Eric Sammons: Hello, and welcome to the Crisis Point Podcast. I’m your host, Eric Sammons, and the editor in chief of Crisis Magazine. This is a special edition of Crisis Point because we have a very special guest, His Excellency, Bishop Athanasius Schneider. Bishop Schneider is the auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, and a member of the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross. He is a fierce defender of traditional Catholicism, and he is the founder of the Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima, which provides religious exemptions to Catholics for the abortion-tainted vaccines. We’re going to talk about all of this in today’s Crisis Point. Welcome to the program. Thanks so much for coming on. I want to talk first about the response to COVID. Early on, you called it a sanitary dictatorship. What did you mean by that?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Well, it was evident for many people that the measures were so excessive, without proportion, and without a very good plan, even in the details, that it was clear that such methods are very similar to methods in dictatorships, where you are completely controlled, everyone. In these lockdowns and these measures, there was total control of every person and intrusion of the government in your private life to an extent that we had not known in history, only in societies under dictatorships, but not in free societies. There can be, I agree, sanitary health measures and security measures for the protection of the population, but not to the extent of limiting and imposing on private life in such a total way. Even objectively, many scientists and medical professionals said it was out of proportion.
Eric Sammons: Now, you grew up in the former Soviet Union, so obviously, you have firsthand experience of dictatorship and control. Do you see any parallels between what happened in the Soviet Union and what’s happening in different countries around the world in response to COVID?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, the control, because in the communist dictatorship, we were controlled all day and night. There were secret services, and in the media, only one view was presented. There was no alternative opinion. In early school and even in companies or factories, there were commissions on communist ideology, which had to maintain the ideology in public life continuously. This reminded me of the so-called pandemic time, when the official news was all the same, from morning to evening, continuously influencing people with excessive and uniform information. There was no possibility to check if the numbers being presented were true. When someone raised legitimate doubts, they were labeled as conspiracy theorists, enemies of their neighbors, or enemies of health. In Soviet times, when someone questioned the official ideology, they were labeled as enemies of the people.
Now we see vaccine mandates enforced in some form. It is very cunning. Formally, it is said not to be forced, but in practice, there are situations where people are forced in workplaces, schools, universities, and even for travel in some countries. This is a system of deception. They say you are free, but in reality, you are coerced. We are living in a society of lies, similar to communism, which was fundamentally a system of lies. Today, COVID measures and pandemic measures are elaborated and implemented almost globally in a one-sided manner, showing strong similarities to dictatorial societies.
Eric Sammons: Right now, I know many Catholics are struggling with various mandates and rules, and how to resist them or sometimes conform. For example, I know Catholic fathers who support a family with six or seven children. They are the sole breadwinners, and their employers say they must get the vaccine or be fired, but they do not want the vaccine. What advice would you give to someone in that situation?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: I would say they must follow their conscience. The deeper problem with the COVID vaccines is that they are tainted with abortion and are a product of the so-called fetal industry. This industry is one of the most horrific phenomena in human history. These vaccines use cell lines and tissues from aborted babies or are tested on them, so they are contaminated. I cannot take them because it would support this horrific industry. We cannot compromise on this.
Someone convinced of this, in the eyes of God, must accept the consequences, even being fired, and seek another place of work. I believe God will never abandon a father who, for the sake of fidelity to God and His moral law, refuses to collaborate with this industry. Even if the family must live more modestly, it is worthwhile for eternity. Spiritually, they will be richer, and God will grant many graces.
At the same time, we should develop networks of companies that will accept such believers, creating alternative workplaces. It could also be possible to establish foundations to support families in urgent need if the father is fired, providing financial help until he finds a new job. This could help families remain faithful to God and His moral law without immediate hardship.
Eric Sammons: Now, the confusion with many Catholics is happening because the Vatican, through the CDF, has said that these vaccines involve remote cooperation with evil, and therefore, it is better for the common good to receive them because the evil is so remote that the common good outweighs it. You have rejected that very clearly. Why is the moral reasoning that the CDF gives faulty?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: It is faulty because it is an abstract theory, remote cooperation. But the evil is so great, the abortion industry is increasing every day, and the fetal industry as well. These are two separate phenomena, and the Vatican document does not take the fetal industry into account. It speaks only about abortion that may have occurred years ago. But there is no difference when an innocent child was cruelly murdered forty years ago or yesterday. It is not remote. It remains horrific and incomparable to other evils, such as products of forced labor, where cooperation may be necessary. The horrific killing of an innocent child is incomparable with that. We must distinguish these cases.
