiguities seen there echo aspects of Vatican II.
By explaining very “hot” topics, such as religious freedom, in the light of the previous Magisterium, you demonstrate that there is no break in the Church’s teaching. By showing why Vatican II cannot be a break with tradition because of its intrinsic pastoral character, you, in my opinion, pave the way for the Magisterium of tomorrow, say, the papal Magisterium, to clarify these ambiguities in a more official and solemn way and to point the whole Church in the correct direction.
Though some corrections have already come from the recent Magisterium, I think in general, by presenting Vatican II in its pastoral character and addressing these ambiguities, you indeed pave the way for further clarification. Do you agree with that?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, because we have to stress again and be more conscious of the character of Vatican II. This is unique in the history of the Church. Never before has an ecumenical council declared for itself the intention to be primarily pastoral.
And “pastoral” means, by definition, giving norms or explanations according to the current situation of the time, which can change. Pastoral attitudes can change. Of course, they must always correspond to the faith. Pastoral norms cannot contradict faith or undermine it.
Pastoral norms, another word for them is disciplinary norms, apply the faith to concrete situations. And disciplinary norms can change, depending on circumstances, but they must always respect the clarity of the faith.
Unfortunately, history shows that some affirmations of Vatican II, made with this pastoral intention, did not clarify the faith but instead left ambiguities and uncertainties. These ambiguities paved the way for wrong applications, as we have witnessed in the last fifty years.
Especially, I think the most dangerous document is Dignitatis Humanae, on religious liberty. Its deepest root of danger is relativism. Relativism effectively gives equality to all religions, even though the document does not explicitly say this. It states that the Catholic Church is the only true Church, and we have a duty to seek it. But other phrases in the same document undermine this statement.
This is the problem. A council should never make statements that undermine the truth. When the council states that every human being has the right not to be impeded in matters of religion, not only in the interior forum of conscience but also externally, in practicing and spreading the religion chosen by conscience, it says that this right is rooted in human nature.
When something is “rooted in human nature,” it implies that it is positively willed by God. Natural law is authored by God. This is not merely civil law or a positive human law. If it were only a civil law, the formulation could be accepted. But it is written as natural law (lex naturalis), which is always positively willed by God.
Thus, this formulation gives the impression that any religion, even idolatry or Satanism, could be chosen, and that the person should not be impeded in any way, even externally. This is Dignitatis Humanae, number 2.
Fr. Serafino: Yes, it is not acceptable.
Bishop Schneider: Of course, it is clearly an error. This statement would only be true when referring to the one true Catholic faith. The Catholic faith alone has the natural right, not merely a civil right, but a natural right, not to be impeded in spreading itself.
You cannot say that all religions have the same right as the Catholic faith in the external forum. This contradicts divine revelation. Already in the Old Testament, God forbade false religions. And Our Lord in the New Testament said, “Whoever does not believe in the Son of God will remain under condemnation” (John 3).
The New Testament and the Church, since the Apostles, have never accepted that all religions have the same external right. This is a novelty from Vatican II, a real novelty never taught by any Father of the Church or any Pope. Essentially, it establishes relativism under the guise of religious freedom.
Yes, religious freedom must be addressed, especially in times of communism or in Muslim countries, but this does not give us the right to equate all religions with the Catholic faith.
The Catholic Church cannot gain religious freedom at the cost of equating its faith with all others. Civil rights can be demanded, yes. But to present this as natural law is meaningless and even harmful. It is a break with divine revelation.
The Council should have formulated religious freedom strictly in reference to the Catholic truth, clearly and strongly. Ambiguous statements do not help the Church. Civil accommodations can be made, yes, but they must not be confused with natural law. No, natural law cannot be used to justify the equality of all religions.
Fr. Serafino: You are very right, Your Excellency, because on that ambiguity of Dignitatis Humanae, which you correct very well in your Credo, is basically built the Abu Dhabi declaration by Pope Francis.
Bishop Schneider: I would say no. Pope Francis, when he signed the Abu Dhabi document, included this phrase: “The diversity of sexes, of peoples, of cultures, and of religions is an expression of the wise will of God the Creator. All are placed on the same level: the two sexes, the peoples, the cultures, and the religions together.”
