Anthony: Good morning, everyone. Right off the bat, my favorite title for a bishop is Your Grace. That is one I think we really need to bring back. So we have His Grace Bishop Athanasius Schneider this morning. And right off the bat, I want to say this is the first show Rob and I have done where we are not wearing T-shirts. Typically, we are a very laid-back show with T-shirts on, but you got us to actually put on some button-ups. So before we get into anything, would you mind opening us with a little prayer?
Bishop Schneider: Yes. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Today is the Feast of the Holy Rosary, so we greet Our Lady. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Rod and Anthony: Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Bishop Schneider: Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit,
Rod and Anthony: As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
Bishop Schneider: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Anthony: Amen, Your Grace. So you wrote a new catechism. I think a lot of people are wondering why a bishop would write his own catechism when we have a universal catechism. Is this something unique to what is going on now, or is this traditionally how it has always been, where a bishop would release his own catechism?
Bishop Schneider: Well, it is not a formal catechism. It is called a compendium of the Catholic faith with explanations, but in the style of questions and answers, as a catechism. Not all catechisms have this style. For example, the official Catechism of the Catholic Church does not have the style of questions and answers. Therefore, I titled this a compendium, a means of explanation of our faith. Of course, the structure is similar to a catechism. First, the faith, what we believe. Second, what we have to live by is morality. Third, how we pray, the sacraments, and the liturgy.
Anthony: Some of the best parts of this catechism are things I have never seen addressed in other catechisms because it has been a long time since the Church officially released one. For example, how we are supposed to act on social media. Rob, you had a couple that addressed modern things we do not typically see in a catechism. Especially for people like Rob and me who are doing this online work, talking about the faith, are there specific things we should be looking out for and making sure we stick to?
Bishop Schneider: I will still respond to your first question. I did not fully respond. Why did I do this? It seemed to be a helpful tool, such as a new compendium, even though we have the Catechism of the Catholic Church. First, because there are items or topics that are not addressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, some new issues arise. For example, gender ideology, which now appears, the recent vaccination problem with the Covid regime, addictions to the internet, and Freemasonry, which is not mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It seems necessary to give clarity and teaching about these issues.
Then there are some affirmations in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that are not so clear and need further explanation and clarification. In addition, even some statements of the Second Vatican Council are ambiguous in themselves. Some are not heretical but simply erroneous, like the statement that Catholics and Muslims together adore the one God. This is highly ambiguous and must be clarified. I felt it necessary to give clarity to the faithful, not with my words. I used only the constant teaching of the Magisterium, quoting the Fathers of the Church or previous Popes. It is not my voice but the voice of the constant Magisterium of the Church. I also quoted Council Fathers from the debates during the Council, who had the authority to speak as bishops.
Now, to your second question, regarding your work in media and social media. It is necessary that you speak and transmit only the truth. Second, you should not compromise with the truth and should avoid ambiguity as a principle. Third, try to transmit positive content to edify your listeners and viewers in the faith, and always give hope in God. You cannot silence reality. Sometimes we must mention the crisis of faith and the confusion people experience. We must address these matters; we would live in something unreal. But in general, try to transmit positive content and edify.
Anthony: Going back to what you said about ambiguities in the Council and the need for clarification, this is the first time for us as laity, especially younger Catholics, that we have seen bishops we respect question those statements. For a long time, questioning anything ambiguous from the Council was seen as almost heretical. It is refreshing for us as laity to see that there are problems that can be addressed. What was the process for you that led you to examine these things more closely?
Bishop Schneider: My experience was the same as many bishops. I was taught as if every word of the Council texts was infallible. But this is not true. It is against the evidence and against the statements of the Council Fathers themselves and against the statement of Paul VI, who approved the Council. One month later, he stated publicly that the Second Vatican Council did not intend to propose definitive teachings, but that its primary aim was pastoral. Pastoral declarations can change according to circumstances and time.
The Church distinguishes different levels of teaching. First are dogmatic definitions, which are absolutely unchangeable. The Council did not issue these. Second are definitive teachings, also infallible but not formal dogmatic definitions. These also were not intended by the Council. Third is ordinary teaching, which does not have the charism of infallibility. This is the level of much of the Second Vatican Council. Of course, the texts contain dogmatic and definitive teachings, but these come from previous Councils or teachings that are quoted or repeated, not from the Council itself.
