Kennedy Hall: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Kennedy Report, a special edition with a very special and holy man. I’m very humbled to have Bishop Schneider on the stream this evening. Your Excellency, how are you?
Bishop Schneider: Thank you.
Kennedy Hall: Good. This is wonderful. Today, ladies and gentlemen, we’re going to talk about Bishop Schneider’s books. Here we have, if you can see it on the screen, the Catholic Mass. My green screen technology is obscuring the title, but it is The Catholic Mass. And we have The Springtime That Never Came. If you haven’t read them, they’re both wonderful. I went through them, and we’re going to talk about them. The links for both are in the description for anyone who wants to purchase them, and I suggest that you do. The Springtime That Never Came is an interview-style book with a Polish journalist, translated into English, and The Catholic Mass is Bishop Schneider’s book, along with an author named Aurelio Porfiri. Porfiri, Italian, I would imagine. Is he Italian, Your Excellency?
Bishop Schneider: Yes.
Kennedy Hall: Good. We’ll talk about those things, but first, we have to pay the bills, ladies and gentlemen. We want to give a shoutout to our sponsor, Noble Gold. Now is the time to set goals for the next cycle of inflation. This way, you’re always moving forward, growing, making money, and not losing it. Imagine having more financial freedom, giving you time for a little more fun. Start a gold IRA with Noble Gold now and fight inflation. This month, for every IRA above 20k, you’ll get a free three-ounce silver American Virtue coin. You can’t go wrong with Noble Gold. Call 1-877-646-5347 or visit noblegoldinvestments.com. Links are also in the description.
One reason, Your Excellency, I like working with that company is because gold is something you can invest in without getting into usury, which is always good for a Catholic to consider. Wonderful.
I want to speak first about your book, The Springtime That Never Came. Would you be able to give the audience some background about how that came about with the gentleman from Poland?
Bishop Schneider: It was not my idea to do this book. Mr. Pavel Lishki is a good Catholic journalist in Warsaw. He read my first book-length interview with Diane Montagna and Christopher Wendt. After he read it, he wrote me. I did not know him personally, and he asked me to visit him in Kazakhstan to write a new book, deepening the topics touched on in the Christus Vincit book, and to go more in-depth on these items. I agreed, so he came to me, and we did this interview.
Kennedy Hall: So this was an extension of the topics in Christus Vincit, which came out in 2018?
Bishop Schneider: Christus Vincit came out in October 2019, and we did this interview in February 2020.
Kennedy Hall: Okay, that makes sense. I know you’re in Kazakhstan. I am near the Great Lakes in southwestern Ontario, Canada. We don’t share a time zone, but we do share our love of snow. How has your spring been over there?
Bishop Schneider: Spring is slowly coming, but winter had a lot of snow and cold, similar to your region.
Kennedy Hall: We play a lot of hockey. I remember growing up watching the World Junior Hockey Championships when the Soviet Union was breaking apart. The Belarusians and Kazakhstanis had good teams for a few years because of the residual Soviet hockey system. So as a kid, I watched Kazakhstan just because it happened to be in the hockey world.
In your book The Springtime That Never Came, the title is apt. I like how the author describes the bleak winter when he came to visit you. Coming from a Polish winter and arriving in the Eurasian steppe is like stepping into Winnipeg in the heart of Canada, blisteringly cold. It’s a great analogy for the situation in the Church. In chapter three, you talk about the Gnostic threat. Can you explain the inspiration behind calling this chapter “The Gnostic Threat”?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, the Gnosticism. It was a movement, a kind of fashion in the intellectual circles two thousand years ago, exactly in the time of our Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles in the first two centuries. It was spread as a kind of substitute for religion. It was a kind of sect, I would say, a religious and philosophical sect. It was a mixture of philosophy and religion, and it was a very dangerous movement. and it is still operating because the core of the error of this philosophical and religious movement consists in the idea that man can, with his thinking alone, achieve salvation independently of the objective reality outside him. So it is an inside subjectivistic creation of a subjectivistic world, a fantastic world, and in this sense also creating your own religion.
The danger is that in this Gnostic movement, it is not important what you are doing in your life or your lifestyle. It is only the thought, the thinking, that will save you. This is a huge deception that the devil inspired in these people. This attitude continued in several sects, but it is the core of the Freemasonry ideology, the Gnostic, because it is the same principle. Freemasonry took a lot of Gnostic content, because the basic Gnostic elements are dualism, the metaphysical dualism, that there is an equal so so-called good god and so-called evil god on the same level. This is satanic because Satan wants to put himself on the same level as God. He knows that he cannot be superior to God but wants to be on the same level. This is the most dangerous temptation for humankind and for us, to put ourselves at the level of God with our own human natural powers.