When Pope Francis flew back on the airplane, a journalist asked if this phrase was not contradictory or relativistic, implying all religions are equal. Pope Francis answered literally that this phrase is not even a millimeter away from the Second Vatican Council. He said this, and in this case, I agree with Pope Francis.
Fr. Serafino: Indeed, yes. If you want, Abu Dhabi is the fulfillment.
Bishop Schneider: And before Abu Dhabi, there was the Assisi meeting of John Paul II in 1986.
Fr. Serafino: Yes.
Bishop Schneider: Pope John Paul II publicly and explicitly invited all religions, including idolaters, to pray for peace according to their religion. Imagine what this means: Hindus prayed to idols, Voodoo priests invoked demons, and they were present together with the Pope in the same line. How can a Pope say, “I encourage you to practice your religion”? This is impossible.
After Assisi, some Cardinals wrote respectfully to the Pope, criticizing the meeting and the invitation for everyone to pray according to their religion. Then, in December 1986, in the Christmas speech to the Cardinals, John Paul II defended himself, saying literally that the Assisi meeting was a correct application of Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II.
Fr. Serafino: So the problem lies with Dignitatis Humanae; of course, it needs to be corrected.
Bishop Schneider: The Assisi meeting was, in some way, even worse than the Abu Dhabi document because there the Pontiff invited all religions present, even idolaters, to practice their religion. And he defended himself, saying these words and acts were a perfect application of Vatican II. And he is right in saying that, even though I personally do not agree with the Assisi meeting.
Fr. Serafino: Yes, the problem is with Vatican II, of course. And your work is great because Credo goes directly to that issue to correct it, Your Excellency.
Bishop Schneider: Now, I will finish with Lumen Gentium. Even Lumen Gentium, number 16, says that Catholics and Muslims together adore the one God (simul adoramus). How can Catholics and Muslims together adore? It is impossible.
As Catholics, we adore on a supernatural level. Our prayer is not merely natural. Of course, people can acknowledge God by the light of reason and venerate Him according to natural understanding; that is possible, but this is not a supernatural act. Muslims do not have a supernatural religion.
Fr. Serafino: We do not have the same God either.
Bishop Schneider: Even excluding that, I stress only the act of adoration. Adoramus, as the Council says, is always supernatural through the divine virtue of faith. Muslims do not have divine supernatural faith, so they cannot adore supernaturally.
This formulation puts us together on the same level with Muslims in adoration, which is at least highly ambiguous, if not erroneous. Therefore, it must be corrected. But I do not see a great problem because the Council stated, and Pope Paul VI stated, that it did not have the intention to propose doctrines of itself that would bind the faithful.
Fr. Serafino: Binding power, binding authority, there is no binding authority.
Bishop Schneider: Yes, Pope Paul VI declared this himself.
Fr. Serafino: Correct. And also, the level of Magisterium of Vatican II is an ordinary Magisterium; it is not definitive nor infallible.
Bishop Schneider: As I repeat, Pope Paul VI declared one month after the Council that this Council did not have the intention to propose definitive teachings to the faithful.
Fr. Serafino: No, no. He was a pastor, as you said very well, giving a pastoral answer to the modern world, to the society of this time.
Bishop Schneider: Even the pastoral answer was not correct. No, wrong. The pastoral answer should be a clear analysis of the sickness of the modern world, which is naturalism, anthropocentrism, and anti-Christian attitudes. This should be a clear answer and not a kind of inferiority complex in the face of the modern world. This is not the answer of the Church. This was not the answer of the Apostles. Of course, it must be clear and respectful, with love, but with clarity.
Fr. Serafino: Clarity is necessary. Yes, Your Excellency. I wish now to tackle another very difficult issue in the Church at this time, which is the confusion about faith. I think personally that the main issue in the Church is faith, the lack of faith, not only heresies, but rather an apostasy, the way people in the Church, even high-ranking people, have turned their back on the faith.
In this situation, we also see another problem with the Pope, Pope Francis, in his teaching, which is most of the time ambiguous. You, as a bishop, have many times taken a very clear stand to say that this is not be taught by the Pope. You are maybe one of the few bishops now in the Catholic Church, courageous enough to say that.