Even in the ordinary Magisterium, ambiguities and errors have occurred in history. Some Popes in the past affirmed ambiguous or erroneous statements in their ordinary teaching. This is part of Church history. Therefore, when we find some ambiguous or very few erroneous affirmations in non-definitive texts of the Second Vatican Council, this should not be a great problem. These affirmations are open to improvement and even correction, which future Popes can address. We can already propose improvements respectfully. This is my intention.
Anthony: It seems as though, especially with the pastoral issues, that the Church clearly can make mistakes in pastoral approach. We can see, just in the way the Church has been losing members over the past sixty years, that maybe something went wrong pastorally. In the current situation, everything seems geared toward pastoral needs, where Pope Francis uses that word as if it is acceptable to put the truth aside for a pastoral need in this context.
Bishop Schneider: Yes, we are witnessing in our day, and in the past sixty years after the Council, that the pastoral aspect was quite abused to tolerate heresies in the Church, abuses, and so on. In this pontificate, unfortunately, Pope Francis is using his Magisterium to approve Communion for adulterers, as he did officially for the bishops in Argentina in Buenos Aires in 2016. He officially declared that divorced and remarried persons who are living in adultery, we must say in adultery if they are not able to live in continence as brother and sister, can, in some cases, receive the sacraments.
He declared this as part of his authentic Magisterium. This is an error. This is against divine law, and we cannot accept it. Here, the ordinary Magisterium, in our view, committed an evident error. Of course, this statement is not infallible. Pope Francis did not intend to proclaim a dogma, nor did he intend to declare this permission as definitive teaching. He did not impose it on all Catholics. He only allowed it. Even the permission itself is wrong. It is against the law of God. We see here a very serious case of a pastoral approach that is wrong and against divine revelation.
Anthony: I want to ask something. This is a great question Kyle just asked, because it is easy for us to point fingers at others and their mistakes. But for us as traditional Catholics, what are some of the biggest mistakes you see us making? I want to look inward and try to see my own faults rather than focusing on the faults of others.
Bishop Schneider: It is difficult to speak about traditionalists because there are several groups and many channels that call themselves traditionalists, from sedevacantists to others. Generally, traditionalists are those who strive to keep the traditional Catholic faith intact and usually also the traditional liturgy, the traditional Latin Mass. There are also conservative Catholics who are not attached to the Latin Mass but who support orthodoxy of faith and promote piety. This is a large group.
I think that sometimes, among traditional Catholics, there is a tendency to focus too much on negative issues and criticism. Clarification is sometimes necessary because people need answers when they see scandals and crises. We must give answers. But we should not focus predominantly on negativity. We should transmit positive content, the beauty of the Catholic faith, examples from the saints, the beauty of the holy liturgy, and the richness of spiritual life.
Anthony: That is great. You do see that problem, especially among traditional Catholics who provide content online. It is easy to grow a channel by focusing mainly on negativity, drama, and scandals in the Church. But if nothing positive is offered to draw people into the Church, it becomes a kind of negative evangelization. I see this happening, even among people I admire.
One of the things that struck my conscience in your compendium was what you wrote about raising children and choosing schools. Even modern Catholic schools have been infected by the current zeitgeist, the rainbow ideology, and the LGBT ideology. It is extremely difficult for parents to find a proper education for their children. Your compendium makes it clear that placing children in public schools, and even some Catholic schools, is very dangerous today.
Bishop Schneider: Yes, this is evident. This is the spirit of the world, a materialist, anti-Christian, blasphemous spirit with gender ideology and new ideological movements such as climate ideology. This is madness. This is totalitarian ideology. It has infected almost all public schools and even many so-called Catholic schools.
So-called sexual education in public schools, and even in Catholic schools, is against modesty and against the basic requirements of the virtue of modesty and shame, which God gave and commanded. This destroys the innocence of children’s souls, even in Catholic schools. Therefore, parents have a very great responsibility not to expose their children, even in Catholic schools, to brainwashing with new ideologies or to immorality under the cover of so-called sexual education.
We must defend the innocence of our children. Later, when they face the world, they will encounter contamination. First, we must protect them. Of course, we must educate them to resist sin, temptation, and seduction, but this must be done according to the age and development of the child.