This is one of the main elements of the Freemasonic movement and partly also of Martin Luther and Protestantism. They are partly also Gnostic in the sense of the sola fide, and that they create their own understanding of the Bible and therefore of God, independently of the exterior objective tradition of the Catholic Church, and also the negligence of the importance of good works to achieve salvation, which Luther rejected. So we see that this aspect of Gnosticism is operating very much within the Catholic Church since the Council, this attitude to create your own new ideas and the naturalism, with your own human naturalistic powers, to achieve salvation.
Kennedy Hall: Yeah, it is great. I was going to ask you to elaborate on how Gnosticism plays into Freemasonry, but you did that for us already. Again, everyone, if you are just joining us, we are speaking right now with Bishop Schneider about his book The Springtime That Never Came, and we are talking about chapter three, which really stuck out to me. It is on Gnosticism.
Now I want to ask you a maybe a little controversial question. I am a traditionalist. You obviously, we would say Bishop Schneider is a traditionalist. These terms are useful, but as someone who loves the tradition, I also want to make sure that even in tradition, we do not fall prey to Gnostic traps and things like that. Sometimes we might think in the traditional movement we would be immune to such things, but this is my opinion, that often people get very caught up in private revelations, which are extremely important, but to the point where we would say they go down the rabbit hole so far, over and over again, about these private revelations, where it might actually come at the detriment of actual public revelation, not sticking to the things that will save our soul. Have you seen anything like that within the Church recently?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, this is also a true danger, exactly. Especially since the Council, there are ever more so-called private revelations. Presumably, they speak as if they have divine revelation, so God from heaven gives messages. We have to be very careful because the Catholic faith is based on the objective exterior transmission of divine revelation, and God equipped His Church with all the necessary means. We have the entire fullness of the truth in the traditional faith, in the catechisms, in the Church Fathers, in the Magisterium, and also the explanations in those sure texts of the Magisterium. We have the beautiful liturgy, which is really a heavenly liturgy, the traditional liturgy. In the Catholic Church, we have the proven, century-old devotions which the Church and the popes recommended, especially the Holy Rosary and the other pious exercises which the saints practiced.
We have such a richness, really a richness of how to practice our faith concretely with these Catholic devotions. For centuries, we have had the lives of the saints, so rich that we can be inspired by them so much for our lives and even for our time in our day. The saints are always timely. We have this, and we only have to use better the richness of the Catholic tradition, of the Church Fathers, for example, the works of the Doctors of the Church, which are so rich. This is sufficient.
It is not a characteristic of Catholicism to have continuous private revelations or to base oneself on them; otherwise, it will be similar to a method of the oracles, as the pagans had. They had to go to Delphi, the oracle that always had to say what was coming from heaven. You have to do this. This was practiced by the pagans in Greece. But we are not these. We have to go in faith. This is a temptation even for devout people. They want at every step, for every decision, a direct communication with heaven, which in most cases is a pious deception or imagination of themselves. The devil is very cunning to deceive even pious souls. We have plenty of examples from the history of the Church, and the Church Fathers always, and this was characteristic of the Catholic Church, the Church Fathers and the popes through time have always warned to be very careful, very vigilant, toward the so-called private messages and revelations.
The Church did not reject in principle the possibility of private revelations, because Saint Paul said, Do not extinguish the Spirit, prove, but prove all. This is the task of the Church, to prove. And the Church did this. So the Church was always very sober. This was characteristic of the apostles until our day, always. And this should be today also, to be sober, not to accept all the so-called private revelations, and to wait until the Church, in her wisdom and experience, gives a judgment. And private revelations are not necessary for our salvation. This would not be Catholic. This would become a kind of Protestantism, because basically Martin Luther had the principle of private revelation, I mean private illumination and private revelation. He said that God gave him this light. He writes this in his works. Luther said that the Holy Spirit illuminated him to understand the message of Scripture in this way or that way. So in some way, the so-called Catholic private visionaries, and the exuberance, are touching the principle of subjectivism in religion. This is dangerous. It is not Catholic. Subjectivism in private revelation remains a kind of subjectivism.
But I repeat, the Catholic Church does not categorically or in principle reject, but is always sober. We have to always be in this way and wait until the Church examines and gives us a guarantee. We have, for example, in our time, the Church approved Fatima. Fatima is timely. It is still not yet fully accepted by the faithful and by the clergy, the message which God gave through Our Lady in Fatima. It would be sufficient to fulfill what Our Lady asked in Fatima. Thanks be to God, the pope finally consecrated Russia to her Immaculate Heart last March twenty-five, but we have to continue what Our Lady demanded. She said that it is the will of God to give to our time, to humankind and the Church, a special spiritual help, and this is devotion to the Immaculate Heart. So we have to spread this. I would advise you, and those who are good Catholics, to be sober and not to be prey to every so-called private revelation.