You cannot apply this principle to abortion or the fetal industry, which involves the exploitation and commercialization of body parts and cells from unborn children. This is so horrific and unique that the theory of remote cooperation in moral theology cannot be applied here. We must reject its application in this concrete case because it is unique and horrific. Accepting it would mean the Church is committing a grievous sin of omission by failing to protest uncompromisingly against the daily growth of the abortion and fetal industries. We must be clear. Rejecting compromise is our mission. This is a witness of the Church that we will never collaborate with this unique crime. The common good cannot justify collaborating with the fetal industry through abortion-tainted vaccines. These vaccines are not remote. By accepting them, we incentivize the continuation of this industry. No historical case can be compared to this. It is unique.
Eric Sammons: You started the Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima to help people get religious exemptions. Can you explain a little about the purpose of that and how it is going?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, this idea came from the people who manage my website, Gloriadei, which is dedicated to Our Lady of Fatima. They suggested creating this Confraternity. It is not a canonical or formal ecclesiastical Confraternity. It is purely spiritual for those who follow the website, pray the rosary, and venerate Our Lady of Fatima. When the problem arose of people being fired for refusing the COVID vaccine due to abortion-related issues, they came up with the idea of providing a possibility for a religious exemption. Thanks be to God, the United States still maintains the glorious tradition of respecting people’s consciences in some places.
Eric Sammons: Still, this is for now.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, and I have heard that these exemption documents were accepted in many cases in the United States, and people received the exemption. Thanks be to God.
Eric Sammons: Very good. I want to change topics slightly and talk about the traditional Latin Mass. Pope Francis released a motu proprio a few months ago, which restricts the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass, rescinding Summorum Pontificum issued by Pope Benedict XVI. What was your first reaction when you read this motu proprio?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Of course, it was very sad. The highest authority of the Church is restricting a treasure, the traditional Latin Mass. This is a treasure not of decades or centuries, but of millennia. We have documents showing that the order of the Mass was the same in the 11th and 12th centuries. There is a printed missal from 1470, a hundred years before Pius V published the Tridentine Missal, with the same order of Mass.
Pius V did not reform the Mass in any substantial way. He made minor changes to the texts, reduced the calendar of saints, reduced the number of prefaces and sequences, and gave more precise instructions on the rubrics. He preserved the Mass and helped priests celebrate it properly. This is not a reform; it is preservation.
Summorum Pontificum by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007 affirmed that this form of the Mass must be venerated and esteemed in the same way as the ordinary form. No priest can be forbidden to celebrate it privately, and bishops were encouraged to be generous. After Summorum Pontificum, the traditional Mass spread astonishingly around the world. Young people were attracted to this beauty, preserved through millennia by saints and saintly popes.
Considering this, one can only be sad reading the motu proprio and the accompanying letter, which show disrespect for this form of the Mass and unjustly accuse people of being divisive. This seems like a pretext. An objective observer sees in the text a deep antipathy toward the Church’s treasure. It expresses an ideological opposition to the past and the common treasure of the Church. Pope Francis himself displays an ideology in this case, while those who love and transmit the Church’s treasure are in a better position than he is. The traditional Mass connects us with the entire tradition of saints and popes over the millennia.
