Mike Parrott: In the long history of the Catholic Church, her bishops have met 21 times at Ecumenical Councils, each time for the stated purpose of either condemning heresy, defining dogma, or both. When John XXIII convoked the 22nd such meeting, however, he made it clear that this council, the Second Vatican Council, was not to define dogma in order to condemn heresy. In fact, his synopsis of the state of the Church at that time was rather rosy. All he wanted at this pastoral council was to help pastors usher in the new springtime in the Church. By almost every measure, it would be a springtime that never came.
That’s the title of a new book published by Sophia Institute Press, by its illustrious author, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who joins RTF for the first time, live, to discuss that book. Your Excellency, welcome to the program.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Thank you.
Mike Parrott: I want to be absolutely respectful of your time, and your time is brief, so we’ll get right into it. Firstly, thank you for writing the book, or rather for answering the many questions of your Brazilian interviewer. The first topic that jumped off the page for me was COVID. I want to pull up three separate quotes from the book because I think everyone needs to hear them. Here’s the first one.
On page 14, you say, “Many church leaders have been involved mostly with secular, worldly, and temporal matters, and as a result, they have become blind to supernatural and eternal reality. Their eyes have been filled with the dust of earthly matters. As St Gregory the Great once said, the reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed that they care more about the mortal body than the immortal soul.”
Your Excellency, I think that’s pretty true, and a lot of us who felt betrayed during the lockdowns agree with that assessment.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, we could state this all over the world. Of course, not every bishop behaved this way, preferring corporal health over the spiritual, the health of the soul. But this was an evident phenomenon, which I think was in some way a logical consequence of the past decades, where life within the Church became more centered on temporal and political issues, forgetting the primacy of eternal life. The COVID situation was a demonstration of this exaggerated, one-sided attitude of so many churchmen to prefer the temporal over the eternal. This is one of the deepest roots of the crisis within the Church.
Mike Parrott: You say on page 23, “The COVID-19 pandemic, to the best of my knowledge, has created an unprecedented situation in the Church, the worldwide ban on all public celebrations of Holy Mass. The ban on public worship was issued by Catholic bishops, and in some cases, it happened even before relevant government regulations were published.” Your Excellency, I certainly witnessed that to be true in the United States, where many bishops preemptively locked down in anticipation that their state or municipality might later impose restrictions, so they were already in compliance. I’ve noted that the Catholic Church in the United States took three and a half billion dollars in bailout money from the federal government. I don’t know how it was elsewhere in the world or in Kazakhstan, where you were, but I have to wonder if locking down in exchange for bailout money was a raw deal for Catholics.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, this is very sad. As I said, the preference for temporal issues should remind everyone in the Church to return to the primacy of Christ, the primacy of eternal life in grace, as the prophets reminded us throughout history in the Old Testament, and as many saints did with their prophetic voices, reminding the people that they have abandoned the fountains of true life and turned to what cannot give them true life. Not only this short, passing corporal life. We should listen again to the timely voices of the prophets and the great saints who preached penance, repentance, and conversion. This is what we need today.
Mike Parrott: Not to beat a dead horse, but a final quote of yours on this topic, page 24. You say, regarding the public celebration of Holy Mass, that we must look for a deeper meaning. These events happened almost exactly 50 years after Holy Communion in the hand was introduced in 1969 and after a radical reform of the rite of Holy Mass was implemented in 1970, the Jubilee Year of the Novus Ordo. Your Excellency, the Jubilee Year should be a year of celebration, as any Jubilee normally would be. But in this Jubilee Year, almost to the day, on March 23, 2020, 50 years after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, Almighty God, perhaps in His mercy, canceled the Novus Ordo Mass. To my knowledge, the only Masses still happening underground were traditional Latin Masses.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, we have to reflect on these facts. I don’t know if there were clandestine Masses in the Novus Ordo; maybe there were, but we don’t have a complete overview. What we can say is that at least the overwhelming majority of the Masses that were celebrated, even in a secret or clandestine manner, were in the traditional form. This demonstrates that the traditional liturgy is more evidently and expressively marked with the means of reverence and supernatural orientation toward eternity. I don’t deny that the Novus Ordo can have reverence, but these aspects are more clearly stressed in the traditional form of the Holy Mass.
It was simply a fact that the majority of Masses celebrated, despite prohibitions, were in the traditional form because the priests and faithful attached to this form were more penetrated by its emphasis on eternal values. We need to restore these aspects even in the Novus Ordo, stressing eternity and sacredness, which give strength and consolation, especially in difficult times like the COVID situation. In times of real persecution, a reverent celebration of the Holy Mass provides true divine consolation.
