Gene Zannetti: Welcome back to Meeting of the Minds with Spiritual Strength. Today we have a very special guest with us, His Excellency, Bishop Athanasius Schneider. Your Excellency, thank you very much for joining us.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: You’re welcome.
Gene Zannetti: On behalf of everyone in the Church, thank you for all that you do for us, for souls, and for Our Lady. We really appreciate it.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Good
Gene Zannetti: We are big supporters of your books, The Springtime That Never Came, The Catholic Mass, Christus Vincit, and all of your works. You’ve covered many topics, including traditional Catholicism, the Traditional Latin Mass, Vatican II, and the Society of Saint Pius X.
To begin with, we know the importance of obedience as Catholics, and we know it’s important to submit to the authority of the Church. All laws of the Magisterium must be in accordance with Divine Law. So what do we do when it appears that the Magisterium is contradicting Divine Law? How can we discern that and remain faithful to God?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: First, we have to know that obedience is not the highest virtue. The three highest virtues are called the theological or divine virtues: faith, hope, and charity, or love, which is the highest among them. Then there are the four moral or cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, and moderation, which is the sense of measure.
There are these seven virtues that the Church examines specifically to judge a virtuous life. Of course, Our Lord gave us the example of obedience, but obedience must be to the will of God. “Thy will be done” is what determines eternity, our eternal life. Obedience to the commandments of God is what matters most.
We have these commandments revealed to us, and we must obey them directly. The task of the Church is only to transmit divine revelation, and the Church has done this faithfully for two thousand years through the catechisms and through the solemn and constant Magisterium. We know this, and to this we must obey, because in this case, we obey the voice of God, the divine revelation clearly expressed in the Ten Commandments and in the catechisms, which the Church has always approved with the same meaning and in the same sense.
When, as in our time, a Pope or other Church authorities change the meaning of the teachings in a way that clearly contradicts or undermines one of the commandments of God or the constant teaching of the Church, then we cannot obey such commands. For example, if Church authorities command us to stop celebrating the Traditional Mass, which is the highest, most solemn, and sure expression of the Catholic faith and divine worship, preserved by the Church for at least a millennium by all the saints, and tell us to adopt another form that expresses less clearly the sacrificial character of the Mass or contains fewer signs of adoration and reverence, then we are not obliged to obey these orders.
If we obey such ambiguous directions from Church authorities today, for example, the order to give Communion in the hand, which exposes Our Lord to desecration, then we cannot obey. If we did, we would disobey the greater voice of the Church from the millennia: all the Popes, saints, and bishops.
The current holders of the Magisterium are not the entire Church. They are temporary ministers and servants. In this case, it would be an abuse of the power God gave them. God gave Church authority the power to express and explain divine truth clearly, not ambiguously, and never in a way that undermines the first commandment, such as by claiming that all religions are equal, or by undermining the divine revelation about the indissolubility of a valid sacramental marriage, or by failing to protect the sacredness of the Holy Eucharist and the sacrificial character of the Mass.
If the Church diminishes or undermines these truths, then it is not obeying what God gave through the apostles and all the Popes over two millennia. Therefore, in such cases, we cannot obey. But we must pray for the Pope and other Church authorities, that God may enlighten them. We should admonish them respectfully, without polemics or irreverent words, and pray that God grant them grace and light.
Gene Zannetti: Yes, so when a priest receives or sees a document like Traditionis Custodes, should he just read it and then ignore it? Is that the proper course of action?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Basically yes, because this document Traditionis Custodes, when we read it, is evidently aimed at abolishing the millennia-old treasure of the Church. This is an abuse, and even the traditional studies and other norms that followed Traditionis Custodes are expressing their refusal of this treasure of the Church that was holy to the saints and our forefathers. Therefore, we cannot obey Traditionis Custodes.
I would say priests and bishops should use prudence to find ways to continue celebrating the traditional form of the Mass, which is the property of the entire Church. It is not the property of Pope Francis or the current bishops. They have no authority to destroy this, and therefore we cannot obey.
But I repeat, not to make public protests, but to find a prudent way to continue the celebrations, to continue asking the Pope and the bishops reverently to withdraw these norms. They are against the tradition of the Church and are harming the spiritual good of the Church. It is a detriment to the entire spiritual good of the Church. We have to appeal to the Pope and the bishops with patience and reverence, but also with insistence, continuously asking that Traditionis Custodes and the other norms be withdrawn.
Gene Zannetti: Excellent, and it would seem that with the traditional Latin Mass, this also includes all the traditional rites of the sacraments, correct?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: The same with the sacraments, of course. It is included as one treasure. They cannot divide the Holy Mass from the priestly ordination in the Latin rite or the other sacraments. They constitute one homogeneous treasure, liturgical, spiritual, and doctrinal. It is not only a spiritual or ritual question, not only a matter of rites or rubrics. It is also a question of faith and doctrine.
