Paul Thies: Hello, I’m your host, Paul Thies, and on this episode of Sangreal, it was my privilege to sit down with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Mary and Astana, Kazakhstan, known as a courageous defender of the Catholic faith. Bishop Schneider is a voice for truth in confusing times.
In the discussion that follows, we talk about his two books, The Catholic Mass and The Springtime That Never Came, as well as his thoughts on the current events in the life of the Church. I hope you enjoy the discussion.
Your Excellency, thank you so much for joining me today. I want to wish you a happy Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It’s a beautiful feast day for us, and as we begin, I just wanted to ask if you wouldn’t mind leading us in a quick prayer, and then we’ll get right into our conversation.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Thank you all for your greetings. I also wish you a blessed Feast of the Visitation of Our Lady.
Paul Thies: Thank you, Father.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum; benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Jesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.
Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto, sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper. Amen.
Paul Thies: Amen. Thank you, Your Excellency.
So, we’re here today to talk about your two books, The Catholic Mass and The Springtime That Never Came, and they’re both very timely, given the life of the Church and where we’re at. And it’s providential that, you know, today being the Feast of the Visitation, no doubt, as you’ve seen in the United States, the big news has been, in the last week, that our Supreme Court ruled, overturning 49 years of the Roe versus Wade decision, which legalized abortion in our country.
And not even a week after that ruling, the Speaker of our U.S. House and a well-known abortion rights supporter and professed Catholic, Nancy Pelosi, attended a Papal Mass at the Vatican. It was widely reported that she received Holy Communion.
And just, you know, I think the optics just kind of set the stage for how it seems to m,e anyway, and I think I’m not alone in this, how rife with modernism and the desire to accommodate the world so much of our Church community is. I just wanted to ask you if you would mind sharing your viewpoint on the situation of Holy Communion, you know, in this context.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: It is truly a very sad moment which we witnessed, that Mrs. Pelosi, in her known attitude promoting abortion, the killing of innocent unborn children, received demonstratively, in the most holy place of Catholicism, in the Basilica of St. Peter, and during the Papal Mass, the Holy Communion. It is surely a provocation and a great scandal.
But we have to see here the first reaction, of course, should be for us to make reparation for these sacrilegious acts and to console our Lord for these outrages against His holiness in the Eucharist, and also the public, in this way, implicit approval of her actions and of her attitudes and her politics, proportion on the side of the Vatican in this case. Because, since there was no statement of the Holy See about this, and this remains a tacit confirmation and approval, this is very sad.
So, it is a contradiction for someone who calls himself Catholic and is doing what God forbids in a very grievous matter, promoting the murder of the innocent. It is a sin that shouts to heaven, as we know this, since it is murder. And so we have to make reparation.
The second thing which I think we have to consider is that the person who is the poorest is herself, Mrs. Pelosi, and we have to have pity for her, because she is exposing herself and her soul to the danger of eternal condemnation. Because when she is doing this consciously and with this determination, she is exposing herself to the danger of losing her eternal life forever. And so we have to pity her.
When a person is in real danger of losing her soul for all eternity, she is carrying on her conscience such a grave burden. When she will appear before the judgment of Christ, and she will appear, we don’t know when, but surely she will. Then she will have to give an account to the eternal Judge, God, for such horrible sins, sins accumulated and with grievous circumstances. Even though she stubbornly and provocatively goes to receive Holy Communion.
So it is not only that she is already promoting abortion, but that she is carrying on her shoulders another grievous sin that is, Eucharistic sacrilege, and outrages against our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. So we have to have pity for her soul, and for those in the Church, in this case, in the Vatican, the Pope, and those responsible, who are doing nothing to save her soul.
They will also be responsible when she loses her soul, as the prophet Ezekiel said in the Old Testament to the shepherds: God will ask for the blood of the sinners who perish because you did not warn them. And so we also have to have pity for Pope Francis and the other churchmen in the Vatican who allowed this, or who did not prevent this, or who tacitly approved this without making any statement after what happened in this case. They allow her to continue to approach her eternal perdition.
How can a shepherd of the Church be so, how do you say, superficial toward the eternal salvation of the soul of this concrete person, Mrs. Pelosi? And so she is eating her judgment, as St. Paul says, and no arguments, sophistic or others, can here help. This is so evident.