Mike Parrott: Your Excellency, I’d like to move to a new topic: Papal Infallibility. You address this in your book, particularly regarding capital punishment. On page 158, you say, “This is a revolution and a rupture,” referring to Pope Francis’s change to the Catechism on capital punishment. You continue: “Introducing such a change exceeds the limits of Papal authority. The First Vatican Council, which defined the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, declared that the Holy Spirit has not been given to the Pope to introduce new teachings, but to faithfully guard the deposit of divine revelation. A change in the stance on the permissibility of the death penalty is an abuse of Papal authority.” That phrase, “an abuse of Papal authority,” is something we don’t often hear.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, but it reflects reality. We cannot deny the facts we are seeing. We must consider them in the vision of 2,000 years, not just one pontificate. This is consistent with how great Popes and the Fathers of the Church approached doctrine. Drastic changes in doctrine or liturgy like this have never happened before in Church history. No Pope before Paul VI made such revolutionary changes to the Holy Liturgy in such a short time. There were liturgical reforms before, but they were very careful and small, never so drastic. Even Pope Pius V, after the Council of Trent, did not substantially alter the order of Mass. Only minor changes were made in the Missal, prefaces, sequences, or feasts of the saints. The sacraments, the order of baptism, or priestly ordinations remained unchanged.
Paul VI, by contrast, implemented drastic changes in the Holy Mass, the most solemn and central expression of our faith. Similarly, Pope Francis’s declaration that the death penalty is intrinsically impermissible contradicts centuries of Catholic teaching. Even John Paul II, personally opposed to the death penalty, upheld its permissibility in principle, applying prudential limits only. Pope Francis’s declaration, by contrast, represents a drastic change in doctrine.
Mike Parrott: Speaking of Paul VI, Your Excellency, I have two questions about him. First, you reference his revolutionary liturgical changes multiple times in the book. Many traditionalists tell a fairy tale: Paul VI was a saint whose every touch turned to gold, while Bugnini, allegedly a Freemason, orchestrated all the liturgical changes behind his back. A recent documentary on the Latin Mass echoed this story. But in your book, you place responsibility on Paul VI himself. How do we reconcile these two narratives?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Monsignor Bugnini was indeed influential, especially under Paul VI. Historical documents, including the diaries of Cardinal Antonelli and the memoirs of Father Louis Boy, show that Bugnini’s methods and thinking were highly questionable. His goal was to adapt the Catholic Mass to Protestant forms and modern culture. Even if he were not a Freemason, his actions and statements were problematic.
Ultimately, the responsibility lies with Paul VI, because he approved these changes and celebrated the Novus Ordo himself. A Pope cannot approve such drastic changes to the liturgy. Reform must be careful and organic, as seen in Paul VI’s 1965 Missal, which Monsignor Lefebvre celebrated from 1965 to 1975. The 1965 reforms were minimal: only Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel were removed in some contexts, and some vernacular was allowed in the introductory parts of the Mass, but the Canon remained in Latin.
Paul VI should have maintained the careful 1965 Missal. By yielding, he collaborated in a revolutionary change, moving the Mass closer to a Protestant understanding. The Novus Ordo, as ultimately promulgated, departed substantially from centuries of tradition and the Church’s liturgical heritage.
Mike Parrott: I’m sure Your Excellency is aware that the Benedictines in Clear Creek, Oklahoma, in the United States, do celebrate the 1965 Missal. Your Excellency, I have one other question about Paul VI, and then we’ll move to Monsignor Lefebvre. My second question about Paul VI is the following: on page 272, you write, “I think we also have a right to discuss the canonizations that have already taken place, and whether, in fact, we were given the right model. We can have legitimate doubts about them, and we have the right to express these doubts. In my opinion, Paul VI shouldn’t have been elevated. He should not have been elevated to the altars and declared a saint, for in this way he was shown as a role model, and therefore his revolutionary reform of the Holy Mass would also enjoy an endorsement.”
Your Excellency, it seems we are on track to canonize every single post-Vatican II Pope. Is that, in your view, also a continuation of endorsing the Second Vatican Council?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, it is evident, too evident, that these canonizations are more of the Council than of the Popes themselves. They were done very quickly, without sufficient time to examine history properly. Even Pope Pius X, who was clearly a saint and radiated holiness, was canonized about 40 years after his death. In these conciliar Popes, more time should have been allowed.
There were also problematic aspects following the Council, not always because of the Council itself, but often due to liberal churchmen abusing its name to introduce changes that were not Catholic. We must also consider the optimistic view of modern culture reflected in some Council documents, which even 60 years ago was materially and anti-Christian. Historical context is important. The revolutionary changes in the liturgy, and also in documents like Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty, carry at least ambiguity in doctrine. A Pope must be a clear example in doctrine as well, and this is, in my opinion, a serious reason to question canonization. It appears ideological.
