Dr. Taylor Marshall: I am honored to be joined by His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider. He is the Auxiliary Bishop of St. Mary and Astana in Kazakhstan. He has spoken and written extensively about reverence for the Most Holy Eucharist, the Blessed Sacrament. He recently started an initiative to begin reparations to the Sacred Heart for abuses made against the Holy Eucharist, especially during this COVID situation, in which people are doing novel things with the Eucharist and bringing even more desecration. Thank you so much for joining me today, Your Excellency. May we begin?
Bishop Schneider: In the beginning, in nomine Patris et Filii, Spiritus Sancti, Amen. Pater Noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum, adveniat regnum tuum, fiat voluntas tua sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo, Amen. In nomine Patris et Filii, Spiritus Sancti, Amen.
Dr. Taylor Marshall: Thank you, Your Excellency. Before we talk about your initiative, your plan, and your prayer, there was a recent study in which they took unconsecrated hosts, put on black gloves, and went through what would be ten Communions in the hand. They were able to collect 108 particles of these unconsecrated hosts, which reveals that in a Mass in which there could be hundreds of Communions in the hand, potentially, there could be thousands of lost particles of our Lord Jesus Christ that fall to the floor and get on people’s clothing. This seems to be a grave desecration, and yet the Church seems to allow it since around 1969 when the Novus Ordo came in. As a bishop, can you speak to this and what we should be doing?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, I think this is one of the gravest phenomena in the crisis of the Church. For me, it is the deepest and most dangerous, because it concerns the Lord. With Communion in the hand, we are directly desecrating the holiest of holies, our Lord. Everyone can see that during Communion in the hand, little particles are lost and fall to the floor. It is evident and a common experience of every priest that at the end of Mass, on the paten, there are always some small particles of the Host.
In our country, thanks be to God, we have only Communion given while kneeling and on the tongue by a general decree of the Bishops’ Conference, and we use the paten for the distribution of Holy Communion. It is very common for me to see a few particles after distributing Communion. No one can deny that in every little particle is the entire Christ. This is our faith.
By this practice, the Church is practically denying the dogma that in every little particle is the entire Christ. Unfortunately, it was allowed by Paul VI in 1969, contrary to the advice of the majority of bishops throughout the world. In 1968, Paul VI consulted all the bishops and asked if they considered it good to introduce the new practice of Communion in the hand, and the majority rejected it.
Many bishops answered the Pope with this argument: that many particles would be lost, and that this was a fact. They also said that by this practice, over time, people would lose the fullness of faith in the Eucharist, and devotion and sacredness would diminish. These were the main arguments. Unfortunately, Pope Paul VI allowed it.
In the document Memoriale Domini, it says it is good to keep the tradition of the Church of Communion on the tongue, but in the last part of the document, it adds that in some cases, when bishops’ conferences wish, they can introduce Communion in the hand. That one phrase practically contradicted the entire document and opened the gates to a flood that everyone could foresee. Now we have the consequences, and we have arrived at the height of all these desecrations in our time.
Dr. Taylor Marshall: In the United States, polls have shown that over half of Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation. They do not believe that the consecrated host is the true Body of Christ or that the wine transubstantiates into His Blood. It seems that this is a consequence of decades of people coming forward, seeing Eucharistic abuse, and receiving in the hand. It seems to be a natural conclusion that if this is common food, like what we eat at home, then there is nothing supernatural about it. Do you think this lack of faith in the Eucharist is universal in the Church, or is it just an American problem?
Bishop Schneider: I think it is not universal, because I know other countries. At least in our country, thanks be to God, all Catholics believe firmly, also because they receive Communion kneeling and on the tongue. In many European Catholic countries, the true faith in the Eucharist, in transubstantiation, and in the Real Presence is still kept. Maybe also in Africa and some Asian countries.
But in countries of the Western world, such as Western Europe, and now even Southern Europe and the Americas, by the practice of Communion in the hand for decades, the fullness of faith in transubstantiation has diminished or even disappeared. The lex orandi has been contradicted by the lex credendi. The law of prayer contradicts the law of faith.