We have to pray that Pope Francis should condemn this and call her paternally, lovingly, to convert, to repent, and to make public reparation, to save her own soul.
Paul Thies: Absolutely, you know, and this leads me to your first book that we’re going to talk about, The Catholic Mass. And, you know, assuming, if we were to assume positive intent, it’s that this wasn’t just, quite frankly, in my opinion, a cheap political stunt, but that, you know, she you know, and I don’t know, I can’t know I can’t presume to know the state of anyone’s soul when they approach the Holy Eucharist.
Pope Francis has been on record as saying that he would never deny anyone the Eucharist. And, you know, so it leads me to my first question for you about The Catholic Mass, your book. And, you know, I think this is kind of what we’re seeing play out as a bit of the fruit of the Novus Ordo and the Second Vatican Council, and kind of where the Mass has degraded now.
In your book, you describe the beauty and the meaning of the Roman Mass. It’s commonly referred to as the Traditional Latin Mass. And, you know, I’m a simple guy, so I may oversimplify things here, but it’s my understanding that, you know, the Roman Mass could be characterized as primarily focused on Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice to our Father, right? That is the main point of the Mass that Christ, in the person of the priest, in persona Christi, is giving sacrifice and homage to the Father. And then there are some elements of a banquet, and we join in the sacrificial meal. But that is all very secondary to Christ’s sacrifice.
Now, under the new Mass, under the Novus Ordo, it seems that the focus is much more on treating the Eucharist as a Protestant-style banquet, you know, among friends, you know, we’re all welcome to the table. And I think now it seems like we’re seeing that coming into play, where all kinds of manner of what I would say, or what seems to me and again, I’m not a theologian but it seems to me, all kinds of heresies and erroneous teachings are permitted because it’s this kind of free-for-all mentality of, like, “Everybody come to Mass and enjoy the Eucharist,” and, you know, “There’s nothing wrong with that, just have at it.”
So, please correct me if I’m understanding this wrongly, but can you talk about the two approaches you know, the Roman Mass versus the Novus Ordo, and why one is superior to the other?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, it is evident that the traditional form of the Mass was preserved not only through centuries in the same way, but for at least one millennium. So it is a very long period, encompassing so many saints and Popes. And this is not the Tridentine Mass, because we already have documents, printed materials, and manuscripts showing that the order of the Mass was the same before the Council of Trent and after, with no changes, absolutely. There was no change even since the times of St. Francis. We have the exact Mass, and it should have been celebrated before him in this concrete, detailed manner, which we celebrate today as the traditional Mass. It is clearly focused on the essence and the substance.
What is the Holy Mass? It is the sacramental presence of the sacrifice of the Cross of Golgotha in a sacramental but real and substantial way, the act of our redemption. The Cross is truly present with the priest, who is Christ, and with the victim, who is himself the victim, and with his redeeming act of salvation. For this purpose, he came. He became a man. He incarnated as we pray in the Creed, for the sake of us and for the sake of our salvation, he became man. The salvation was accomplished with the blood of the Lamb of God, sacrificed and immolated on the Cross, and this immolation of the Lamb of God, Christ, is really going on always when the Mass is celebrated upon the altar.
Therefore, all the prayers and gestures of the Mass should focus mainly on this aspect, the sacrificial aspect, and the Church has done this for 2000 years. The other aspect, the meal aspect, the banquet, is a consequence of the first. It flows out as a consequence. It is not a separate domain but an integral part, a consequence. Unfortunately, the Novus Ordo stresses more the secondary aspect, the communion moment, to the detriment of the substance. This is very dangerous because the Mass is valid, as the form is in the material and the intention is given, but the prayers, gestures, and structure tend much more toward the meal or communion. This was the attitude of Martin Luther and the Protestant communities.
We must again restore the noble order of the Mass with more explicit sacrificial elements in text and gestures, with reflections and signs of the Cross. It is an expression that here is going on the presence of the sacrifice of the Cross.
Paul Thies: And it seems that maybe, and I think I’m trying to remember, I think Dr. Taylor Marshall probably talks about it in Infiltration, but that, you know, this could have been by design. I hope I’m not misquoting him, but that is kind of a false ecumenism, like trying to take out some of the strongly Catholic elements that might be hard on Protestant ears. And I mean, again, I’m just kind of making some assumptions there, but it seems like the idea was to make the Novus Ordo more friendly for all. But it seems to be a bit of a false ecumenism, because true ecumenism would be to invite our fellow Christians back into the Catholic Church, to the truth of the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ on the rock of St. Peter.