The traditional Mass and the traditional rites of the sacraments, such as priesthood, confirmation, and baptism, express the doctrine more clearly. Therefore, we have to reestablish these traditional forms of the sacraments again, right?
Gene Zannetti: And I know, as you’ve said, the harmfulness of the new Mass, that the Offertory is dangerous, and that Communion in the hand is sacrilegious. So I wonder, how is it possible that the Church even promulgated the new Mass officially? How is that possible if it was so harmful?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: First, not to forget, I would not say that Communion in the hand is in itself sacrilegious. It would not be just to say that, because you can receive Holy Communion in the hand with much reverence, love, and carefulness. This is possible, and I have witnessed some religious sisters who did this with great reverence.
But these are exceptions, and when this practice becomes widespread and general, it evidently moves toward sacrilege and desacralization. So only to clarify that.
Now, to your question, how could the Church approve such an Offertory prayer, which is almost Protestant in spirit? The new Offertory prayers of the Novus Ordo are an enigma that, I think, the Church will resolve in history. We only know the facts.
The Mass of the Second Vatican Council is not the Novus Ordo. The Mass of the Council is the Mass of 1965, which was promulgated as a reform of the liturgy according to the Council’s decree. This 1965 Mass was even welcomed by Archbishop Lefebvre, who celebrated it for ten years until 1975.
In the Society of St. Pius X, they celebrated it from 1969 to 1975 because there were almost no radical changes. It was in substance the same traditional Mass, with only minor differences. The Psalm 42 at the beginning of the Mass was dropped, but in Requiem Masses before the Council, Psalm 42 was also omitted. So it was not a revolutionary or completely new change.
The Last Gospel of John was also dropped, but even before the Council, it was sometimes omitted when another liturgical celebration followed. These were the only substantial changes. All the crosses, genuflections, and kissings remained. Another rubrical change was that the Offertory prayer before the Preface was said aloud, and also the first prayer after the Pater Noster was said aloud, but with the same prayers and gestures.
The main difference was the language. In the 1965 Mass, you could use the vernacular from the beginning until the Preface, but from the Preface onward, Latin was compulsory, and the Eucharistic Prayer, the Canon of the Mass, was in Latin and silent.
So you see, that was the Mass of Vatican II. Then in 1967, Monsignor Bugnini’s commission, which had some Protestant advisors, completely changed it and made the Novus Ordo Mass that we have now.
In 1967, two years later, there was a Synod of Bishops where this Novus Ordo Mass was presented as a test. The majority of bishops rejected it. Despite this rejection, the same form was introduced in 1969 and 1970 by the Pope. So it remains an enigma and surely was an arbitrary and revolutionary action, right?
Gene Zannetti: Your Excellency, as a father of three young children, I take them to the traditional Latin Mass. If there is not a traditional Latin Mass available, should I take my family to the Novus Ordo, or should I avoid that altogether, even at the expense of possibly missing Mass if I cannot get to a traditional Latin Mass?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: I would say I would try to go to the Novus Ordo on Sundays, because the Sunday obligation is a very serious obligation for Catholics. But it depends on your situation and environment.
If there is a Novus Ordo which is bearable and worthily celebrated, then I would say you can participate, because it is a valid Mass and the sacrifice of Christ is present upon the altar. If you can receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue, and if this is guaranteed, and the Mass is celebrated in a worthy manner, then of course you can participate in these Masses. But if there is a worse situation, then it is better not to, right?
Gene Zannetti: The difficulty, of course, is that I have not attended any of the local Novus Ordo Masses, so I would not know what to expect. That is why I ask.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: In this case, I would make a little research. You can go yourself once on a Sunday and attend the Mass. Then you can judge if there are abuses or not, or if the priest will give you and your family Communion kneeling and on the tongue. You can make some inquiries about the environment, okay?
Gene Zannetti: Another interesting thing I have seen is the pre-1955 Holy Week. Many more people have been speaking about this and attending it. What are your thoughts about that? Would you recommend that the pre-1955 Holy Week be restored, or the 1962 one? What are your thoughts?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Of course, the pre-1955 Holy Week is incomparably richer than the reform of 1955. The 1955 reform already shows the characteristics of an intellectual, academic, and artificial reform.
That reform was already influenced by Bugnini, the same man who later made the reform of the Novus Ordo. He was not the only one, of course, but he already had influence in this reform, which is proven and documented.
The results are clear when you compare both. It is evident that the 1955 reform was artificial and included newly invented elements that had never existed in the Church. Things were simply invented. Of course, it is not of the same gravity or importance as the Novus Ordo itself, because the Holy Week ceremonies are not the same as the sacrifice of the Mass. So we must distinguish between them.