We must return to the fullness of the exterior expressions, which are a profession and confession of faith, even in the details. Human nature demands this, as God established in Holy Scripture. In the Old Testament, worship was detailed in its reverence, and in the New Testament, in the Book of Revelation, we see the heavenly liturgy with its reverent detail.
We must ask God that Communion in the hand will soon end and be prohibited again, as it was in the ninth century. At that time, the Church even threatened excommunication for those who received Communion in the hand. This was decreed in France in the ninth century. The Church was very aware of the dangers because of earlier bad experiences with the practice.
I hope that through this crusade of reparation to our Eucharistic Lord, God will give His Church pastors and popes who will defend the holiness and sacredness of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist.
Dr. Taylor Marshall: Yes, recently I was, I was doing a video on this channel, and I was talking about, you know, there’s a misunderstanding that the early church was very casual in the liturgy, and that Communion in the hand was the mode of reception in the early church, and there are many quotes in the fathers, for example, st Leo, the great says that we receive by the mouth in Latin ore, it’s an ablative of instrumentation. This is the means by which you receive. St basil, the great, says that Communion in the hand is only allowed during times of persecution when there is no priest or Deacon, or for the desert hermits who do not have access to the priests; those are the only times that Communion in the hand was allowed in the early church. And as you say, councils and synods condemn the practice, even with the pain penalty of excommunication. One of the things that I’ve got feedback on, and I’d like for you to comment on this, is they say, Okay, well, clearly Communion in the hand was normative in the early church. It was the preferred practice. But they say, but we don’t need to kneel. We should stand, even the Eastern churches stand. Can you speak to the importance of altar rails and receiving, not only on the tongue, but on the knees?
Bishop Schneider: Well, there are several points now we have to distinguish. First, the kneeling. The kneeling is a common practice of the Holy Scripture and even a very new testamental practice our Lord Himself, God and man gave us, gave us an example to kneel, because he knelt in the in Gethsemane when he was suffering his Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, he was even prostrated on the underground, and was kneeling, evidently and and then the apostles st Stephen, the first martyr of the church. He died kneeling. And this was written, He knelt. It is in the Acts of the Apostles, they sublime this moment that he was kneeling. It is moving. And then the apostle, some Peter, was kneeling before he raised the dead, and then St Paul was kneeling on the shore of Ephesus when he was saying farewell to the priests and bishops, there was kneeling, or everyone was kneeling, and so on.
And then we see that Paul says every knee should bend before the name of Jesus Christ. This is It is the first church, the church of the apostles. And then we know that from the testimony of church history. It is really a document transmitted by Eusebius of Caesarea, the great historian, that the first bishop of Jerusalem. It was st Jacob the minor, not the Great, the elder, and so he was the so-called brother of the law. He was the first bishop, and he was very venerated even by the Jews, because he was so observant of all the prescriptions and and Davis, they pointed out the. He is on his knees. The skin was so thick, like a camel’s, and so because he was continuously and always playing, kneeling on his knees.
So it is the apostle, Saint James. And then there is a famous saying from a desert father, from one of the sayings of the Desert Fathers of the first centuries. And this Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned in one of his books on liturgy that when there was once the devil appeared to Saint Hermits, the desert father, he saw him in a human body. But in the places where there was no Neil niece, he saw the devil with a body and legs, but without knees; there were no knees. And then this is why you have no knees. And the devil had to answer, because we do not kneel. The devil and we do not kneel. This is an old transmission of Desert Father and so on. There are plenty of examples that kneeling was common in the East and West, and even in the Orthodox Eastern rite, they also during the liturgy, the faithful make deep bows, and then they kneel on their knees, and then they bow with their head on the floor. So at least they also have the position, and sometimes in Lent time they are also kneeling during the Lent prayers, for example.
So it is a common, but this is the first, the importance of kneeling. The second, the communion rail. It’s even the Eastern Church has more than a communion rail, as we know the econostasis. It’s a wall that separates the sanctuary from the nave from the people. Even though it’s common, you know, it’s a wall with pictures in the doors they are closing, and so the Latin Church made these kinds of communion rails, or a kind of thing they were called in the first centuries. We have the earliest testimony from the fourth century in the Latin Church. They were called cancelli in Latin, so they were a kind of item that separates, a barrier, a barrier, yes, which separates the nave from the sanctuary. And even St Augustine. You know, St. Augustine was very traditional. And in the fourth century, there is an expression of his that people should prepare themselves worthily for the Holy Communion.