Anthony: Can we extend that logic to the liturgy as well? It seems that in some of the more egregious offenses in the rubrics of the Novus Ordo, we see practices that, while not officially promulgated by the Church, occur in certain parishes. For example, women behind the pulpit, women serving as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. It almost feels like a conditioning that creates confusion about gender roles within the liturgy itself. That confusion can carry over into the real world because we see it happening inside the Church. Do you think there are some liturgies that can be harmful to bring children to?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, in many cases, throughout the Catholic world, Sunday Masses are celebrated in ways that are harmful to the Catholic faith, for adults and for children. Children grow up without a sense of sacrality and sublimity in the worship of God, which is necessary for faith to grow.
You mentioned women close to the altar, distributing Holy Communion, and reading. This is a Protestant style and is completely informal. It destroys one of the essential characteristics of Catholic worship, which is its hierarchical nature. The hierarchy is male, and the Church is the Bride of Christ, female. Therefore, placing women in the sanctuary, even for readings, creates confusion and weakens the divine structure of the Church’s hierarchy. This hierarchy consists of the episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate, and the lower ministries are in some way connected to the diaconate. These roles are given by God to men. The presence of women at the altar or pulpit represents a Protestant influence and gradually undermines the liturgy as a reflection of the divine hierarchical structure of the Church.
Anthony: It seems that what we have seen in the liturgy was a kind of conditioning over time. If people see women in vestments, especially with the Synod, they may not call it a female diaconate, but for appearances, it could look like that. I cannot predict the future, but it seems possible that we may see women given higher roles after this Synod. The liturgy conditioned people to think this was normal, that it was a progression over time, and now the Church may move toward women having some form of vestments.
Bishop Schneider: Exactly. We already see this in many churches. Women wear white garments similar to those of priests, without a stole, and in some cases, they wear special so-called liturgical vestments. This undermines doctrine through praxis. This is a method often used by heretics, first to introduce a practice, and over time, that practice undermines doctrine. Faith and praxis are inseparably connected; how we believe and how we pray.
Another serious problem is Communion in the hand. This is one of the greatest wounds in the life of the Church. Treating our Lord, the King of kings, in such a minimalistic way reduces Him to something like ordinary food. Reverence, awe, and adoration are lost. The distribution of Holy Communion becomes trivial. There are also many acts of desecration, as fragments fall to the floor and are trampled. Our Lord is trampled in many churches during Communion. This cannot be denied.
The Eucharistic Lord is the heart of the Church. When the heart is treated so badly, this is a disease of the Church. We must restore the centrality and sacrality of the liturgy. When children are exposed to such banal treatment of the Lord, it is dangerous for their faith. Over time, attending such Masses every Sunday, where there is a lack of reverence, harms faith. For these reasons, we are not obliged to attend Masses where there is such a lack of reverence.
Anthony: That is remarkable. If someone only has access to a liturgy that could damage a child’s faith, would there still be an obligation to attend that Mass, or should the Sunday obligation be fulfilled in another way?
Bishop Schneider: I would say you should inquire and look for another place, even if it requires driving, where Communion is not received in the hand. There are places where this is respected, or where the traditional Latin Mass is celebrated. You can travel if possible. In the Soviet Union, where I lived, on Sundays we traveled one hundred kilometers, about seventy miles each way. If the Holy Mass is the most important thing, you will accept sacrifice. Of course, it depends on family circumstances, but if the distance is reasonable, then go there.
Anthony: Reading your book, when I read Christus Vincit and your description of what your family had to do to attend Sunday Mass, it really struck me. I currently drive an hour to attend the traditional Mass. Before reading that, I made excuses. After reading it, I said to myself, This is the most important thing. My whole Sunday is spent in the car, but nothing is more important than bringing my children to something like that. I truly appreciate that you wrote about this.
I want to ask another question because this is an accusation we hear often. Are there problems in the Church that you see as unique to the English-speaking world, especially to Americans? We hear that accusation frequently. I wonder if, because Americans have such a loud voice online, it seems like we are the ones complaining the most. Are Catholics in non-English-speaking countries just as upset about what is happening in the Church right now?
Bishop Schneider: Some Europeans say that some American traditional Catholics are too focused on polemical issues and that it should be less so. This is not my accusation, but something I have heard from voices in Europe. There is also a concern about not dividing over secondary issues and about maintaining unity among Catholics. A broader vision is encouraged.