Kennedy Hall: I’m well. You’re exactly right. I’m really glad you brought up the consecration. Right, Sean, so I believe that Pope Francis’s consecration was valid. One of the things that convinced me was the studying I did when I used to work for the Fatima Center, and I know they have taken a different view. They are saying that they don’t believe it was valid. But over the years, the Fatima Center did a lot of great research, and I was very grateful for all the things I learned there.
One of the reasons why I believe it was valid was because, when I looked into the actual theology of how a consecration works, I studied what I call the very high bar of sacramental theology. How could a consecration of the Eucharist be valid, which is a very high bar? There are rubrics, tradition, and it is very specific. It has to be done in a certain way.
But when you go to the prayerful consecration by a pope, a priest, or even a parent of a child, for example, there is more wiggle room. If I say a consecration to St Joseph in the morning, I could say something long and elaborate, but I could also just say, I consecrate myself to St Joseph today. I am very busy. I have to make my children breakfast. I do not have time for a long one. But it is still valid as long as you intend to consecrate a particular object or subject to a particular thing, so and so to the Immaculate Heart, whatever.
So I do not think there is a question that it was valid. But one of the objections people give us, and I want you to answer this because I get this all the time, is that people say things like, well, if it was done, why hasn’t anything happened to prove it yet? I think this is a misunderstanding of what was actually promised, but perhaps you could elaborate on why that is not the best way to look at it.
Bishop Schneider: This is, again, why we have to have the right understanding of the consecration, because this is not a sacrament. A sacrament operates instantly when the conditions of a sacrament are fulfilled. We know the material, let us say the Eucharist, bread and wine, and the words of the sacrament spoken by the priest at the consecration, and he has the right intention to do what the Church is doing, then instantly the consecration is happening, independently of the holiness of the priest. The same with baptism, the sacraments have an immediate objective working because they are sacraments.
A consecration, the consecration the Pope is doing, is a sacramental. It is not a sacrament. In Latin, it is a sacramentale. It is a kind of intercessory prayer. It is a work of the Church directly, not of God Himself directly. It is a work of the Church and depends on the prayers of the Church, but in the eyes of God, it has an objective value because it is a work of the Church. The consecration was not instituted by Christ but by the Church, but God gave His Church the power to pronounce prayers and consecrations. Therefore, the effect of such a consecration, which is not a sacrament, is not immediate. Otherwise, it would be against Catholic teaching. We would be putting on the same level a sacramental and a non-sacramental action.
Another aspect is that people who are awaiting this consecration of Fatima, which the Pope did, have an immediate effect, in my opinion, have a deficient understanding of this. It is a kind of understanding like a magic act. It is not a magic act where you do something, and then the result is produced. This attitude, implicitly, is a lack of faith. It is a lack of faith. They want to see the result immediately, and this is not Catholic. This is not Catholic. We have to give God the time. As our Lord said to the apostles before He ascended to heaven, it is not upon you to know the times which the Father established in His wisdom. And the same I would say to these Catholics, it is not upon you to know exactly the time when the effect of the consecration which the Pope did in March will have its effect.
It is upon God. Our task, and the Pope’s task, was to do what Our Lady asked. Then we leave it to God in His wisdom. It is not necessary that the effect would come immediately, at once, in a moment. The effects can also come gradually, step by step. Maybe God will operate in this way. Leave it to God.
Kennedy Hall: Yeah, that is exactly correct. And there is someone who asks another question, which I think is pretty easy to answer. They asked, What about the fact that we do not know how many bishops participated? Does that cast doubt on the validity of all that is required? And you can tell me if I am on the right track or not.
Our Lady said to do it in union with the bishops. Whenever the Pope does something publicly as the Vicar of Christ, as the head of the bishops on Earth, and says he is doing so in union with them, that is de facto something done in union with the bishops, because they are all in union with him every day by saying Mass for him. They mention his name in the canon. So I think the fact that he did it as a public act, as the head of the Church and the head of the bishops, that is a de facto activity in union, and he also invited them. What would you say to a question like that?
Bishop Schneider: Exactly, I agree with you. You explained to the lady, you already gave the answer, because the fact that the Pope invited all bishops, and he even wrote a personal letter, that is right, a personal letter, which I also got. Every bishop got a letter from the Pope, and he invited us. To our knowledge, the overwhelming majority of the bishops did this. It is not a question of arithmetic, 100 percent.