And if one dares to come to Holy Communion, not prepared, not worthy, he will send him back from the cancelli, so St. Augustine already mentioned this barrier in Latin de chancelle, saying that you must take care that you will not be dismissed and sent back to your place from the place where communion is distributed, and this is the barrier. And so, since then, since the fourth century, it was always the church. The Latin Church had this kind of, I would say, mini economists, with the communion realm of these, or in the Middle Ages, especially in Germany, there were some really stone walls separating a kind of iconostasis. This wall with a stone with a door, and sometimes there was a crucifix and icons.
Dr. Taylor Marshall: Yes, in northern Europe, they have what we call the root screen, which is a wooden apparatus that’s a barrier with the crucifix on it.
Bishop Schneider: Exactly, and so this is, and then the. Other, we have to see that there are two liturgical traditions, the eastern and the western, and both are the richness of the church, both in their characteristics, specific proper characteristics, and we have to not mix them up. We have to keep and so the Eastern form of veneration, it’s a deep bowing, or bowing until the Earth. We do not make this; we do this only very rarely, on Holy Friday, for example, or on the ordinations, the prostration. But the Eastern Rites have continuously these signs of prostration and so on. And this is their form of veneration, and our form. Since we do not have these frequent bowings and prostrations as they have, we have a simpler way, kneeling. But at least we have to keep them kneeling. When we abolish kneeling, we have no right. At least we have to have something, and this is our proper Latin, Roman tradition, kneeling, and we have to keep this as our proper expression of adoration and the Eastern rite. Have the others’ expression. And so both are in a different mentality also, but we have to keep our Latin Roman tradition.
Dr. Taylor Marshall: You’ve called for this crusade of reparation to right the wrongs of Eucharistic abuse, but also to console the heart of Jesus. Can you describe for the viewers what the theology of reparation is? Because I think from the 1960s, people have lost all sense of what reparation means towards God.
Bishop Schneider: Reparation, it is the day to repair what was broken, what was harmed. And this is reparation, the core, the essence of our redemption, of the redeeming work of Jesus Christ on the cross, His redeeming, salvific sacrifice is a redemption, and therefore he is called the Redemptor, the Redeemer. And so he again restored what was broken by the sin of Adam and our personal sins. And this is reparation, and only he is capable to make sufficient reparation, Jesus Christ, there is no other because he in our body, he made this in our human nature, offering himself, his body and blood as a sacrifice on the cross, loving sacrifice, and so all the moments of physical pains and sufferings and spiritual also his suffering in Gethsemane and on the cross and moved by love for the sinners and moved by the love for the Father. This is what I would describe as the meaning of reparation. But now comes the important thing, that God is so great and so loving to us that He invites us to take part in his work of reparation, as we can read very clearly in the Epistle of St Paul to the Colossians 124 and the geological foundation of our preparation.
And this St Paul says, there I rejoice in my sufferings, filling up, filling up what is lacking in Christ, sufferings for his body, the church. So it is a clear explanation of what preparation is for us that we also are called to feel. Up with our sufferings. What is still lacking in the efficiency of the body of Christ, for the members of the Body of Christ, His reparation has to be accepted by the members of the Body of Christ and by all people, by man. And so this is the meaning of reparation that God wants this. This is his will that we take part and take part and do reparation, also for our own sins. So in every confession, we receive a penance. This is a form of reparation for the consequences of our sins, and the Purgatory is also a kind of reparation for the consequences. And so we have to repair to make reparation also for the sins of others, because we are connected in the Mystical Body of Christ, and because Christ is touched with the sins of all human beings, of all men, as he expressed this into several saints, and as the magisterium of the Church teaches us, especially in the encyclical of Pius the 11th miserentissimus Redemptor. It is the encyclical par excellence, I would say, for the theology of reparation. So, the Pope explained all the aspects of the meaning of reparation there. So this is the church’s teaching of reparation, and our duty also.