Now, in looking at the Roman Mass, the traditional Latin Mass, there has been a lot of criticism, particularly from the Vatican and certain quarters in the hierarchy, where they decry a potential for, maybe, self-righteousness, rigidity, or whatnot. How, in your view, can we arrive at a balanced participation in the liturgy, which has the necessary and disciplined reverence found in the traditional Roman Mass, but which avoids the potentially negative aspects of rubricism, which, as I said, some have decried as rigidity?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: It is like man, even non-Christians, to have reverence when they are praying. So it is an expression of the natural law, of the natural religion, which God gave to us, creatures, toward Him, the Creator, and God, to recognize what we are and who He is. God, His Majesty. This is the first fundamental attitude of a creature before his Creator: humility. Without humility, you cannot reach God and eternity.
Humility expresses itself in gestures, also in the exterior acts of adoration, awe, and reverence, even in the body. This law was also commanded in the Old Testament with very precise, detailed prescriptions in the liturgy of the Old Testament. So it was not a human-invented liturgy; it was a divinely revealed liturgy, down to the details. It is God’s method to require very careful observation for His worship, in detail, and He condemned and punished, even to death, negligent priests in the Old Testament who were negligent in His service.
The same attitude Jesus Christ transmitted to His apostles and the Church. Jesus Christ always prayed with great reverence, as the Letter to the Hebrews shows, to glorify God and to put God in the first place. This was Jesus Christ’s practice all His life. We, therefore, must have the same spirit of prayer and reverence as Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit guided the Church with the same spirit as in the Old Testament, because it is not two different Gods; it is the same Holy Trinity, which revealed the detailed and beautiful liturgy of the Old Testament.
The Church, the Bride of Christ, over the centuries, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, developed a beautiful and detailed liturgy. Rubrics are necessary because we are weak human beings, wounded by original sin. We are wounded with pride, negligence, and laziness. The rubrics simply help us maintain reverence and the awareness that we are in the presence of the majesty of God.
And we see the attitude we must have during Mass in the Apocalypse, in the Book of Revelation, where the angels and the elders prostrate themselves to the earth to adore God and to put Him at the center. This is the Holy Mass. This is the traditional liturgy to observe. The rubrics are not rigid, even when we observe every little detail carefully, because it is also a question of love. When two people love one another, let us say, when a young man loves his bride, he will be very careful and attentive to every detail between lovers. She could not say to her bridegroom, “Oh, you are rigid, observing so carefully all the details to express your love.” There is no rigidity in love. This attention to detail is a requirement, a necessity.
When there is a great feast, and we receive, let us say, an important person, such as the President, the Queen of England, or the Pope, they will prepare every little detail of the visit and the dinner months in advance. All this careful preparation, all these prescriptions, are necessary for human beings. For the King of kings in the Holy Mass, we have rubrics.
We must have rubrics to express that we are receiving the King of Kings. We are preparing better, more detailed, and with more attention than we would prepare a dinner for the Pope or for the Queen of England in our house. This is the issue: we have to take our incarnate God, the King of Kings, seriously. Therefore, every small detail of the Mass is important and has to be carried out with attention, love, and faith.
Of course, everything can be misused or abused, even the rubrics, and there can be so-called rubricism, simply following the rubrics automatically without attention. This, of course, can happen, but it is not an argument against rubrics when someone carries them out formally and superficially, without interior participation.
The Catholic way is both rubrics, with detailed prescriptions and exact observation, but also with love and faith. This is more difficult. It is easier to observe the rubrics only in a formal, exterior way, without inner participation, or simply without any respect for rubrics, and then say, “I am free. We should not be Pharisees. We should not observe. We should not be rigid.” These are the two attitudes that are wrong, which are not biblical and do not correspond to the perennial sense of our Holy Mother Church.
Paul Thies: So when I think about my own personal experience in the United States, largely attending Novus Ordo churches, and then more recently starting to attend the Roman Mass, I see a very stark difference in the level of reverence, both from the priest and from the congregation, in terms of reverence for the Eucharist and reverence for the Mass. I’m not widely traveled, so I cannot speak from personal experience about what church attendance is like in Italy, Germany, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, or elsewhere. But when you look, particularly in Europe, at the decline in the number of people who attend Mass, and in the United States, the decline in the percentage of people who actually believe in the Real Presence, it seems that we live in an age of the spirit of laxity.