And let us say, in an ecumenical council, when all the bishops of the world are united, if the majority of the bishops would vote for a deficient formulation about faith, or an ambiguous one, and the minority would vote for a clear statement, and the Pope would join the minority, not the majority, then it would be the decision of the entire Catholic Church. Exactly. The Pope would proclaim a truth of faith or confirm a truth of faith with the minority of the bishops of the episcopate, not with the majority. Usually, it is with the majority, but from the point of view of Catholic doctrine, it is sufficient that the Pope and the minority constitute the entire Church.
Kennedy Hall: Yes, the bishops, we might say, act as council. But at the end of the day, the king gets to make the decision, you know, and therefore it has been made.
Bishop Schneider: Yes, but the Pope, I would say, is not a king, because in this case of the magisterium, he is acting in a council together, really collegially with the bishops. This is an extraordinary case. In this case, because this one college is like the apostles were, it is under extraordinary circumstances. The Pope is acting in a strict, collegial way, but the final decision depends on him. Of course.
Kennedy Hall: One of the reasons why people were yearning for the consecration to take place is because of the crisis we find ourselves in. If we get back to your book, The New Springtime, there are two things I want to ask, because I know everyone is eager to hear about Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX. But before we do that, I was struck by something in chapter three, where the author said that we might be in the worst time since the Arian crisis, maybe worse, maybe worse than that, I do not know. You seem to agree with the book. Could you explain why you would think that this time in history could be on par with, or more difficult than, a time like the Arian crisis, which was obviously very bad?
Bishop Schneider: The Arian crisis was concentrated only on one topic of the faith, the divinity of the Son of God. In that case, it was the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Of course, it is the central mystery of our faith, and the true understanding of the Trinity determines whether we are Christians or not. It was a question of life and death for the Church. If we do not truly believe in the consubstantial Trinity, that the three persons have the same divinity, then we are substantially like pagans, or Jewish people, or Muslims, who accept that there is only one supreme God and the others are creatures. The same was true of the Arian heresy, and it was very dangerous.
But today, we have a crisis that touches almost all the mysteries of the faith, including the Holy Trinity. Many so-called modernist liberals in the Catholic Church over the last sixty years have proven that they do not have the true Catholic understanding of the Holy Trinity and the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. What is most dangerous, and what has characterized the crisis in the Church since the Council, is doctrinal relativism, moral relativism, and liturgical relativism. This relativistic mentality is the most dangerous, because it says that truth is always changing. There is no stability, no constant knowledge of a given truth that was revealed. Truth always changes according to the historical situation and the mentality of people.
Basically, this attitude assumes that man creates his own understanding of religion. It is, in essence, the abolition of divine revelation itself. This is the danger in our time. Doctrinal relativism is, I repeat, spreading through all of the truth. There is a weakening and distorted understanding of almost all Catholic truth today, in so many seminaries and theological faculties. Even the basic question, what is truth, is undermined.
Kennedy Hall: I think this ties into, in this book, one of your discussions with the author, if I try to pronounce his name, Lischske. There you go. He talks about Archbishop Lefebvre’s critique of Dignitatis Humanae and the confusion surrounding that Second Vatican Council document regarding the idea of religious liberty.
On the one hand, we have a natural right not to be coerced. Conversion has to be a matter of the assent of the will. It is not like an Islamic perspective, where people are forced to convert; that would be wrong. But on the other hand, that does not mean that false religions have equality of rights in public and in the state. This is where the confusion happens in Dignitatis Humanae.
I want to read a quick passage from the book. Your assessment:
As the dust has settled, we have come to see that Lefebvre was correct in his critique of Dignitatis Humanae. It is often the case in history that people are not understood until some time after their death. Occasionally, a certain distance is needed. Now, almost fifty years after the discussion on the meaning of religious freedom in which Archbishop Lefebvre participated, we can see and understand more clearly the errors he identified. We can see the consequences brought about by an ambiguous understanding of religious freedom. First, Assisi, now Abu Dhabi, from this perspective. We can clearly see how Archbishop Lefebvre’s arguments were correct, and we can see his deep solicitude and accurate diagnosis of the dangers as early as the 1960s and 1970s. It happens that prophets are not recognized. His was truly a prophetic voice, and, as prophets are not recognized, as was the case here, the prophetic voice of Archbishop Lefebvre was simply ignored.
So, how do we reckon this? I believe Lefebvre was saintly. In fact, we have his picture on our wall, by our statue of Fatima, where we pray the Rosary as a family. I am convinced that he is vindicated historically, but it is a difficult situation for many Catholics who have a great affection for John Paul II, as they were obviously at odds at the end of Lefebvre’s life. How can we appreciate that Lefebvre was correct in light of the controversy that surrounded his life? What would you say about that?