Eric Sammons: Now it seems clear, especially from the coming letter to Motu Proprio, that Francis’s desire is for there to be no more Traditional Latin Mass celebrated in the church, that only the Novus Ordo be the only Mass. And some bishops have seemed to take that and have not allowed the Traditional Latin Mass in their diocese. What should a Catholic do who wants to attend the Traditional Mass but it’s not approved by the diocese, let’s say Society of St Pius X, or maybe just somebody who’s celebrating it secretly, a priest is celebrating it without the bishop’s knowledge, to bring it to the faithful. Is that something that’s legitimate for us as Catholics to attend in those situations?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: I think yes, because the Traditional Form of the Mass is a property of the entire Church of all ages. It is not the private property of a Pope or of a bishop. They have no authority over a treasure of all ages, a proper tradition, no. And when they prohibit this, they are committing a grave, grievous act of abuse against the common good of the Church. Saint Thomas Aquinas and some theologians, after the Council of Trent, said, “If a Pope or an ecclesiastical superior is obviously damaging and harming the spiritual good of the Church, then we cannot obey.” And in not obeying, we are doing a good work for preserving this common good for the entire Church. So in this case, I think that it will be legitimate and even meritorious because this prohibition is an abuse, it is harming the Church, and evidently, so we cannot obey in this case. And then we have to seek a way in a kind of clandestine way, because we are, in this case, in an extraordinary emergency in the Church. And for the love of the Church, we will preserve this Mass, even if we have to celebrate it secretly or in the catacombs.
Eric Sammons: Now, one of the things also brought up a lot in the Motu Proprio by Pope Francis, in general, is this idea that those who appreciate the Traditional Mass or who are considered traditional Catholics reject, they don’t accept Vatican II. And that’s very well, that’s very kind, a generic language of accepting Vatican II. And so it’s not clear exactly what he means by that, but what is our duty as Catholics when it comes to Vatican II and accepting it? Like, do we have to accept every single thing that’s written in there exactly as it is? Do we have to just say that it’s valid, but there might be problems? Like, where as Catholics, how should we approach Vatican II itself?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: I think there is a lot of confusion among priests and bishops, and the faithful. I don’t know, maybe even the Pope has to go back to the roots. Pope John the 23rd, when he convoked the council, said, “This council has the aim to be a pastoral council, so simply to explain the ever valid doctrine, explain in a new form and no more.” This was his speech, substantially the synthesis of his speech, when he opened the council in ’62. So it is, and it is. And then during the council in ’64, a group of bishops asked the Secretariat of the council, “What is the authority of this council?” And there is an official answer in ’64 saying that the expressions of the council have to be qualified according to the common theological criteria. So there are infallible texts.
These are the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope or the infallible pronouncements of the councils, which are characterized as such as infallible in their own reading. And this we have to accept. And a council, come back again, a council did nothing about these statements. Even though he abstained intentionally, the council was to pronounce definitive teachings on its own. And so, of course, there are a lot of infallible truths which the Vatican Council simply repeats from the previous Magisterium. This we accept, of course. And then the other criterion is given that when the council is giving explanations or more practical, pastoral aspects, these can be changed over time, or these can be added with new explanations or corrected in some way. And then a very important affirmation, which Paul VI made one month after the council in January ’66, he said, “The Second Vatican Council did not have the intention and did not propose to the people, to the faithful, their own definitive teachings.” It’s very important.
So, de facto, after the council, until today, the majority of the clergy and the bishops have practically made a total infallibilization of the entire council. And this is, this is simply wrong. We have to state this. The Church never did this. The Church always distinguished the text of the so-called reform decrees. As the Council of Trent or the previous council, they did a separation. There were the doctrinal canons with anathema, which were infallible teachings. They mark this, “Who does not believe this, anathema sit.” This is an infallible expression; everyone suddenly understands this is infallible. In the same Council, the Councils oftentimes made another part of their texts, which were said to be “text of reform, of life, of pastoral.” And these aspects were changeable. They depended on the historical contexts, and they were not infallible, even though they could be corrected later.
And so, and we, and now we have this problem that the entire council, it was made infallible, and the pastoral aspect was made infallible. And this is wrong. This is against Catholic doctrine. Pastoral aspects cannot be infallible. They are changing because of historical situations. And so therefore, to accept the entire council, it is an expression, we have to clear this, to clarify. Yes, I accept the council as a council, as an event which the Church had, as I accept all the other councils which happened. But this does not mean that I have to accept every word and every expression of the Vatican Council as the same. No Catholic is asked and requested to accept the entire, even the entire Tridentine Council, or the entire, let us say, Fourth Lateran Council, because there are the pastoral decrees which are not acceptable for us today. For example, in the Council of Trent reform decrees of the reform of the life of the priest, some aspects that are really obsolete.