You have also said sometimes that bishops are not employees of the Pope. What do you mean by that? Can you clarify this statement, which I think is very important, to correct something coming from Vatican II, according to which bishops think that they are vicars of the Pope in their diocese? Because, because of collegiality, episcopal collegiality, they think they have to agree with the Pope in any case, in any situation, in whatever the Pope says. What do you mean when you say that you are not an employee of Pope Francis?
Bishop Schneider: We have to look at the divine truth of the papacy and of the episcopacy. Our Lord Jesus Christ, when He established Peter as the rock of the Church, His representative, then said to the Apostles, Do not behave like the bosses of the world who suppress their subjects. This should not be among you. He said this to the Apostles in the Gospel. He also said, You are all brothers. Our Lord said this to Peter and to the Apostles. Peter and the Apostles were all brothers, and they declared themselves brothers. Of course, Peter is the older brother with special powers, but nevertheless a brother. Throughout all times, when Popes addressed bishops, they always addressed them as venerable brothers. They did not call them sons or servants.
Saint Paul did not say, I am Paul, the servant of Peter. He said, I am Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ. This is Catholic teaching. Even Vatican I, despite some exaggerations in the statements on the papacy, and Pius IX himself, stated that bishops are not vicars of the Pope in their diocese. This was already said clearly. The episcopacy is of divine right, not only of ecclesiastical right. It is a divine constitution. Pope and bishops are brothers. Of course, the Pope is the supreme pastor and has power above the bishops, and he also has authority over the bishops, but always in a fraternal manner.
This is very important. We are brothers who are subject to one another, but not in a worldly style as a boss and his employees. This is not according to the Gospel or the tradition of the Church. Unfortunately, there have been situations in Church history where Popes behaved like worldly bosses or absolute monarchs toward their bishops. This was not correct.
A bishop is a member of the magisterium and of the entire episcopal body, the entire college of bishops. As a member, he has a duty. When something is wrong within this body, and when the head of this body, the Pope, is doing something wrong and undermining the faith, then it is the duty of a bishop to admonish the Pope. We are brothers. The Church is not a dictatorship where every bishop is afraid to speak. That would be very bad.
I am not criticizing his personal life or his political decisions. I am addressing evident words and acts that undermine divine truth, the sacramental life of the Church, morality, and divinely revealed teaching. When I do this, I try to do it respectfully and not polemically. I am motivated by love for the Pope. Fraternal correction is an act of love for your neighbor.
When I observe a real danger for the entire Church and for the Pope himself, because such actions are also a danger to him, since he will one day have to answer before the judgment of God, I have the duty to warn him fraternally. This is love. This is fraternal love.
Fr. Serafino: Yes, correct, fraternal love. What is at stake is faith, the faith of the Church, which is what truly matters, not the political choices of the Pope, or of bishops trying not to speak. Hopefully, your great example and testimony will encourage more bishops to come out. I would say that with Fiducia Supplicans, there has been a good response in the Catholic way, bishops speaking out and saying this is not acceptable. This is also a good sign. Fiducia Supplicans is not acceptable at all. At the same time, it was something permitted by God to give the Church this opportunity to see that there are bishops like you and many others defending Revelation, defending God’s creation, what God did in creation, and God’s revelation about marriage between a man and a woman.
Your Excellency, I would now like to reflect on another very delicate issue, which is a thorn for the Church and for the faithful, the role of the Pope in the Church. There are two attitudes in this crisis of the Church, in this unprecedented crisis. There are people who say that every time the Pope speaks, he is the messenger of the Holy Spirit, so you have to obey, with no possibility to criticize him, no possibility to respectfully, as you do, help him understand or see that something is wrong. Whatever he does is correct. On the other hand, there is the opposite attitude, people saying that a Pope can never teach something wrong, so whatever he does is, in fact, infallible. These two attitudes share the same opinion.
Now, if the Pope teaches something that is not correct, even heretical or paving the way for heresy, some say it means he is not truly the Pope and was invalidly elected. There are many theories and hypotheses nowadays about a kind of new sedevacantism, claiming that the Pope is not the Pope. What do you say? How do you respond to this new form of sedevacantism, which is unfortunately widespread?