It seems now, more than ever, that having liturgical discipline is necessary. Our hierarchy should be calling for a return to liturgical discipline so that people take it seriously, so that they take the Eucharist seriously.
This leads me to my next question. You mentioned negligent priests, and I love that you mentioned love; having that spirit of love is essential. You can see how much a priest loves not only Jesus but his congregation by how seriously he takes his office as a priest.
But what if a priest is in a state of sin or holds doctrines that are heretical or contrary to the long-standing, established, and unchanging teachings of the Catholic faith? What if a priest does not believe what he is saying when he consecrates the host? Is his act of Eucharistic consecration still valid? How can the laity know that the Mass is still valid and that they are truly receiving Jesus under such circumstances?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: First, it must be said that even a great sinner, a priest, is validly consecrating. The validity of the consecration does not depend on the holiness of the priest. This was a heresy that, in the fourth century, spread as Donatism in North Africa. St. Augustine rejected this thesis and famously said: When Peter baptizes, Christ is baptizing; when Judas baptizes, Christ is baptizing. It is not Peter, it is not Judas, but Jesus Christ. He is the primary minister of every sacrament. Human priests are only the secondary ministers in every sacrament.
This is the first point. The other aspect you mentioned concerns the case when a priest does not believe in the truth of the Real Presence of the Eucharist and is consecrating. The common opinion of theologians is that when the priest correctly uses the consecration words and has at least the intention to do what the Church intends during Mass, even if he does not personally believe, the consecration is probably, or even more surely, valid. Why? Because the consecration is not primarily for him. It is first for the Church and for the souls, so that they may receive the presence of Jesus Christ.
God guarantees validity in this case, except in the situation where a priest explicitly rejects the intention of the Church to consecrate. In such a case, the consecration would be invalid, but only God knows whether this occurs. A priest will probably not proclaim such an intention publicly.
When a priest changes the words of consecration to such an extent that the validity is affected, then the consecration is also invalid. This is observable. But usually, we can assume the consecration is valid. Even if the priest is a sinner or a heretic, when he publicly declares opinions or intentions contrary to the Church, we can still assume the consecration is valid, as long as the words of consecration are used correctly.
Paul Thies: Now, turning to your other book, The Springtime That Never Came, you point out some of the factors influencing the problematic direction the Church is taking, especially a tendency toward modernism and anthropocentrism, basically putting humanity at the center in place of God. The book is so rich, and I encourage people to get a copy and read it. But what can the laity do in the face of a hierarchy that seems purposely to sow confusion and might even be credibly accused of having abandoned many aspects of the faith?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, I think that God gave the faithful, through the sacrament of Confirmation, the so-called Catholic sense and meaning of the faith. This is the Catholic sense of faith, Sensus fidelium or sensus fidei. Then we have the old catechisms, let us say the Baltimore Catechism and others, very sure, the catechism of the Council of Trent, the Baltimore Catechism. We have explicit texts from the popes, especially those before Vatican II, where the popes very clearly expressed the teaching of the Church in the same sense, the perennial sense, even regarding modern issues such as Freemasonry, anthropocentrism, the true meaning of religious freedom, and religious tolerance. We have all the crystal-clear teaching of the popes over the centuries in encyclicals. We have to read them; they are easily found on the internet. Simply read them.
Of course, we also have very short texts from popes after the council in some encyclicals, the famous encyclical of Paul VI on contraception, very clear; his Profession of Faith from 1968, a very clear text of faith; John Paul II, his excellent and clear encyclical Veritatis Splendor on moral theology and the moral law; his encyclical Evangelium Vitae about human life and the protection of human life; and then his texts and expressions against gender ideology and homosexuality. John Paul II provided crystal-clear teachings.
Let us take these as the perennial teaching of the Church. Notwithstanding that high-ranking churchmen today in the Vatican, bishops, and cardinals are proclaiming the contrary, and even errors and heresies, we should not listen to them but pray for their conversion. We should stick to the old catechisms and the sure encyclicals of previous popes. This is sufficient for us, along with prayer.