And then we have the example of a lot of saints who practiced this, and who also wrote some; they left some works on this, on this topic. I would mention, as an example of reparation, the mentality of reparation. Maybe St Francis of Assisi. Why? Because of his stigmas, he had the wounds of Jesus, the stigma. And this is a participation in the suffering of Christ, really bodily. In my opinion, he is one of the first in our time, I mean, from the Middle Ages, who gave this example, and then the other saints who suffered vicariously. I mean, instead of the others, one famous saint, it’s a Dutch saint from the 15th century, Saint Lidina. She suffered. She was terribly suffering a young girl until the end of her life, only suffering and uniting. She was united in her sufferings with Christ, in the intention of reparation of the sins of man; then we have some other saints who taught this Saint John Eudes, a French saint from the beginning of the 17th century. He wrote profound explanations on the reparation. Then, of course, st Margaret, Mary Alacoque, her writings are extensively explained and mention the theme of reparation, especially in. I would recommend reading her autobiography she wrote about her life and the Lord. This would be a helpful reading on this theme, St. Margaret, Mary, then another, she’s not canonized, but she’s also important in the history of spirituality. Is the Catherine de Bar. She was called Mother Mathilde of the Blessed Sacrament in who lived in the 17th Century in Paris, and she founded the Benedictine Sisters of the Perpetual Adoration.
And so she also wrote very deeply and extensively about the theme of reparation. Silver Stream Priory in Ireland has now published a new book about this mother, Mctildy of the Blessed Sacrament, and her meditations on the Blessed Sacrament and the reparation. Don Mark, the prior, edited this publication, for example. And then we can mention as an example of our days of living the reparation spirituality. It was st Padre Pio with his stigmas. He offered this, and he experienced this as also a kind of reparation. But the PO should not forget the special meaning in the reparation theology. And have the messages of Fatima, Our Lady of Fatima. So in the message of Fatima, the expiation or reparation to atone for the sins, it’s a central theme. And our lady asked even the Praxis of the first five Saturdays for the intention of the reparation. And then we have the very moving examples of the children of Fatima, Saint Francisco Marto and Jacinta.
They both gave an example of a moving life of reparation by words, but more by their deeds. But I would also mention another case of the spirituality of reparation, which is maybe not so well-known, but in some countries, she is known. She was called The Little Nelly of Holy God of Cork in Ireland, a little girl of four years old, who was terribly sick. She had a kind of cancer or bones or tuberculosis of the bones. And she was in care of sisters and this little Nelly of the Holy God, because she spoke of God, always, the Holy God, or the poor Holy God. She met Jesus in the Eucharist, and she received Holy Communion at the age of four. And after the first Holy Communion, she was already very sick. She spent a couple of times, absorbed in prayer, this little, little child after the Holy Communion. And so she died because of these pains and her sickness at this young age. But she always when the sisters asked her, she said, I accept it for love of Holy God. It’s a moving example of a child of four years to live real reparation, expiation, to join the sufferings with Jesus and offering these sufferings to console Jesus. I hope this.
Dr. Taylor Marshall: We lost his excellency. Let’s get him back. Just a moment, we’ll get him right back here. I’m here. He is. We are live-streaming from Asia to America. See if we can try him again.
Bishop Schneider: Hello
Dr. Taylor Marshall: Here we are again. No worries, we have to be patient today.
Bishop Schneider: That’s right. Someone is not happy with our conversation.