Bishop Schneider: Well, we have to look first at the truth itself, and to be, as the Latin proverb says, sine ira et studio, to approach the question calmly and objectively and to see what truth is. We have to examine this carefully, without doing mental acrobatics or trying to square the circle, simply to be intellectually honest.
The text itself is at least highly ambiguous, and I would even say erroneous, but there is no problem because it is a declaration, not a decree of the Council. It is not an ex cathedra definition. The Council purposely chose the title of “declaration,” which is a very low level of doctrinal affirmation of the Church. The entire Council did not have the intention to propose to the faithful something definite, a definite teaching. It explicitly stated that this was not the intention of the Council.
So Dignitatis Humanae is a new teaching by the Council, and the Council did not want to impose this in a definitive manner. Therefore, we can discuss this, and we can express our critiques with respect, for the love of truth, for the love of the Church, and for the salvation of souls. The interpretation and practical implementation of Dignitatis Humanae caused great harm to the Church and to the Catholic faith because it relativized the uniqueness of the Catholic faith and became a tool promoting religious relativism, which we have seen in the so-called interreligious meetings and dialogues, such as Assisi and Abu Dhabi. In itself, there is confusion.
You have a natural right not to be forced in matters of religion. This is true, but it is not the full truth because there is more to consider. This right applies only to the true faith, the Catholic faith. You cannot be forced to believe in error, but you can be limited in spreading idolatry or false worship, which God forbids. In this sense, you do not have a natural right to propagate a false religion in the same way that you have a right not to be forced to believe in the true God. True faith requires freedom, but false religion can and should be limited.
God commanded in Holy Scripture to limit the spread of error, and the Church has always taught this for two thousand years. Until the Second Vatican Council, a wrong religion or error did not have a natural right not to be limited. This is obvious.
Kennedy Hall: Obvious. Please continue.
Bishop Schneider: I think the contribution of Archbishop Lefebvre, I consider his intervention on this topic, prophetic and helpful. It was a solitary voice, but now, after fifty or sixty years, we are seeing more clearly the consequences of the dangerous teaching of Dignitatis Humanae. I believe that in the future, the Church will correct this teaching of Dignitatis Humanae, of course, respectfully, but correctly.
Kennedy Hall: I think you’re exactly correct. And two things. First, a friend of mine in the chat asked her, his question is, how do we as Catholic ladies still live out our duty as Catholics to submit to the troubling documents with filial assent of intellect and will? Seems to me that, because they’re declarations, we would just go with the theological notes and sort of assent to the higher teaching. Would that be a correct way of looking at it?
Bishop Schneider: I think that this proposition to assent with our intellect and will, I consider it not applicable to the ordinary daily Magisterium of the Pope. It is an exaggeration. It was never the case in the history of the Church that the Church demanded such a thing from Catholics. This category, to assent with your intellect and will, should only be referred to the truths of ex cathedra definitions of dogmas and those truths which are proposed ultimately and definitely.
To the ordinary Magisterium, the ordinary, meaning the daily Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops, you cannot apply such a high demand. It is an exaggeration. We have to correct this, and I hope that in the future the Church will drop these expressions from the profession of faith. It was newly introduced only with the First Vatican Council, reflecting an exaggerated understanding of papal authority, which we have to correct to return to the balance that operated in the Church in the times of the Fathers of the Church. From the first millennium until the nineteenth century, the Church never demanded such expressions.
Kennedy Hall: My friend is very grateful for your answer. Thank you. And well, as you say, we have to look to the example of the Fathers in the first years of the Church. That is what the modernists will tell us they are doing. But in reality, it is a disguise where they pick and choose various things in an antiquarian fashion. All was done 2000 years ago, therefore it is better. What you are saying is that we look back to the sense of the faith that we see at all times, especially in those great ages of faith. When I look at a man like Marcel Lefebvre, I am reminded of, and I wrote it down because I knew I would forget, Saint Eusebius of Samosata. They also call him by another title, I think it is Verse, though I cannot remember exactly how it is pronounced. He was an exiled bishop during the Arian crisis, and when he returned from exile, the term exile is interchangeable with excommunication in that context. In the first few hundred years, he went around ordaining and consecrating bishops and priests with no jurisdiction at all. I believe he went further than Marcel Lefebvre and essentially assigned parishes and dioceses. But his justification was that the faithful have a right to the faith. They have a right to save their souls, and if the bishops are Arians, this is not something we can simply stand by and watch. Now, when people hear that the faithful have a right, we do live in an age of great licentiousness and egoism, with our civil rights and so forth. But when we properly understand this, at least as far as I can tell, the natural law imposes on us an obligation to worship the true God with the true sacrifice, and we owe God this true worship out of justice for our Creator. Therefore, it is the Church’s duty to provide the faith to us, because it is our duty to provide true worship to God, and rights and duties go together. Does this sound like something you would agree with?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, this is true, exactly. They were the bishops, Saint Joseph of Vercelli in Italy, Bishop of Vercelli, and also Saint Hilary of Poitiers. At the same time, they were exiled because of their fidelity to the Catholic faith, and they ordained bishops for the sake of the Catholic faith, to provide the faithful with good pastors, good shepherds. In the first millennium, it was generally not required for every Episcopal ordination to have the explicit consent of the Pope. It was implicitly expressed when the bishops maintained hierarchical union with the Pope as Bishop of Rome. Only in the Middle Ages did it become more explicitly centralized, which is not required by the faith. To be a Catholic bishop, it is not by divine law necessary that the selection be done by the Pope or that every consecration require explicit ad hoc agreement from the Pope. What was required by divine law was that the consecrated bishop express fully and externally his union with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, which he did by mentioning the Pope in the canon. This is the deepest union possible in the Church with the Holy Eucharist. When a bishop publicly recognizes the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, that is sufficient.