Paul Thies: Now, let us speak about the improper role that the concept of revolution has played in the Church in the last century. One dramatic example of revolution within the Church, which you point out, is Pope Paul VI’s Mass, the Novus Ordo, which we have been discussing. As I said earlier, I am not a theologian, but at least in my experience, it has become increasingly clear that the Novus Ordo has, in many ways, led to liturgical and Eucharistic abuses and has had a corrosive effect on fidelity to Church teaching.
So why should ordinary Catholics wake up and pay attention to what is going on? Can you explain a little about why this is not simply a matter of disputes concerning rituals and rites, but rather strikes at the heart of the proper relationship between God and humanity?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Because the liturgy, the public liturgy of the Holy Mass, is a solemn expression and profession of the truth of faith, the truth of faith is expressed in the public prayer of the Church. Therefore, the manner of the prayers and all the gestures should testify to the truth in the clearest manner. The Church has always done this, but the Novus Ordo of Paul VI is weakening these aspects of truth, especially the sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist, and is introducing more anthropocentric elements to the detriment of the necessary Christocentric orientation of the liturgy. This is evident, and we have witnessed a revolution, a violent change, and God never approves of revolutions.
The only revolution that is necessary and approved by God is the revolution to go back from sin to God, to holiness, to repentance. This is an interior revolution. You turn away from sin and turn toward truth, holiness, and virtue. This is the kind of revolution necessary in your heart, the only revolution required to save sinners, convert, and change your heart, with the grace of God.
God does not approve of changing something drastically or violently in doctrine or in prayer, because doctrine and prayer are indissolubly connected. Doctrine expresses truth, and the liturgy manifests it. In the last few decades, some aspects of doctrine that the Church always taught have been weakened. For example, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation: there is no Jewish way, no Old Testament way alone, and no other religion is a path to God. This teaching has been weakened since the council, through interreligious dialogue and through a misinterpretation of religious freedom.
Of course, we must respect all others with tolerance, and civil rights can apply equally to all religions. But the fundamental aspect of the right, based in human nature, is that humans have a natural right only to seek and spread the good and the truth. God did not give humans a natural right to spread idolatry or the adoration of Satan. Freedom is a natural gift given by God, but it is intended only for one aim: to freely accept Him, the one true religion, the Catholic faith, and to spread it freely. The act of faith is by its nature free.
No one can be impeded or forced in matters of conscience. But the Second Vatican Council introduced another aspect that has confused: the idea that every religion, including idolatry, has a natural right not to be impeded and to spread its errors freely. This is wrong. God gave humans only one natural right, and it is necessary to distinguish between a right and a faculty. A faculty is the ability to choose, and humans can choose evil, as Adam and Eve did, and as we do when we sin. But we do not have a natural right to offend God. No one has a natural right to worship Buddha, spread Islam, or promote any false religion that rejects the Holy Trinity and denies Jesus Christ as Savior. This is one example of confusion, a break in doctrine, which is, in my view, very serious.
The truth is that there is only one religion that God positively wills for all people to accept freely: the Catholic faith. All other religions are not willed by God in this way; they are tolerated by Him. We must love those in other religions, pray for them, and evangelize them with zeal. This applies to all non-Catholics, including Jews. We must proclaim Jesus Christ to all, always with love and respect, but also with determination, because our mission is to bring Christ to as many souls as possible.
The path out of the current crisis in the Church is clear: we must restore Christ to His central place in the liturgy and in every aspect of Church life. We must foster a new movement of holiness within the Church, beginning with the education and formation of a new generation of holy priests, missionary priests, true men of God, who will guide the faithful and build strong Catholic families. This is the way forward, the path out of this crisis.
Paul Thies: It’s beautiful. You’re so right. I mean, it has to be love. You have to have that spirit of love. Jesus commands us to love our brothers as we love ourselves. And he also very clearly said, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by me. So there’s no getting around that. We have to either believe it or we don’t.
I had interviewed someone a while back, and he had mentioned a famous atheist who had said, How much must you hate me if you believe that you have the truth or that you know what the truth is and you’re not willing to share it with me. Basically, how much must you hate me that you would allow me to put my soul in jeopardy because by not share the truth of salvation with me?
I think about this the more I ponder. For instance, His Holiness Pope John Paul the Second and his Assisi conferences, like in 1986, and then I think he had another one. I believe it was one of the Buddhist priests who put a statue of Buddha on top of the tabernacle. There were all kinds of different religions being hosted at the Vatican. Then, of course, just a couple of years ago, Pope Francis, with the Amazon Synod, had the Pachamama statue in one of the churches there. It just seems crazy.