Dr. Taylor Marshall: I was thinking the same thing but we will continue We will continue We will continue You know I have a daughter who’s four years old and she doesn’t have those miraculous graces that little Nelly has but I can already see talking to her she already has an awe and a reverence for the whole Eucharist although she does not receive She’s only ever been to the traditional Latin Mass so she sees communion on the tongue she sees the consecration and she sees the rails And besides what we say at home all of these things make an impression on her And my next daughter who’s seven who’s preparing for Holy Communion saw a video recently of Communion in the hand and she said to me Daddy that’s wrong So already these young children when they see the traditional Roman Rite and attend the Latin Mass it’s infused into them by just being there The liturgy and the Praxis is a catechism for the little minds the little hearts
Bishop Schneider: Yes it is very beautiful the example of your daughter but it is again the confirmation as our Lord said from the mouth of the children the wisdom of God speaks because the children are innocent and pure And in a pure soul the wisdom of God is more evident And so this is of course a good demonstration of the fact that we have to receive our Lord kneeling on the tongue
Dr. Taylor Marshall: She even said Daddy they need the pat She meant the patent but she called it the pat They need the pat because it might fall So already she doesn’t even know the words she calls it the pat but already she understands that protection needs to be made for the Eucharist And I think to myself here’s a seven year old girl who gets that who I never explained this to and she already understands this And yet we have priests and laymen who don’t seem to want to use a communion patent or use a rail It’s just frustrating
Bishop Schneider: This is a demonstration that the adults who have no sensibility of these signs have a lack of faith in them It’s an evident and a kind of non-Catholic understanding of the importance of the exterior signs of reverence It’s a kind of implicit Protestant mentality that we do not need signs and it’s against the entire economy of our salvation The signs are important even the details are important And so the children are teaching us And our Lord said If you will not become like children you will not enter the kingdom of God.
But I tell you another example Once I was in Italy and a parish priest invited me to speak to the children who were preparing for the first Holy Communion They were maybe eight or nine years old and I was speaking about Jesus in the Eucharist that He is our Lord He is our God in this holy host this little host And then when I finished I asked the children why we have to kneel when we receive Jesus in the Eucharist And then spontaneously a little boy shouted out in Italian per que e je zu because it is Jesus And this little boy answered because it is Jesus and no more It was so evident for this child it is Jesus.
And for these little children I explained this and they all understood But for some bishops and priests we have to explain everything for hours and they will not understand because there is a lack of faith a lack of love Ultimately to Jesus It also strikes me the episode in the gospel when Jesus was invited by the Pharisee Simon to a supper and then came a woman the sinner and the woman started to weep and with her tears to wash the feet of the Lord and then to anoint his feet with the oil.
Then this Pharisee was upset why allow to be touched by this sinner, and then Our Lord reproached Simon and said why did you not give me to wash my hands why did you not embrace me and kiss me when I came to you So it is little signs and Simon did not give a kiss to Our Lord He did not wash his feet and Our Lord expected this from him.
And I think the Lord will today, when these bishops and priests come to the judgment of God, to Christ the judge, He will say to them Why have you not observed respect and reverence with my body and these little children in the Church They did this like the woman, the sinner.
Dr. Taylor Marshall: Yes, from the mouths of babes We’ve seen these changes Of course this happened after the Second Vatican Council and with the Novus Ordo Some people are going back and rereading Sacrosanctum concilium which is the guiding document on the reform of the liturgy There seems to be some ambiguity in this document Do you think that parts of Sacrosanctum concilium should be criticized or questioned What should we understand happened in the 1960s from 63 to 69 about the liturgy and the changes
Bishop Schneider: Well, I think that first we have to look at what is good, and there is the first part of Sacrosanctum concilium, where it presents the general norms about liturgy. They are really good, and we can use them. For example, in the beginning number two, it’s a beautiful description of what liturgy is and what the church is. It stresses that what is human, what is visible, and what is temporal has to be oriented and submitted to what is divine, what is heavenly what is eternal.
This also applies to the liturgy and therefore, from this principle in number two, the Novus Ordo and the ad populum celebrations are a plain contradiction to number two of Sacrosanctum concilium. In number eight. It says that our earthly liturgy has to be a participation in the heavenly liturgy of the angels. This characteristic has to be observed. And in number 23 it says that in liturgy there should not be innovations unless Then comes the famous comma unless there is a real necessity of the church and unless there is an organic improvement with what already existed It is a good principle but not so clear as usually in the Vatican Council documents They express good truth but in one sentence they in some way relativize it This is the problem But in general the first part is good I think and also the stress on Latin That Latin must be maintained in the liturgy and the people should know to sing the ordinarium So it is a mandate of the council and Gregorian chant has to be the priority in the church It’s also good So we have good statements there.