Exaggerated papalism started after the Council of Trent, which is understandable given the attacks of the Protestants. It was a human response to historical circumstances, but the understanding of the papal office became excessive. The consecrations that Archbishop Lefebvre performed were in no way systematic. He did not have any improper intention. He acted for the sake of the Church, out of love for the Pope, and for the honor of the Holy See. He mentioned the Pope in the canon, and the new bishops ordained by him did the same, which is sufficient given the grievous historical circumstances. Even under the pontificate of John Paul II, there was much confusion, including the spread of interreligious dialogue and ecumenism, which undermined the uniqueness of the Catholic Church, and the liturgical crisis continued.
In the light of 2000 years of Church history, what Archbishop Lefebvre did, even if apparently illegal, was carried out in extraordinary circumstances and with the pure intention of remaining in union with the Pope, both dogmatically and canonically. This is similar to what bishops like Eusebius, Hilary, and Athanasius did. Even when Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Liberius, he continued to consecrate bishops in Egypt as the Primate, but he did this in interior union with the Pope. He even excused the Pope in one of his writings, acknowledging the excommunication was done under pressure. He acted with great delicacy but continued his work for the love of the Church and the truth.
Kennedy Hall: You know, Archbishop Lefebvre was very much an ultramontane. He loved the Pope. He had the true spirit of Vatican One, I would say. When I look at his life, you know, if you love the Pope as a Catholic, it is kind of like with Noah, you want to cover your father’s nakedness. He believed that Paul VI loved the Church and that John Paul II loved the Church. If they really did, they would not want to see it fall further into ruin, because they love it. When I look at his life, it seems almost like an active filial devotion to do something when his father, for some reason, was not able to do it. I think it demonstrates a deep love for the papacy as a whole, not just for the men who were the Popes.
I want to move on to your book on the Mass, but just before I do that, because you mentioned the liturgy, you spent some time visiting the Society seminaries and the general house. Cardinal Gagnon, a great French Canadian, I am a big fan as a Canadian. He said that the seminary of Acone specifically should be the model for all seminaries on Earth, which is high praise. I have also become friends with Father Charles Murr, who was a very close friend of Cardinal Gagnon and has written some books influenced by him. What was your impression of the seminaries when you spent time with the seminarians?
Bishop Schneider: I had a good impression. I visited several houses, several seminaries of the Society of Pius X, and I always found a healthy atmosphere, even from a human perspective, a very normal, fraternal atmosphere. The observance of the rules of the house was, in my opinion, exemplary. The seminarians and priests kept a good observance of religious life and piety. I observed that the prayers were offered with real devotion and that they were prayed for the Pope, even publicly, naming Pope Francis. This, for me, was a good example. The discipline was also very good.
In general, I had a positive impression. This style of seminary, which Archbishop Lefebvre established at Acone and other seminaries of the Society of Pius X, was also continued by the Fraternity of Saint Peter. They preserved this style of life and discipline because they came from the Society of Pius X and continued it. It was nothing new, only the same style and discipline that the Church had maintained for centuries until the Second Vatican Council.
Kennedy Hall: Exactly. Regarding the Mass, because I know we probably have only ten or fifteen minutes left, I wanted to make sure we talked about this book. I recommend everyone read it. I will just name a few recommendations. You have Cardinal Zen, God save him, given the situation in China right now, Scott Hahn, Cardinal Sarah. These are formidable and sizable intellects in the Catholic world. That is high praise for such a book.