Bishop Schneider: Both attitudes are not Catholic. The idea that every word of a Pope is infallible contradicts the doctrine of the Church and the experience of the Church. The Church has never taught this. The dogma of infallibility is very precise. It says that the Pope speaks infallibly only when he has the assistance of the Holy Spirit, a negative assistance, not a positive inspiration, meaning that the Holy Spirit protects him from error when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, in a solemn and definitive way for the entire Church. He must clearly show that he is doing this. It cannot be assumed.
In canon law, there is a canon which states that nothing in a Church pronouncement is to be assumed as infallible unless it is clearly indicated as such. This is very important. It must be expressed clearly, as was done in the past. Infallible teachings were always accompanied by clear formulations, definitive statements, sometimes with explicit condemnations, declaring that this is a divinely revealed truth which all must believe.
Outside of these rare and clearly indicated cases, the Pope does not have the assistance of infallibility. This is a logical consequence of the dogma. Otherwise, the dogma would have no meaning, since it was deliberately restricted. If this were not the case, we would make the Pope into God. We would divinize a human being, which we cannot do.
History demonstrates this clearly. The most famous example is Pope Honorius I in the seventh century. As Pope, he wrote two public papal letters to the Patriarch of Constantinople in his ordinary magisterium. In these letters, he expressed himself in an ambiguous way, not direct heresy, but ambiguity that was unacceptable. For this reason, he was condemned by three Ecumenical Councils and by his successors. This demonstrates that the Pope is not infallible in all his statements.
Another case is Pope John XXII in the fourteenth century. In his homilies and sermons, which are teaching acts of a Pope, he propagated the material heresy that there is no beatific vision before the Second Coming of Christ. This contradicted Holy Scripture and the entire previous tradition. He was admonished by theologians at the Sorbonne and by a cardinal, but he did not accept the admonitions and persisted. Thanks be to God, before he died, he repented and retracted his errors.
With Pope Francis, we see a similar situation. When he wrote publicly to the bishops of Buenos Aires approving norms that allow adulterers and divorced people to receive Holy Communion, the Vatican declared that this response was part of the authentic magisterium and placed it in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. This is wrong. It contradicts divine revelation or at least gravely undermines it. One cannot publicly admit persons living in evident adultery to Holy Communion. This is not direct heresy, but it severely undermines the faith. In such cases, the Pope is not infallible.
Because of these incorrect viewpoints on both sides, the consequence is sedevacantism, the idea that a Pope loses his office when he teaches an error. This is false. The Church is in the hands of God. The Pope cannot pronounce heresy ex cathedra. This is impossible and contrary to dogma. Outside of ex cathedra pronouncements, errors are possible, but he does not lose his office. There will come another Pope who will correct him, as happened in the case of Honorius.
Therefore, we must pray for the Pope. We must not follow him into error. We must keep the faith and admonish him out of love for him, not hatred. We say respectfully, Holy Father, we cannot follow you in this case because it is contrary to divine revelation. By not obeying in such a case, we are actually helping him. Otherwise, we would share responsibility for the error.
It is a positive act not to obey a clearly erroneous or ambiguous statement of a Pope while remaining faithful and praying that he may be enlightened, as John XXII was before his death. God will intervene. The Church is not in the hands of the Pope. It is not his private property. The Pope is not the boss of the Church. Jesus Christ is. The Pope is only the Vicar of Christ, not His successor. He is the successor of Peter, a representative, an administrator, a humble servant.
We have examples of this in the saints. Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint Bridget of Sweden, Saint Hildegard of Bingen. These great saints admonished the Popes of their time with very clear words. Saint Catherine of Siena, a Doctor of the Church, after repeated admonitions that were ignored, wrote to the Pope, Most Holy Father, you are the sweet Christ on earth, but if you will not convert, if you will not change your attitude, please renounce the papacy. Your beloved daughter, Catherine. She was canonized and declared a Doctor of the Church, in spite of these very strong expressions.
Fr. Serafino: These are very important. Thank you for this reassurance, Your Excellency. So you say clearly that the Pope can, unfortunately, teach errors. But the fact that he teaches errors does not mean that he loses his office or that the See becomes vacant.
Bishop Schneider: No, it does not. It would end in tremendous confusion. It is against common reason and common sense. Again, the Pope is not God. The Church is not in his hands. The Church is in the hands of Jesus Christ. We have to stress this always.