But unfortunately, the other practical points are, in my opinion, not so good because when you read for every sacrament, it says the books have to be reviewed. The rites have to be reviewed, and so one gets the impression that we arrived in 63 and now we make a completely new liturgy. Everything has to be renewed. What the church kept for 1000 years now has to be reviewed It gives the impression that it was bad before and it is a kind of implicit condemnation of the rites which the church celebrated continuously for centuries This is dangerous and revolutionary even though it was generally said to have to be reviewed Of course this is a very relative phrase You can review and change maybe one word and that is also reviewed but you can change completely the rite and the meaning and structure of the rite.
This happened in many sacraments when you compare It is a general weakening of the clarity of the theology of the sacraments. It is more anthropocentric in the new rites of the sacraments and lacks sacrality and mystery. There is a slight tendency to Pelagianism that we have to do something, we have to instruct people, but the sacraments are the works of Christ in the first place, and He is working to prepare people. Before the council, people were prepared for the sacraments. Adults had good catechesis of preparation, and even children were better prepared theologically and catechetically than after the council. They had knowledge of what the sacrament is and the rest is the mysterious rite where God is working and when God is working we cannot analyze it like mathematics or geometry or make it only a conference like Protestant preaching and gathering So this is my intention But I repeat we should not invalidate Sacrosanctum concilium We should take the expressions which are good and with this we can correct the abuses which are now in the official reform of liturgy I don’t speak about evident abuses I speak about the official liturgical reforms which have to be changed to come closer to the principles of Sacrosanctum concilium.
Dr. Taylor Marshall: There’s a growing awareness, Your Excellency, not just among traditionalists, but also among lay Catholics and priests, that our current crisis relates to what we might call problem passages in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. I’m thinking about liturgical things, like you mentioned, syncretism, false ecumenism, things like that. Muslims adore the same God as us, Buddhists can attain perfect detachment in this life, Hindus contemplate the divine, all these kinds of things. These are problem passages. Can you speak to the concern that we Catholics, as laymen or bishops, can discuss or perhaps even criticize these passages of the council without being schismatics and without being outside the church? Can you explain how this is possible?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, I think first we have to be very intellectually honest and look at the evidence. Even good Catholics, conservative Catholics, over the past fifty years, have forced interpretations. They would call this the squaring of the circle, or mental acrobatics, trying to harmonize what is evidently impossible to harmonize. Of course, the majority of the texts of the Vatican Council are good, and some are ambiguous. The ambiguous ones we can interpret within the tradition of the Church in a benevolent way. But there are some expressions, not many, yet they are important and have very bad consequences, as you mentioned.
The greatest problem with these texts, in my opinion, can be reduced to one topic: doctrinal relativism, specifically relativism concerning our Lord, Jesus Christ. Relativization of the Gospel, of Jesus Christ, His incarnation, His redeeming work, and the Church of the Catholic faith, the only one. All these expressions you mentioned ultimately have their roots in relativism, relativizing our Lord Jesus Christ. This, to me, is the greatest sin, a betrayal.
For example, Lumen Gentium 16 says that Catholics and Muslims adore God nobiscum, with us. This is wrong. Even though one might try to interpret it, the phrase itself is incorrect because when we speak about adoration, using nobiscum implies the same act of adoration. Catholics adore God supernaturally as adopted children of God, in Christ and the Holy Spirit, whereas Muslims adore God naturally, according to their human capacity and knowledge of God. This is a substantial difference in the act of adoration. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that Catholics and Muslims perform the same act of adoration. We can say Muslims adore the one true God, but only naturally, while we adore Him supernaturally in Christ.
Another very dangerous text is Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom. It says human beings cannot be forced to believe in God, which is true. But the second part says that religious freedom is also a right to practice and spread religion according to one’s conscience, individually or collectively. This falsely equates a divine right with human choice, implying it is acceptable to spread idolatry or false religions as a right of human nature, which is not willed positively by God.
These phrases, from Lumen Gentium 16 and Dignitatis Humanae, are the roots from which all the relativism in the Church over the last five decades has developed. The Assisi meeting convoked by John Paul II and the veneration of the Pachamama idol in the Vatican last October are the logical consequences. The notion that it is God’s positive will that pagans venerate idols as a human right stems directly from these relativistic texts. Those who defend Dignitatis Humanae might say that the Church still teaches the moral duty to seek the true religion, the Catholic Church, but the second part of the text undermines that. Similarly, the idea that Buddhists or Hindus can reach superior illumination on their own is heretical, Pelagian, and relativistic, denying that Christ is the only source of grace.