The structure of the book is really like a catechism on the true spirit of the Mass. It covers everything: Mass as prayer, adoration, ritual, sacrifice, splendor, thanksgiving, listening, and salvation. But what comes at the end of the book is something I want to get your comment on because it was striking to me. You quote Cardinal Ratzinger. The quote is as follows: if the liturgy appears first of all as the workshop for our activity, then what is essential is being forgotten. God, for the liturgy is not about us, but about God. Forgetting God is the most imminent danger of our age. In contrast, the liturgy should be a sign of God’s presence. Yet what happens if the habit of forgetting God makes itself at home in the liturgy itself, and if in the liturgy we are thinking only of ourselves? In any and every liturgical reform and every liturgical celebration, the primacy of God should be kept in view first and foremost. How has this not been the case in our recent liturgical reform since the Council?
Bishop Schneider: Well, this is obvious. We have stated exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned in this quotation. Since the liturgical reform, even before the end of the Council, there has been a true revolution of anthropocentrism. The liturgy turned not toward God, but toward man, toward us. I would apply the words of a psalm to this situation, inverting them to describe the anthropocentric style of worship in the Catholic Church over the last fifty years. There is a beautiful expression in Psalm 113 in Latin: non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam, not to us, not to us, O Lord, give honor, but give honor to your name. The anthropocentric style of liturgy that we have witnessed for decades could be characterized by an inverse quotation of the psalm: to us, to us, and to our name, give glory. This is the problem.
Kennedy Hall: Yeah, I think you’re exactly right. Often, when a traditionally minded Catholic critiques the reforms in the new Mass, the claim is that this is only about the irreverent Mass, that if you celebrate the new Mass reverently, it is just as good. But one great hero of the faith in the twentieth century, Cardinal Ottaviani, who was essentially the highest-ranking prelate regarding doctrine under the Pope on Earth, studied the text of the Novus Ordo carefully. He worried that there was a Protestant spirit or a possible deficiency in it. Would you agree that there is a danger of a deficiency in the new Mass, especially in the Protestant direction?
Bishop Schneider: Of course, especially the prayers of the offertory. They show an obvious Protestant spirit, and this is dangerous. The offertory prayers are prayers for a meal, not for a sacrifice, and this is very dangerous. We are not preparing the consecration with such banquet-style prayers. For me, this is the most dangerous part of the Novus Ordo, even if it is celebrated reverently.
The structure of the Novus Ordo also presents serious issues. There are many gaps that allow the priest to improvise, which is permitted by the rubrics. The priest can add his own words, and this invites the Mass to become a kind of private, personalized celebration. This is Protestantizing. Of course, it is possible to celebrate the Novus Ordo without using these possibilities, simply reading the text without any additions. That would be better and closer to the traditional form of the Mass.
But the problem remains serious. Even when the Mass is celebrated ad orientem and in Latin without any commentary, the offertory prayers remain, and for me, they are the deepest root of the doctrinal danger. I believe a future Pope, in the Holy Cf, will need to remove these prayers and restore the traditional offertory prayers. He should also eliminate the second Eucharistic Prayer, which is extremely weak in expressing the sacrificial character. These two problems are very serious.
Kennedy Hall: Yeah, and there is nothing wrong with liturgical reform. Lefebvre himself said, for a few years, there was a kind of uncertain period, a limbo, while the Mass was being reformed. Then there was the massive change in the calendar, which did not really work. They settled on the 1962 Missal because it was the only one with the full infrastructure. Lefebvre was very moderate in many ways. He knew that orthodox liturgical reform was welcomed, because the wisdom of the Church is to refine things, almost like a jeweler making something more beautiful. There is nothing wrong with that.
But one thing people say, and we should probably wrap up in a few minutes, is: what is the big deal? It is valid, so who cares? To me, this seems reductionist, reducing the Mass to something like a transaction. The Mass is a divine mystery where all our senses and our mind are lifted to God. Receiving the Holy Eucharist is not like receiving medicine, where it simply does the work. We must predispose ourselves as best we can to receive in order to cooperate with the graces. What would you say to this idea that it is enough that the Mass is valid?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, I agree with you. The exterior shape of the liturgy, when it is celebrated continuously toward the people, creates over time, even for pious people, a danger of a distorted understanding of the essence of the Holy Mass, which is the offering of the sacrifice of the Cross on the altar. Over time, people may begin to see the Mass as simply gathering together. This effect can occur even with the ad populum celebration.
The problem of Holy Communion in the hand in the Novus Ordo is very serious because it is a continuous source of desecration of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Fragments of the host can fall, be lost, or be trampled. This is a serious problem in the Novus Ordo. Therefore, it is not only a matter of reverently celebrating or the validity of the Mass, but also the circumstances, which over time can have harmful effects on spiritual life.