Of course, in principle, we must be united without compromise. At the same time, even among traditional Catholics, there can be legitimate differences of opinion. Nevertheless, we should be closer and more united in action to defend the Church and to edify her positively. This should be our contribution.
Anthony: What are some signs of hope that you see in the Church right now?
Bishop Schneider: The signs of hope are good Catholic families, young families, and even large families. They are growing in various countries, especially in the United States. This is a sign of Providence. Another sign is the younger clergy. The young generation of seminarians and priests is instinctively attracted to tradition, to what the Church has always held in faith and liturgy.
Another sign of hope is that the traditional Latin Mass continues to grow in spite of persecution from the Vatican following the document Traditionis Custodes. Despite this, it continues to grow. These are signs of hope, even if slowly. We must always have a supernatural vision and hope. In the darkest times of crisis, the Lord is with us in the boat. He is preparing purification and renewal for the Church.
Anthony: Edward Pentin said at the Catholic Identity Conference that modernist errors must be fully exhausted and realized in their ultimate conclusions before the crisis is over and the Church is restored. Do you see that as what we are experiencing now? Many people think traditional Catholics are too apocalyptic, but it seems the Church is enduring her passion and that everything must come to the surface before a resurrection occurs. Do you think that is a fair way to view it?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, this can be a way to understand it. Evil has its own logic. The evil in the Church, heresies, ambiguities, and errors, is now reaching a peak, especially with the so-called Synod on Synodality. God permits this full manifestation of evil. Because it has no roots in tradition, it will collapse. The Church is stronger than heresy because she is divine and in the hands of Christ.
Christ permits this manifestation so that afterward the Church will be stronger and will reject these ambiguities and present the beauty and clarity of the Catholic faith. We do not know whether this crisis is directly before the end times or the coming of the Antichrist. That knowledge belongs to God alone. We must live as if the Lord could come at any time, always vigilant, while saying, Lord, the time is in Your hands. We will strive for the renewal of the Church and do what we can so that she may flourish again.
Anthony: Do you think we are approaching a schism? There is no way to know for sure, but the Church seems so divided and fractured. It feels like a split may be coming. Is there any chance of keeping everything together?
Bishop Schneider: Schisms have always existed in the Church, from the time of the Apostles. There were schismatics and heretics even then, and they were expelled from the Church. This will remain a characteristic of the Church until the end of time.
Today, within the Church, there is already a division between bishops and priests who believe in the Catholic faith and a significant number of clergy and hierarchy who do not. Some have adopted a materialist worldview and no longer hold the Catholic faith. Yet there is no formal schism because both groups still recognize Pope Francis and remain under his authority. There is an implicit schism, but not a formal one.
If God grants us a future Pope who is strongly Catholic, who clearly reaffirms Catholic truth, liturgy, and sacramental discipline, then some clergy and faithful who desire a worldly or Protestant style church may leave. That would be better than remaining and contaminating the faithful. If a future Pope presents a clear profession of faith, rejecting ambiguities and the spirit of the world, some bishops and priests may refuse it. In that case, they would effectively excommunicate themselves.
Anthony: Yeah, that was going to be my next question about the next Pope. Early on, especially around the time Summorum Pontificum came out, there was such an emphasis on always telling us that the Society of St. Pius X was a schismatic group. We were told to make sure we did not go to them. You could go to the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, or diocesan Latin Masses. Did you formally hold that opinion and then change it over time, or did you always have a positive view of the Society? I am wondering if seeing some of the things going on in recent years led you to reexamine the Society, or if you always had a positive view toward them.
Bishop Schneider: Before I became a bishop, as a priest, I had the vision that they were schismatics, as Pope John Paul II declared. During my priesthood, until my episcopate, I basically considered every word of Vatican II as binding, not formally infallible, but basically. I did not dare to question evident ambiguities. I tried to interpret them using mental gymnastics, to fit them into a framework, but it was not honest.
When I became a bishop, I studied patristics, the Fathers of the Church. I had already been teaching patristics for twenty, thirty years, deepening my understanding of the Fathers. I discovered that they were very frank in their speech. They did not fear the Pope or anyone; they feared only God. Saints such as St. Athanasius and St. Basil clearly stated the truth, constantly, traditionally, and faithfully. I discovered this in the Fathers of the Church, and then in my own study of Council texts, where I saw that some things could not be honestly interpreted otherwise. Squaring the circle in these cases is not honest.