I believe the Church should formally correct the expression in Lumen Gentium 16 and in the ecumenical decree on non-Christians that claims the Holy Spirit is using heretical or pagan communities as instruments. This leads to relativism. Catholics can be faithful, and Protestants or Muslims can exist, but relativizing Christ and the Gospel is the deepest problem of Vatican II.
Dr. Taylor Marshall: Related to that, Pope Francis has removed the title Vicar of Christ from the official list of titles. What is your reaction?
Bishop Schneider: It is very sad. Vicar of Christ is one of the most beautiful titles of the successor of St Peter. Popes are vicars, representing Christ, not themselves, the College of Cardinals, or bishops. They are a visible sign of a higher reality. Abolishing this title increases the misunderstanding that the papacy is personal property or an institution of man, rather than a vicarious ministry. Every pope should be humble as a vicar, even the supreme shepherd. This is most fitting for the meaning of the papal office.
Dr. Taylor Marshall: One final question. In the last five to seven years of Pope Francis’ pontificate, with events like Amoris Laetitia, the Abu Dhabi document, and the Pachamama idols, what do you think is the most significant or dangerous event or document?
Bishop Schneider: The most dangerous document is the Abu Dhabi document, which, while not magisterial, is treated as having high moral authority. It equates Christ with Muhammad, Buddha, and others, implying that all religions are equally willed by God. This is a direct blow to the Gospel and the Church’s mission to lead humanity to Christ as the only Savior. The most tragic event is the Pachamama veneration in the Vatican. This is abominable idolatry in the heart of the Church, akin to the golden calf, and represents a severe attack by Satan. But Christ will triumph. The faithful, through faith, sacraments, reparation, and grace, will help renew the Church, restoring her radiance as the Bride of Christ.
Dr. Taylor Marshall: And beautiful and well said. Thank you so much, Your Excellency. And before I ask for you to perhaps close us with an Ave Maria and a blessing, we would love that. I’m going to link the the prayer that’s over at Remnant and also your website, and encourage everyone we have all, if you are Catholic and you’ve been Catholic for more than a year, you have likely seen disrespect, or perhaps even a desecration or disrespect to the Eucharist. We all, even though we aren’t the ones who perform a desecration, we all need to make reparation and console the Sacred Heart, and His Excellency is calling us, globally, all over the world, to do this. And I think this is a means by which the church. As you just said, Your Excellency will be renewed.
It will move the Sacred Heart to rescue us and to reform the church and to give us holy priests and bishops and religious and lay people and families, so that once again, the Catholic church grows strong and can evangelize all the peoples of the earth, so your excellency, I’d love for a blessing. If there’s anything you want to add at the end, I will make sure to link the prayer of reparation that you have written. It’s a beautiful prayer, so that people can print that out and have it and pray it in their homes or in their churches, and also link the article to this crusade of reparation. Is there anything you’d like to add before we close?
Bishop Schneider: I thank you for your witness and all who participate in the crusade. I would call this the powerful army of the little ones. Continue faithfully.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Ave María, grátia plena, Dóminus tecum; benedícta tu in muliéribus, et benedíctus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta María, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatóribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.
Glória Patri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sancto; sicut erat in princípio, et nunc et semper, et in saécula saeculórum. Amen.
Dominus vobiscum
Dr. Taylor Marshall: Et cum, spiritu tuo
Bishop Schneider: Et benedíctio Dei omnipoténtis, Patris, et Fílii, et Spíritus Sancti, descéndat super vos et maneat semper. Amen.
Dr. Taylor Marshall: Amen, Your Excellency. Thank you so much. It has been an honor and a blessing to speak with you. On behalf of lay Catholics everywhere, thank you for your witness. May God richly bless you and reward you.
Bishop Schneider: Goodbye, God bless you.
Dr. Taylor Marshall: Thanks, everyone, for watching. Please like and subscribe. God bless and Godspeed.