Fr. Serafino: There is a common root to this issue, which comes from a kind of conciliarism applied incorrectly. Vatican II is treated as if it were the only council of the Church. Now we have come to treating the Pope as the only person in the Church, as if the Church were completely absorbed into the person of the Pope. This is not correct. The council exists for the Church. First, there is the Church, then there is the council, then there is the Pope for the Church. Behind the Church and the Pope, there is Christ. Christ is the rock.
Your Excellency, Pope Francis did consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Do you think that consecration was good, valid, and according to Our Lady’s request?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, I think yes. We have to look carefully at what Our Lady asked. She asked that the Pope consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, and that this be done in moral union with all the bishops of the world. These conditions were fulfilled.
If we look at previous Popes, Pius XII in 1952 consecrated Russia explicitly to the Immaculate Heart, but he did it alone, without the bishops. John Paul II, in 1984, consecrated with the bishops, but he did not explicitly name Russia. He made a broader reference and did not clearly use the word consecrate. He used the term entrust. He did not explicitly say to the Immaculate Heart, but rather entrusted those nations to the Mother of God in general.
The formula of Pope Francis, however, states, we consecrate, and not only consecrate, we solemnly consecrate, to your Immaculate Heart. He explicitly mentioned Russia, Ukraine, all peoples of the world, and ourselves. Mentioning other nations and ourselves does not contradict Our Lady’s request. It would be absurd to say that Our Lady would reject the consecration because other nations or all the faithful were included.
Fr. Serafino: So this was the first time that a Pope mentioned Russia without political fear and according to Our Lady’s will.
Bishop Schneider: Yes. He was clearly moved by the war in Ukraine, which is why he mentioned Ukraine as well. However, he did not only consecrate Russia and Ukraine. He had a broader intention and included all nations and all the children of the Church, including ourselves. In my opinion, this was a joy for the maternal heart of Our Lady. She is the Mother of all nations, and she would be pleased that all were included.
The Holy Trinity accepted this consecration. Ukraine was part of Russia in 1917 when Our Lady spoke about Russia, so it made sense. Today, Ukraine is no longer part of Russia, which is why the Pope mentioned it explicitly.
Fr. Serafino: So, Your Excellency, Fatima is still the way of the Church for this time, I would say. I would like to know your opinion about that. Also, another question about the present confusion. There is a crisis in the Church and confusion among the faithful, but I think there is also a feverish expectation that something may happen soon, a kind of illumination of conscience, a kind of warning, something to shake up the people. People are very much expecting something, but in a confused way, because they refer to messages, apparitions, or visions which are not approved by the Church. Is this misleading the people? Or is it helping them in this present confusion? What is the pastoral guideline for us at this moment?
Bishop Schneider: It is evidently confusing. It is evidently unhealthy, because this was never the attitude of Catholics over the past 2,000 years and of the saints. This kind of exaggerated apocalyptic expectation, or exaggerated thirst for extraordinary phenomena, is not proper. Our Lord did not accept this when people asked for signs from heaven. He said, No, he would not give them signs, because we have already… we must go our way. As Saint Paul says, we walk by faith, not by sight. We will see clearly the fullness only in eternal life. Therefore, we must go in faith. Sometimes God gives extraordinary signs, but these must be approved by the Church. For example, the Immaculate Medal or Fatima were approved, so we can be sure these were messages from heaven. In other cases, we must be very careful, because the devil is cunning. As Saint Paul says, he can disguise himself as an angel of light. We have many examples in Church history of false or wrongly pious people, fake visions, and so on. We must be very careful. This eagerness to see miracles is a lack of faith.
Fr. Serafino: A longing to see a miracle.
Bishop Schneider: Yes, longing for extraordinary signs and miracles shows a lack of the virtue of faith and the supernatural virtue of hope. We must hope, even in crisis and darkness, that God will bring light. We do not know when or in what way, but God will do this, absolutely certain. The human temptation is to want to know, to be curious about the times and events. This is not our task. It weakens our faith and hope. It is also less meritorious, because we gain more merit by being faithful and, I would say, joyful. We must have Christian joy even in tribulation. Saint Paul says, Rejoice in tribulations. The first Christians were not depressed by these phenomena. This is not Christian faith. A Christian must never be depressed or fearful. Faith gives us certainty of victory and joy from within. When we have God in our lives, we have everything. When we have Jesus in the Eucharist, nothing is lacking. We also have our Mother, the Almighty intercessor, the super intercessor. She will never abandon her children. We can always take refuge in the Immaculate Heart. Do not enter an atmosphere of alarmism or fear. Keep strong faith, joy, and conviction of victory.