Mike Parrott: Right. For those wondering, you do write in your book that Almighty God respects the authority of the Church so much that if the Church declares someone is in heaven, then they are in heaven, but this could be in spite of their life, not because of their life.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Of course. Many people are in heaven, perhaps even relatives of ours who have already passed through Purgatory, but canonization is not merely about whether someone is in heaven. For example, I might believe my pious grandmother is in heaven, but I would not promote her canonization. Canonization is about giving the faithful an exemplary model in every aspect of Christian life.
So, yes, Paul VI may be in heaven; he may have already passed through Purgatory, but canonization is about presenting a person as an exemplary model. The Church guarantees that the faithful may ask for his intercession, but the question is not whether he is in heaven; it is whether he is an eximium example for the Church.
Mike Parrott: Yes, sir. You also mentioned another cleric, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, whom you described as having lived a saintly life. I’d like to read a few quotes from your book:
“Archbishop Lefebvre was a great man. He passed on the faith, the liturgy, and formed new priests. Under no circumstances should he be accused of being schismatic.”
“It would be appropriate for the Society of St. Pius X to be officially recognized by the Holy See and fully integrated into the life of the Church with all canonical rights. I think this will one day happen.”
“Lefebvre was a man who lived a saintly life and had no schismatic intentions.”
This is high praise, Your Excellency. It’s difficult to discuss the traditional movement without mentioning Archbishop Lefebvre, yet many Churchmen avoid doing so. You speak about him directly and affirm his sanctity and lack of schismatic intent. You also provide arguments about early Church practice regarding consecrations, etc. My specific question concerns your statement that the Society of St. Pius X should be regularized and that being self-sufficient for long periods is not good. Do you think now is the time for them to be regularized, given the current hostility toward tradition and canon law changes regarding new religious communities, or should they continue to wait?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: It is really difficult now, at this time, as you mentioned, with Traditionis Custodes. This is a document that substantially rejects the traditional form of the Holy Liturgy, which has been celebrated for centuries, even millennia. This is very serious. A Pope cannot, in such a manner, express rejection of this treasure of the Church, and then issue norms that drastically limit it, a treasure that his predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, guaranteed to the faithful.
Another serious issue is the de facto persecution of cloistered nuns with the Cor Orans document, which forces them to abandon their strict contemplative life, requiring them to travel for meetings, federation sessions, and so on. This causes great harm to the Church because it affects one of her most precious treasures: the strictly contemplative life. Saint Teresa of Avila restored the strict cloistered life centuries ago precisely for this reason, sisters were not meant to go out for meetings. Now, the Vatican is abolishing this reality de facto, not theoretically, forcing sisters to travel and participate in frequent sessions outside the cloister.
In this situation, it would be difficult for the Society of St. Pius X. They would have to consider these challenges in their own defense. The Pope could, however, grant exemptions for them, assuring that the Cor Orans norms do not apply to their contemplative sisters. If such guarantees were given, the Society could accept canonical regularization, because this would give them more possibilities to work for the Church. The aim of the Society of St. Pius X is not to gain privileges for themselves, but to transmit the Catholic faith with integrity, including the liturgy. Therefore, if the Holy See provides these guarantees, the Society should accept regularization, because being regularized by the Church is the normal situation for a Catholic organization.
Mike Parrott: Barring that exception, in the absence of Pope Francis granting an exemption from Cor Orans or from the latest changes he made to traditional communities, it seems the Society will have to wait. My follow-up question: the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are not getting any younger, and if they must continue waiting, more bishops will be necessary. The organization has grown such that the few bishops they have can hardly administer all the sacraments unique to bishops, like confirmation and Holy Orders. Would it be prudent for them to consecrate a new group of bishops while they wait for regularization?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: I would say they should simultaneously apply for regularization, explicitly asking to be exempt from Traditionis Custodes and Cor Orans, and at the same time request the papal mandate to consecrate at least a couple of new bishops. This would be with the Pope’s approval for their apostolate, which is necessary to continue their work for the Church, not for themselves.
I would not wait passively. They should ask the Pope explicitly for permission to ordain these candidates as bishops, so that they can carry out their ministry for the benefit of the faithful and the priests under their care. This could even be done before full canonical regularization.
Mike Parrott: I know we only have 10 minutes left, and I have many more questions, but I want to address a recent comment by Pope Francis and contrast it with something you wrote about Vatican II. Just yesterday, Pope Francis said that the problem with Vatican II is that, in some contexts, the Council has not yet been accepted. He noted that it can take a century for a council to take root, so we still have 40 years to make it take root.
By contrast, on page 277 of your book, you wrote that it is possible the texts of Vatican II may contain erroneous statements that will have to be corrected in the future by the Magisterium. You noted that we should not be scandalized by the thought of future corrections, and you asserted that there can be no doubt that there are errors in some documents. Pope Francis, however, is saying we have 40 more years to “convince” ourselves that those errors don’t exist.