He cannot, we cannot apply them simply because it’s from those times. Or the Fourth Lateran Council, which has a doctrinal, infallible teaching on the Transubstantiation, for example, and others, have a pastoral text or reform where, for example, it was required for Jewish people to wear a sign to be recognized. We cannot accept this today. So when you see, when you ask, “You have to accept the entire Vatican Council,” then I have to ask you, “Have to accept the entire Fourth Lateran Council with the text to discriminate against Jewish people, will you accept this?” Why do you have a difference? Why do you make a difference between Vatican II and the previous councils? Then please say the entire. And this is not possible.
And so behind this demand to accept the entire council, we have to distinguish these aspects. And as I repeat, to analyze what is really pastoral or what is not intended as a definite, definite teaching. And this is an indication of the, or, I would say the, the obligatory correct or the higher doctrinal character is indicated by the title of the documents. Let us say, a constitution, or a dogmatic constitution, or a pastoral constitution. Pastoral is itself already, see the Latin space, it is only pastoral. It’s not necessary to accept even this entire document. There are, of course, beautiful passages, except. But others are not so acceptable because of these unclear formulations. And then there are simple decrees, which are simply reform decrees, as the previous council did, on the priestly life, on the religious, and so on.
And then the lesser titles are simply declarations on communism, on other religions, and on religious freedom. So this is the lesser one. And that’s why we cannot make the declaration on religious liberty infallible. This is, is contrary to the text itself and the intention of the Council, as we already stated. And so we have to, when someone says to us, “You have to accept the entire council,” then I say, “Please say to all theologians today to accept the entire Tridentine Council, the entire Fourth Lateran Council, the entire Council of Vienne in the 13th, in the 14th century, with very discriminatory passages on the Jewish and on the other faithful.” So please accept these. We have to be very consequential then. And then, I think, it is behind this demand to request to accept the entire council of Vatican II is also an ideological intent to force us to accept this new, ambiguous style.
And this new anthropocentric tendency, which is characterized after the council, and these also Protestantizing elements of the new Novus Ordo. It’s always the authority of the Vatican Council. Was it made, and the interreligious meetings, they say, also, “This is the spirit of Vatican II.” And, this they are true, because in the document, in the declaration on the non-Christian religions, there are some very dangerous expressions, which are praising, let us say, Hinduism and Buddhism, praising. So this is dangerous and confusing. Or the famous expression in even the dogmatic constitution, Lumen Gentium number 16, that we Catholics and the Muslims together adore the one God. This is wrong, or at least extremely ambiguous. Our act of adoration is not the same as the Muslims’. We cannot together adore. We adore, always on a supernatural level, as children of God. The Muslims are not baptized. They are, they’re not believing. They’re rejecting Christ. They’re rejecting the Holy Trinity. And when they adore, even a sincere, simple Muslim God, He adores him on a natural level, according to the natural knowledge of God. And these are the essential different levels. We cannot say we are adored together. In the Latin text, it is a symbol. This cannot. We cannot state this. This is wrong. And then they’re confusing, that when they are adored together without Christ, and we can say, “Okay, that can, they can continue to do this, and we have not evangelized them.” This is the consequence and so on. So we have a lot of expressions which, which in the council have to be in the future, corrected because they can be corrected because they are not infallible, simply.
Eric Sammons: So you mentioned inter-religious dialogue. This month, when we’re recording this, is the 35th anniversary of the Assisi meeting in 1986, where Pope John Paul II brought together members of a lot of religions to pray. And he prays the prayers of even non-Christian faiths, such as Buddhists or Muslims. And the Church is very much invested in this inter-religious dialogue, has spent a lot of time with it, Vatican leaders, including the Pope. As Catholics, what can we be involved in? Should we be involved in non-Catholic worship, non-Catholic, like praying together with Muslims or Buddhists, or anything like that, as just a regular Catholic? Should we avoid that, and if so, why?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: We should avoid this because this is impossible. We are only praying always as children of God to the Holy Trinity. We cannot say, “Today I will pray only to one God, and tomorrow I will pray to the Holy Trinity.” It will be our apostasy. We have to pray always to the Holy Trinity. And therefore, we cannot, and the other religions reject the Holy Trinity. We cannot reject Christ. And then when we pray together, this is a visible demonstration of relativism, that we relativize the uniqueness of Christ in our salvation and to be children of God, the divine affiliation with the natural religions. And these religions are all wrong. They contradict the expressive will of God, their existence, but God tolerates them in a permissive will, as He tolerates our sins also.