Fr. Serafino: Yes. Thank you very much for this reassurance, Your Excellency. Of course, the way forward is Our Lady, the Lady of Fatima, which has been approved by the Church as a private Marian revelation. Our Lady promised the triumph of her Immaculate Heart, and we, of course, look forward to seeing that beautiful triumph. I would rather say it must take place, because this is Our Lady’s promise. Do you think that triumph could also enshrine another Marian dogma, the fifth Marian dogma, concerning Our Lady’s mediation, including her unique cooperation in salvation, which is co-redemption?
Bishop Schneider: I do not know, honestly, if this is contained in Fatima, because there are no direct indications in Our Lady’s words about this specific theme of co-redemption. Therefore, I cannot say. We must trust in the guidance of the Church because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit globally. Not every pope is always guided by the Holy Spirit, but the entire Church over the course of 2,000 years is under divine providence. God gives the Church what it needs in every age.
Regarding Our Lady’s truth as Co-Redemptrix, her special cooperation with Christ in the work of redemption, we must remain calm. The Church never acts in haste in such matters, especially in dogmatization. For example, the dogma of the Assumption was already clear in the Fathers of the Church, Saint John Damascene in the eighth century, and others, yet it was only proclaimed as dogma in the 20th century. This was the providence of God. The same with the Immaculate Conception: it was already established as a feast in the 15th century by Pope Sixtus IV, and the Church celebrated it calmly for 400 years. Even Pope Pius IX, convinced of the truth, consulted all the bishops and still waited several years before proclaiming it as dogma. This shows how careful the Church is in proclaiming dogmas. Therefore, we should not hurry but leave this to the wisdom of divine providence.
Fr. Serafino: Yes, which means that we, the people of God, faithful theologians, still have a duty to research and spread this doctrine.
Bishop Schneider: Of course. This is relatively new compared to the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception. For example, St. Bonaventure and St. Francis in the 13th century already clearly reflected on the Immaculate Conception. Such matters require time. The truth will defend itself and will advance.
Fr. Serafino: Yes, that is beautiful. Of course, we trust Our Lady. Your Excellency, coming to a close, we thank you very much for this beautiful moment together to share reflections. Many people have sent questions, though unfortunately, we cannot see them. I want to tell you that they pray for you. Many messages say that your witness is great. They sustain you with their prayers and sacrifices. What is your message to us, the faithful, in this very difficult moment? What should we do, practically speaking, to keep the faith and persevere?
Bishop Schneider: We must renew our faith and joy in being Catholic. Be happy to be Catholic. Study the catechism, the old catechisms, and delight in the Catholic faith. Deepen your prayer, especially in difficult times, and strengthen your personal relationship with God and Jesus, and your filial love for Our Lady. Pray the rosary with devotion and love. Practice the First Saturdays of the Immaculate Heart. Go to the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Console Jesus in the Eucharist. Make a duration before the Blessed Sacrament. Spread the truth in your environment. Share good Catholic material. By doing this, you support your own faith and the Church.
Fr. Serafino: Thank you very much. On behalf of the Marian Franciscans in the UK, friars, sisters, and lay people who work to spread devotion to Our Lady, especially through the First Saturday devotion, and as you also promote, this is very blessed. Thank you, Your Excellency. Would you give us your blessing before we close?
Bishop Schneider: I wish you a blessed Passiontide. Now we enter the time of Passion and Holy Week. May the Lord fill you with great blessings in Holy Week and in His Holy Easter, the feast of His Resurrection.
Dominus vobiscum.
Fr. Serafino: Et cum, spiritu tuo.
Bishop Schneider: Et benedictio dei omnipotentis, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti descendant, super vos et maneat semper. Amen
Fr. Serafino: Amen. Thank you very much, Your Excellency. Ave Maria.