As a faithful Catholic, what advice do you have for Catholics living in the Church for the next 40 years, possibly under the same errors, until they are corrected by God’s providence?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: First, we cannot assume this will continue under a hypothetical “Francis II.” We must trust that the Church is in God’s hands. Even if Pope Francis planned for a successor to continue the same agenda, God will not allow this. The Church belongs to God, not to Pope Francis or Paul VI, it is the Church of all times, from Saint Peter onward.
Second, Pope Francis did not exactly say “errors exist”; he spoke generally about Vatican II. So we need to carefully examine what he meant by “Vatican II,” because the term has become vague and is often used as a pretext to promote individual agendas.
For example, the Council’s liturgical constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium, requires that the Latin language be retained in all celebrations of the Roman Rite. This is not being observed. Pope Francis is right in noting that this directive has not yet been implemented, and perhaps in 40 years, it will be. Similarly, the Council required that all faithful be capable of singing and praying the ordinary texts of the Mass in Latin, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. This is also not being observed.
The Council also declares that no priest may omit or add anything in the liturgy. This prescription is still binding and powerful. Therefore, we must distinguish which aspects of the Council Pope Francis referred to, and not take the general phrase “Vatican II” as a blanket justification for errors.
Finally, councils are a mode of the Magisterium, not the entirety of it. The Magisterium existed and guided the Church long before councils, and the Church will continue to live and prosper even in periods without councils. Between the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council, 300 years passed without an ecumenical council, yet the Church flourished. Councils are important, but they are just one way the Magisterium exercises authority—they are not the only or supreme form.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: It was a fruitful time for the missionary activity of the Church, especially with an increase in saints and priestly vocations. I think we need to be more balanced regarding the Council itself. We must look at the content it transmitted, not just the Council as an institution. The content is what remains valid for all time, not only for a short historical period.
The majority of the texts of the Second Vatican Council simply repeated what previous councils had already stated. Some of the Council’s own statements were truly useful; I have quoted them before, while others were problematic and may need to be corrected in the future, or simply forgotten.
We must focus on the faith itself: the beauty of our Catholic faith, the richness of our liturgy, the treasure of the lives of the saints, the promotion of family life, and fostering new priestly vocations. This is what will truly renew the Church. The issue is not a council per se, but the Catholic faith—how to promote the fullness, purity, and integrity of our faith. This will produce a new generation of holy priests, zealous missionaries, and strong Catholic families. Amen.
Mike Parrott: Wonderful answer. Thank you so much, Your Excellency. I don’t know if you have time for one more question, but I have a burning one about philosophy. You write about the Hegelian dialectic. On page 46 of your book Springtime That Never Came, you say:
“Today, many theologians and bishops are plagued by Hegelianism. Some succumb consciously, others unconsciously. Hegel said that after the thesis comes the antithesis, and from their combination is born the synthesis. This is exactly the reasoning of many Catholic Hegelians today: Catholicism before the Council was a thesis, the conciliar and post-conciliar Church was an antithesis, and now we are moving toward a synthesis.”
Can you explain this to our audience? Are you saying we can keep most of Vatican II while correcting the problematic parts, or is it something different?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes. Vatican II was a legitimate council of the Church, our Mother Church, and we must accept it, but not overstate its importance. It is just one of 21 councils. What matters is the content of the faith, which the Church, through the Magisterium, can transmit and protect in other ways as well.
Most of what the Council affirmed is traditional Catholic teaching and should be accepted. Some expressions, however, were ambiguous or erroneous, but since the Council did not intend to teach infallibly in these cases, there is no problem. These expressions can be corrected later or supplemented with explanations.
Historically, this has happened before. For example, the Fourth Lateran Council made statements regarding the Jewish people that were corrected later because they were inappropriate or not aligned with the Church’s teaching. Similarly, some pastoral expressions of earlier ecumenical councils were later clarified or corrected.
So, there is no issue with respectfully correcting or clarifying ambiguous or erroneous statements of the Second Vatican Council. These expressions were made with pastoral intentions, considering the historical circumstances of the time, and can be revised if needed, always with respect for the Church’s authority.
Mike Parrott: I have to thank you so much for your time. I know it’s the morning of Corpus Christi for you, and you must go. The book is called Springtime That Never Came. It’s best to buy it directly from the publisher, Sophia Institute Press. There’s a link in the show notes.
Your Excellency, I’m going to play a short outro, you don’t have to stay, but I really appreciate you coming on RTF. I hope that one of these Friday nights for the United States, Saturday morning for you, we can do a fun news roundup called The Rundown. I would be honored if you joined us. Thank you again for being here today, and God bless you.