Of course, in some cases, there is no other possibility. People living in areas with no other option must adapt. When one is deeply rooted in the faith and in the love of Jesus Christ, it is possible to participate in a reverent Novus Ordo. When my family and I came from the Soviet Union to Germany in the 1970s, we had no other possibility. We participated in the Novus Ordo, but with the grace of God, we maintained our deep Eucharistic faith and love, receiving our Lord kneeling and on the tongue. This, however, was an exceptional situation.
Kennedy Hall: Yes, I agree. Before we finish, I’m going to get you to comment on the Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima, and then I would like you to lead us in the prayer to hasten the triumph. Just before we end here, one of our people in the chat mentioned that his wife is expecting their fifth child, and he’s wondering if you could remember her in prayer, privately at some point. Her name is Amanda, and I know them well, they’re wonderful people.
Bishop Schneider: Of course, we will include Amanda in the Holy Mass.
Kennedy Hall: Oh, he is going to be very happy about that. Thank you. That is wonderful.
So last, thank you. Again, it is 10 p.m. for me and 8 a.m. for you, so we are on different sides of the world, but in the same weather. Could you tell us about the Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima that you are involved with? What is that organization?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, this is simple. My website, Gloria Dei, which is run by a good friend of mine in the United States, hosts my articles. On the 13th of every month, I give a live catechesis, an explanation of the catechesis of the Council of Trent. Another month, I answer questions and provide explanations.
We had the idea that all who participate in my regular monthly talks could be spiritually united in a kind of Confraternity in honor of Our Lady of Fatima. It is a simple idea. It is not a canonical structure. It is simply a spiritual communion, a spiritual community, to pray to Our Lady of Fatima and to venerate her on the 13th of every month. That is all.
Kennedy Hall: That’s wonderful. I have a feeling, perhaps Providence, though I may be wrong, but I work for LifeSite News, and we’ve even talked about that. I have not been able to cross the border, but I wanted to be there in the fall when you were blessing our new office. You have done so much wonderful work for us there.
I have a feeling that we are going to receive some good news around the 13th of June regarding the overturning of Roe versus Wade. I think this is one of the fruits of the consecration. I cannot understand it. The likelihood of overturning abortion in the United States, at least at a federal level, seemed like a pipe dream just a few months ago. Then, within a few short weeks of the consecration, we had a history-changing event.
As we finish here, I have your prayer that we have been saying after our rosary. We say the family rosary, and at the end, we say the prayer of Leo XIII, the St. Joseph prayer. I cannot remember its exact title, but it is printed in our rosary book. I am going to put it up on the screen, and perhaps you could lead us in this prayer. After that, if you would not mind, you could give us your blessing, and then we could conclude the night. Can you see it on the screen there?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, I can see it. I’ll move a little to adjust.
Kennedy Hall: Perfect. Here we go. I can make it a little bigger as we read down.
Bishop Schneider: Okay. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Oh, Immaculate Heart of Mary, Holy Mother of God, and our tender mother, look upon the distress in which the whole of mankind is living due to the spread of materialism, godlessness, and the persecution of the Catholic faith. In our own day, the Mystical Body of Christ is bleeding from so many wounds caused within the Church by the unpunished spread of heresies, the justification of sins against the sixth commandment, the seeking of the kingdom of Earth rather than that of heaven, and the horrendous irreverence against the Most Holy Eucharist, especially through the practice of Communion in the hand and Protestant shaping of the celebration of the Holy Mass.
Amidst these trials appeared the light of the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart by the Pope in union with the world’s bishops in Fatima. You requested the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays of the month. Imploring Thy Divine Son, grant a special grace to the Pope that he might approve the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. May Almighty God hasten the time when Russia will convert to Catholic unity. Mankind will be given a time of peace, and the Church will be granted an authentic renewal in the purity of the Catholic faith, in the sacredness of divine worship, and in the holiness of Christian life.
O Mediatrix of all graces, O Queen of the Most Holy Rosary and our sweet mother, turn Thine eyes of mercy towards us and graciously hear this our trusting prayer. Amen.
Dominus vobiscum, et cum, spiritu tuo. Et benedictio dei omnipotentis, Patris et Filii et spiritus Santi descendant, super vos et maneat semper. Amen
Kennedy Hall: Thank you so much, Your Excellency. This has been an honor. I am very humbled that you took the time. Maybe one day you’ll have time to do it again. That would be wonderful for the people who watch this. Everyone, please pray for Bishop Schneider. Lefebvre might have been a voice crying out in the wilderness 30 or 40 years ago, but we have one today, and his name is Bishop Schneider. We are very grateful and very lucky to have him. Ladies and gentlemen, this has been the Kennedy Report, and until next time, God bless you all.