Nevertheless, objectively, the pre-1955 Holy Week is part of the ancient and unchangeable tradition of the Roman Rite, a millennia-old continuity of celebrating the Holy Week with these ceremonies.
One advantage of the 1955 reform, which I would welcome, is the time of celebration. It is truly an advantage to celebrate the Easter Vigil on Saturday evening or night rather than Saturday morning. The symbolism of the liturgy speaks of night, darkness, and light, and this was impoverished in the pre-1955 timing. But I refer only to the time, not the rites. The rites themselves should be kept.
The Vigil should be celebrated in the evening, as it was in the first centuries of the Church, according to the truth of the time. This is, I think, the advantage of the 1955 reform. But there is no problem celebrating the pre-1955 Vigil of Easter in the evening with the same rites.
Gene Zannetti: Thank you. And now, I know you have studied the Society of Saint Pius X. You have been involved with the Vatican and had a special role in investigating the Society. Can you please speak about that? Also, I have a Society of Saint Pius X chapel near my house that my family and I sometimes attend. Should I be concerned about taking my family there? Is it a sin to receive the sacraments of confession and Communion there? Can you speak about that?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Surely it is not a sin, because the Pope allows all Catholics to receive Holy Confession validly and legitimately from priests of the Society of Saint Pius X. So it cannot be a sin. The Pope allows the sacrament of Penance, and in a similar way, the sacrament of Marriage.
The Pope allows priests of the Society of Saint Pius X to assist at the celebration of marriages and to bless them in the name of the Church, of course with the approval of the local parish or bishop. So at least these two sacraments are allowed.
Implicitly, the Holy Eucharist is also allowed, because when you are absolved validly and with papal approval by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X, it would be absurd to then say you must run away from the church before the same priest celebrates Mass. That would be against basic pastoral sense.
It would be strange for the faithful to say, “I confessed to this priest and received absolution, but now I cannot attend his Mass or receive Communion.” We must not overstate legalistic principles but instead look to the good of souls.
So, in this case, when there is no other possibility, you can go to the chapel of the Society of Saint Pius X. But if there is another chapel at the same distance, approved by the bishop, where the traditional Mass is celebrated, then it is better to go there if it is easily reachable for you.
Gene Zannetti: Okay, and would the same be true for the sacraments of Confirmation and Extreme Unction?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: I do not know exactly what the canonical situation is with the other sacraments. I know only about these two sacraments. I think also that the Vatican gave permission for ordinations, but it has not been published yet. What has been published are these two sacraments: Confession and Marriage.
Gene Zannetti: Okay. Now, when I think about Vatican II, it seems like there are several statements that contradict the tradition of the Church. Many people speak about the hermeneutic of continuity. Is a hermeneutic of continuity possible if there is clearly an erroneous teaching?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: No, it is not. We have to be honest and not try to square the circle or perform mental gymnastics. There is a method in the formation of Jewish rabbis who read the Talmud. They are trained to interpret the same expression of the Talmud in one sense and then in the opposite sense. It is, in part, an exercise in sophistry within that tradition, a way to practice interpretation or hermeneutics as a purely intellectual exercise.
So, it would not be honest for us to do the same. If there is an expression that is evidently wrong, then it must be corrected. The magisterium of the Church exists to explain the truth of the Church as clearly as possible, not in an ambiguous way.
Of course, there are some expressions that can be explained through a hermeneutic of continuity by understanding their context. But it is not the task of the faithful to have to make these explanations. The Church should speak clearly. In the texts of the Council of Trent, there was no need for a hermeneutic of continuity because the teaching on the sacraments, justification, creation, and other truths was expressed clearly and consistently.
Thanks be to God, in Vatican II there are not many problematic texts, there are few, but they do exist. We have to remember a basic principle that is often forgotten today by both sides, traditional and liberal alike. The fathers of the Council and the Popes, John XXIII and Paul VI, both said explicitly that the Council had a pastoral character.
Paul VI expressly stated that this Council did not intend to propose new teachings to the faithful or to define anything in a definitive manner binding on all the faithful. When something is not definitive, it can be changed, improved, or even corrected. There is no problem with that because it does not carry definitive authority.
Vatican II quoted many dogmas of faith already defined by previous councils or Popes. But its own new expressions, as Paul VI himself said, were not intended to be definitive or to require a definitive assent from the faithful.
Therefore, those new formulations do not have the characteristic of infallibility. By definition, infallibility applies only when the Church teaches definitively, either through the extraordinary magisterium or the ordinary and universal magisterium, that is, when all Popes from Saint Peter onward have taught the same truth consistently in all times.