So, but it’s not the will of God, and so we will, in this way, practically say, “Okay, you can continue what you are doing is good because we are praying with you,” and in some way encourage them. This is a betrayal of the Gospel. We have to proclaim to them with love, of course, to convert, to accept Christ the Redeemer, and convert. And because when the Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and others are praying, they are as members of the wrong religion. And therefore, even if they pray, let us say simply to the Creator, to one God, it could be understood simply on a natural level, as every human being is capable of recognizing the existence of God. It is a dogma of faith. So he is also capable of praying to God, whom he recognizes in his reason on a natural level. But even, even this is relativizing. We cannot do this in such a way. We will say, “Okay, it is okay that you will continue to worship God only on the natural level.” This is a betrayal of the Gospel.
We have to call the entire humanity to Christ, to be in the Divine affiliation of God. And so such inter-religious meetings and acts are highly relativizing the uniqueness of Christ, and Christians can’t do this. Imagine the apostles, who never prayed together and did not pray with the pagans in those times, or with the, when the apostles went to preach in Persia, or then in India, or in those, even in those, there was the Zoroastrian religion. Even Buddhism was already there, Hinduism, during the apostles’ time, the Midrash, and so on. And they never said, “We can pray, let us say, in a calamity together.” And never did. The apostles never did this, and the Fathers of the Church never did, and all the saints never did this. The famous missionaries, even though they destroyed the idols when they came, some of them, or they instructed the pagans, really, to repent and to receive the Redeemer. And they would never, this is confusing and is relativizing Christ. Therefore, we can’t participate in inter-religious prayers.
Eric Sammons: Now, one last question I want to ask was, so Catholics today are living through quite a crisis, both in the Church and outside the Church in the world. What pastoral advice do you give just your average Catholic who’s just trying to live a faithful Catholic life, but isn’t getting a lot of support from his parish, from his parish priest, from his bishop, and feels very pressured by society? What type of pastoral advice would you give to that person?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: I would say, continue your love for the Church, because the Church is greater than these current crises. She is our Mother of all ages, and she will continue to exist until Christ comes. This is our Mother Church. The Pope is not identical with the Mother Church. He is a member of the Church, or a bishop. And so this is the first. And then, love the Catholic faith. Study the Catholic faith in the traditional catechisms, because they are more unambiguous. So study the true, sure, traditional Catholic faith again. Read the lives of the saints. This will give you hope and encouragement in these difficult times, as the saints also had to pass through difficulties. Love the liturgy, especially the Traditional Mass, this beauty and richness, which is there. Meditate, adore Christ, be faithful, especially to the sacraments. Receive frequently, frequently sacraments, especially the Sacrament of Confession. This is such great help.
With the crisis of the blood of Christ, our soul is always washed clean again in every Holy Confession. And then I would also encourage those who can, and practice Eucharistic Adoration, and do works of charity. Please help others, be charitable, and live in love. And this is the program of us Christians. And even thank God that He put you in His providence, in this difficult time, so that you can be faithful to Him. And He will reward you when you come into eternal life, for passing a difficult time here on Earth. But say, “My Lord, I accept these difficulties out of love for you. I want to contribute with my small sufferings, with your passion for the purification of the Church.” And so you can really make a deep meaning of your life in these difficult times and be confident that the Church is always in the hands of Christ. The Church is not in the hands of Pope Francis. The Church is not in the hands of your bishop. The Church is in the hands of Christ. And our Mother, Immaculate Church, and her Immaculate Heart are always with us.
Eric Sammons: Would you mind, before we go, if you could maybe impart a blessing upon all those who are watching and listening? Yes, very gladly.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo. Benedictio Dei omnipotentis, Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, descendat super vos et maneat semper. Amen. Praise be Jesus Christ.
Eric Sammons: Now and forever. Amen. Thank you very much, Your Excellency. I really appreciate you being on the program. Okay, everybody, that’s it for this one. I hope you enjoyed it. Until next time. God loves you.