I then discovered that Monsignor Lefebvre was right because he pointed out ambiguities in the Council, which I had also observed. He also recognized the problems with the new Mass. So I was coming to the same conclusions.
The third point is that I was sent by the Holy See to visit the Society of St. Pius X as a visitator. I visited them on behalf of the Holy See, so I had a concrete, personal experience, and it was a positive one. My basic view of the Society is positive. The work of Archbishop Lefebvre was meritorious and providential for the Church, especially in view of the great crisis, even during the pontificate of John Paul II, when there were serious problems, such as the Assisi interreligious meetings, communion in the hand, the Novus Ordo, and priestly formation, which was not always solid.
I think Archbishop Lefebvre will be praised in the future as a great bishop who sacrificed his reputation, his career, and even friendships for the love of the Church, to transmit the integrity of the Catholic faith, the Catholic Mass, and the priestly formation to future generations, in a strict and traditional way.
This is basically the mission of the Society of St. Pius X: to transmit the traditional faith, the traditional Mass, and the formation of priests, truly in the spirit of the Church at all times, with missionary zeal. I also greatly appreciate their missionary work. They go to the farthest islands in the Pacific, to Africa, and other regions, just as missionaries have done in the past. This, for me, is a very positive sign of God’s work.
Of course, any human society has defects. Because they are not fully regularized canonically, they cannot fully participate in the entire Church. They have their own structures, and there is a danger in being independent and autonomous. This is not usual for Catholics, priests, or bishops. It can be acceptable in a time of emergency, but it should be temporary. The longer it lasts, the greater the psychological tendency to feel and act as an independent community, a kind of ghetto.
This ghetto mentality exists in some circles of the Society, depending on the priests and faithful, in some environments. I mentioned this to the superiors when I visited: this is your danger. You must be careful. You should be open to collaboration with other good Catholics, not live only in your closed community, and share with others, including joint prayers and actions. I would suggest they develop this further to avoid the danger of a Catholic ghetto mentality.
Anthony: You never want it to give the impression that they believe they are the true Church.
Bishop Schneider: No, this is not the case, but I repeat: logically, sometimes they act like a ghetto. Of course, they never say, “We are the Church,” but in practice, because they are not fully a regular community under the authority of the Holy See and the other structures of the Church, relying only on their own structures, there is a danger.
Anthony: Yeah, all right. We don’t have much time left, so we need to get to some questions from the audience. They’ll kill me if I don’t ask some of their questions. Rob, do you want to bring some of those up?
Rob: Your Compendium talks a great deal about the errors of modernism. We’ve been battling modernism for, what, 150 years now? It’s a term that’s used a lot. Can you give a good definition of modernism? What is modernism?
Bishop Schneider: Modernism was a movement at the end of the 19th century among Catholic priests and theologians. Its basic error is that truth is relative, that truth is not stable, but can change, much like evolutionary theory. This is the relativism of truth.
The second important error is rationalism, the lack of a supernatural vision. Modernists view all realities, including Scripture and the sacraments, as human products of their time. Christianity is transformed into a kind of human religion, where Christ only gives an impulse.
Pope Pius X rightly characterized modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies.” If truth is not stable but relative, and Scripture is seen as merely a historical human document rather than the Word of God, we have no basis for Christianity. Modernism essentially destroys the very foundation of Christianity itself.
Anthony: For parents, especially if they have a son who might have a vocation, this is scary. If my son has a vocation, putting him in a seminary with modernist formation is frightening. Would you suggest a specific place or group for formation to ensure a solid, traditional Catholic education?
Bishop Schneider: Yes. The surest guarantee that a young man will have a good traditional formation in theology, doctrine, liturgy, and spiritual life are the institutions of the traditional Latin Mass: the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, the Good Shepherd, and also the Society of St. Pius X.
Some traditional monasteries are also excellent for those with a vocation to monastic life. I don’t know of any diocesan seminary today that can guarantee 100% purity of the Catholic faith and dignity of the liturgy. Perhaps some still exist, but you have to seek them out carefully, maybe even worldwide.
Rob: Rob, next question: moral theology. Many of us, especially men and fathers, ask ourselves about limits on our actions in fighting modernism and the craziness in the Church and the world. For example, if there’s a rainbow banner on a church, like the Pachamama in Rome, are we allowed to remove it? Are there limits to actions like that?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, because these are abominations. How can an idol or a rainbow flag, which promotes an anti-Christian ideology, be in a church? These are abominations.