My last question for you is, you commented about the role of Papal Infallibility and the proper limitations of the Pope’s power and influence. We obviously want to be loving and respectful, but we also have a duty to say, Hold on, something is not right here. There seem to be many heresies and false teachings that are getting promulgated in various quarters. Coming back to the start of our talk, what was Nancy Pelosi doing at the Vatican a week after Roe v Wade? It wasn’t a minor thing. That was major news. What was she doing at the Vatican, getting the Eucharist for all to see?
So my question for you, this is a theoretical or rhetorical question, is, what actions do you think a future Pope or popes will need to take to correct today’s errors and get our house back in proper order?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: First, we have to clarify the true Catholic meaning of Papal infallibility. There is much confusion, even among good traditional priests. The clear teaching of the Church is that the Pope is infallible only in very rare cases and under very specific conditions. This was defined by the First Vatican Council. In the text, it is written that only when these conditions are fulfilled does the Pope proclaim a teaching ex cathedra in a definitive manner, imposing it obligatorily on all members of the Catholic Church to accept as binding.
These expressions must be used, and the Pope must express them clearly; otherwise, he is not fulfilling the conditions of the First Vatican Council regarding the dogma. Infallibility applies only to matters concerning faith and morals derived from divine revelation. When speaking in this form, if the Pope does not clearly indicate that he is imposing this as a definitive teaching and as a divinely revealed truth, then he is not infallible according to the First Vatican Council. Otherwise, he would be infallible at all times.
The First Vatican Council did not proclaim that the Pope is always infallible. In his daily ordinary Magisterium, the Pope is not infallible, and he can commit errors. There have been cases in history where Popes have committed errors outside ex cathedra decisions. Therefore, we must remain calm and discerning when Pope Francis makes statements or performs acts. He did so not in the capacity of ex cathedra definitive decisions. Errors outside of such declarations are possible, and they can be corrected in the future by a Pope or by a council.
This will be done without doubt, because the Church is in the hands of God, and the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church, even though we are now passing through an eclipse, through an obfuscation of darkness at the highest level. God permitted this mysteriously. We have to accept in humility this permission of God, this divine permission, which is difficult for us to understand, but we have to accept it and pray for the Pope, that God may illuminate him again, and that God may give us in the future strong hopes, as we had during two millennia, the majority of them.
Again, the future Pope, or a future Council, will carefully and exactly list all the current errors that exist in our days since the Council spread in the Church. These are not necessarily heresies. Some are simply errors or ambiguities, and some are heresies. All these aspects should be listed, along with a clarification of what the true Catholic doctrine should be. There should also be a necessary canonical threat: those who do not accept these truths will be accordingly punished or excommunicated, as the Church did, and as the apostles also did, in order to protect the community of the faithful from the poison. It would be irresponsible for a shepherd to allow poison to spread among the sheep, and these are the heretics in the Church.
We have to admonish them, call them to repentance, and the Pope and councils must do this first. If they continue in obstinacy, they must, for the health of the Church, be excommunicated, and also for their own good. Saint Paul excommunicated the sinner in Corinth and said, “I did this for your salvation, so that your soul may be saved.” We must do the same, and also pray for the sinners and heretics, that God may convert them. This is what the Church should do in the future and will do without doubt. This is our hope.
In the meantime, we will cultivate our Catholic faith holily in our souls, in our minds, and in our works, spreading good teaching, good books, doing apostolate, apologetics, and so on, for the salvation and illumination of souls in our time, and praying that Divine Providence may intervene and grant the Church, again, strong, holy, and fearless shepherds on all levels. Amen.
Paul Thies: Amen. Well, Your Excellency, I really appreciate you taking this time to talk with me on this Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary and sharing your insights. Again, I will highly recommend to everyone to check out The Catholic Mass and The Springtime That Never Came, your two books published by our friends at Sophia Institute Press.
So, Your Excellency, would you be so kind as to pray a blessing over all of us and everyone listening as we close this out?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo. Et benedictio Dei omnipotentis Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti super vos maneat semper. Amen. Praise be Jesus Christ.
Paul Thies: King of everlasting glory. Amen.