But the new expressions in some texts of Vatican II, and even some erroneous ones, do not express that ordinary, universal, and constant teaching. They are new and even contradict certain clear expressions of previous Popes, centuries of tradition, and the Fathers of the Church.
Therefore, we should not make this a great problem. Vatican II was not intended to be infallible. It had a pastoral character for a particular time, sixty years ago. Today is another time. We can now recognize that some of these expressions have harmed the understanding of the faith and the practice of the Church.
Therefore, we can propose modifications, clarifications, improvements, and even corrections, right?
Gene Zannetti: It would seem the erroneous statements, along with the erroneous statements in Motu Proprio Letitia, as well as the Catechism changes on the death penalty, would be null and void. The ones that are erroneous, correct?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, these erroneous statements, I repeat, must be seen in the light of the constant, universal, and permanent tradition of the Church and the previous Magisterium. When they contradict or undermine this tradition, they must be corrected. They will certainly be corrected by future Popes, without any doubt, because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.
However, sometimes the providence of God allows, permits, not out of positive will, but permits, periods of darkness in the Church. There were darknesses in the first century, for example, the Arian crisis, which lasted for decades. In our time, there are also periods of darkness in the Magisterium in certain points, not complete darkness, but certain erroneous or ambiguous expressions regarding religious freedom, other religions, and the common adoration of God with Muslims, for instance. These are evidently dangerous, ambiguous, and must be corrected. And they will be.
At the same time, even amidst the darkness of recent decades, the Holy Spirit has not completely abandoned the Church. Pope Paul VI gave very clear teachings in the encyclical Humanae Vitae, on the issue of contraception, for example, and made a clear profession of faith. John Paul II wrote the beautiful and clear encyclical Veritatis Splendor on moral theology, and Evangelium Vitae on the defense of life and family. So there are moments of light as well as darkness. We must recognize both, and pray that the Lord will intervene so that all ambiguous or erroneous non-definitive teachings will be corrected with clear affirmations in the future.
Gene Zannetti: Thank you. Just one last topic: your involvement with the Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima. We have spoken about this before, Fatima being the answer for our time, and about the role of the faithful, the average Catholic in the pews. Our Lady told us to do several things: wear the brown scapular, pray the rosary every day, consecrate ourselves to her Immaculate Heart, offer up our sufferings, and perform the First Saturday devotion. Can you speak about that and about what the faithful can do to fulfill Our Lady’s commands?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, you already mentioned them; you listed a beautiful program for the spiritual life of the faithful in the world. To pray the rosary daily is a great help to maintain your spiritual life amidst the world and within the family. Wearing the scapular of Our Lady devoutly has a deep spiritual meaning: it is like a spiritual vestment of Our Lady, who is immaculate. It is an appeal to avoid grave sins, because we are clothed spiritually in her protection.
The First Saturday devotion, confession, meditation, and Holy Communion, functions as a monthly confession for lay people in the world. It greatly increases your spiritual life and sensitivity against sin. The 15-minute meditation on the mysteries of our salvation and receiving Holy Communion enriches your spiritual program further.
The general message of Fatima for lay people emphasizes reparation and expiation for sins, and consoling God, who is so often offended, especially the Eucharistic Lord in the tabernacle. When faithful go to church, they can console Our Lord and make acts of reparation, even in daily life, observing blasphemies or sacrileges, and offering spiritual acts of reparation in their hearts.
Through these practices, we advance in our spiritual life, strengthen our conviction in the Catholic faith, and contribute, even in small ways, to the renewal of the Church. These acts are not overly demanding, but they allow the faithful, the “little ones”, to participate in the true spiritual springtime and renewal of the Church.
Gene Zannetti: It would seem that if enough Catholics are living this Fatima message, that will help merit the grace for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Would that be accurate to say?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, indeed. Through these acts we mentioned, we are preparing the triumph of the Immaculate Heart step by step. God knows the time, but usually He proceeds gradually, organically. We must prepare patiently for this time of triumph. The triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady will usher in a new era for the Church: a renewed purity of the faith, a revitalization of the liturgy, and a new sanctity and holiness among priests and families.
Gene Zannetti: Thank you very much for your time, Your Excellency. I really appreciate it. I’ll put a link in the show notes to your books, The Springtime That Never Came, The Catholic Mass by Christus Vincit, as well as a link to the Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima and any other resources you’d like me to include. Could you please close us with a prayer and a blessing?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Let us pray to Our Lady of the Immaculate Heart and entrust all your work, and all who are listening and participating in your programs, to her maternal blessings.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. 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, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
The Lord be with you, and may the Almighty Father, Son, and Holy Spirit descend upon you and bless you, now and forever. Amen.
Gene Zannetti: Thank you very much. God bless you, Your Excellency.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: And God bless you as well.