We should not respond with violence, but in a prudent and discreet way, we may remove such things peacefully. It is our task as soldiers and knights of Christ to do this carefully and prudently.
Anthony: Yeah, because people ask, “Besides prayer, what are we called to do?” Penitential walks and public processions, for example, would be appropriate?
Bishop Schneider: Yes. Today, public and communal acts of penance are very necessary. Penitential processions with prayers serve both as a public witness and as a way to implore Divine Mercy, to ask forgiveness for horrible sins, and to call for God’s intervention in the Church. They are very good and important.
Anthony: Somebody was teasing traditionalists recently, saying that in the Middle Ages, if they didn’t like the Pope, they would get Christian nations to gather a force against him and install their own Pope. But we’re in such a unique time in history, because there are no monarchies. You can’t rely on nations to challenge the Pope. At this point, it really falls to the laity to act through processions, public prayer, and public rosaries. I think that’s really all we can do right now.
Bishop Schneider: Yes, these are our weapons. We have no others. Especially the rosary, today is the Feast of the Holy Rosary. It is the most powerful weapon heaven has given us in difficult times, just as it was in the Battle of Lepanto. Now we are facing a kind of spiritual Lepanto in the Church, in the Synod. We must implore the Lord and the Holy Angels, invoke St. Michael and all the angels, to protect the Church, to protect us, and to bring about divine intervention.
Rob: One of our audience members asks about parish councils. Are they traditional? Should we participate, or should we defer solely to the authority of the pastor?
Bishop Schneider: Pastoral councils were introduced after the Second Vatican Council. Before that, there were parish councils, primarily in Ireland, mainly for administrative and financial matters to assist the pastor.
After Vatican II, these so-called pastoral councils began to exert influence in areas that are not the competence of the laity, like liturgical decisions. Sometimes the parish priest feels pressured to follow their opinions, which goes against the Church hierarchy in pastoral matters.
That said, if a pastoral council consists of faithful Catholics, especially those attached to the traditional Latin Mass, and they respect the hierarchy, their advice can be beneficial for improving the parish and supporting the faith. But overall, the structure of pastoral councils needs reform. There has been too much abuse over the last few decades.
Anthony: All right, one more question. In the last few weeks, we’ve seen a lot of heartache, the fruition of Akita, so to speak, Bishop against Bishop, Cardinal against Cardinal. Father Altman made a statement, you made a statement, and Archbishop Vigano made a statement. For the laity, it’s heartbreaking to see men who believe the same Catholic faith come to different conclusions. The papacy is meant to be the source of unity, yet right now it seems to be a source of division. What is the road forward? And regarding the validity of Pope Francis, should that even be a question for us right now, or should we be patient and let God act?
Bishop Schneider: Of course, we must be patient. The temptation to question the pontificate is too human. It comes from anger, and it lacks the supernatural perspective. We cannot resolve this problem ourselves. Pope Francis, even with his errors, is still the valid Pope.
We must address errors respectfully, as St. Paul said: Veritate in facientes in caritate, “speaking the truth in charity.” We do not deny his errors, but we carry this cross patiently. God will resolve the situation in His own time, as He has done throughout the Church’s history.
Rob: Another audience question: if there is no FSSP or Institute of Christ the King Latin Mass available, but there is a Novus Ordo Mass and an SSPX Mass, is there any reason not to attend the SSPX Mass in that circumstance?
Bishop Schneider: If a faithful person is truly attached to the traditional Latin Mass, and it is necessary for their faith and their children’s faith, and there is no other traditional Latin Mass available, then attending an SSPX Mass is acceptable. They pray for the Pope and the local bishop, and therefore are not schismatic. They can go with a good conscience.
Anthony: Your Grace, this has been such an honor. For guys like Rob and me, just some Catholics from Long Island, to get an interview with you, this is a real blessing. We’re so grateful you came on.
Everyone, go out and buy Credo. Mrs. C made sure Rob and I were dressed appropriately today, so thank her for that. This has been wonderful. I’m sure we’ll see many more interviews in the coming weeks. Would you bless us to close?
Bishop Schneider: Yes. Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo. Et benedictio omnipotentis Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti descendat super vos et maneat semper. Amen. Praise be Jesus Christ.
Anthony: Thank you so much, Your Grace.