Bishop Schneider: We would not give our lives for something ambiguous, for something that is not clear. Never. I will give my life only for that which is crystal clear in the Catholic faith, without any mixture of ambiguity. Only for this will I give my life.
Katherine Bennett: Hello, and welcome to Catholic Unscripted. I’m Katherine Bennett.
Mark Lambert: And I’m Mark Lambert.
Katherine Bennett: We are delighted to bring you today an interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
Mark Lambert: Yes, we’re very pleased to have had the opportunity to speak with Bishop Schneider, who is very prominent. We hear a great deal from him, and I think we are truly blessed to have him because I believe that is his mission. He has been freed from many diocesan responsibilities to pursue this mission of evangelizing, bringing the truth, and helping the laity understand the faith more clearly.
It was wonderful to sit down with him and have the opportunity to discuss some of the things that are happening in the Church at the moment. He has also just given an interview to Diane Montagna about the SSPX consecration, so we were able to speak with him about that, weren’t we, Katherine?
Katherine Bennett: Yes. He spoke with wonderful clarity, which was really refreshing. So sit back, enjoy, and let us know what you think in the comments. Your Excellency, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, welcome to Catholic Unscripted, and thank you for joining us.
Bishop Schneider: Thank you for the invitation.
Katherine Bennett: You have said that receiving the Catholic faith from your parents was an even greater gift than becoming a bishop. Can you explain why?
Bishop Schneider: Of course. What is greater than the Catholic faith? Without faith we cannot please God, and we cannot save our soul. What would the priesthood help me if I did not have the Catholic faith? Nothing. The same is true of the episcopate. I would even be judged more strictly by God if I were a priest or a bishop and did not live the fullness and purity of the Catholic faith. Being a priest or a bishop will not help me go to heaven. To go to heaven, I must keep the faith in its purity and live the commandments of God with God’s grace, of course.
Katherine Bennett: Mark and I are children of the seventies. We grew up shortly after the Council, and we were taught very little about sin, judgment, heaven, hell, sacrifice, or the supernatural life. Looking back, Your Excellency, what do you think went wrong in Catholic formation after the Second Vatican Council?
Bishop Schneider: Yes. With the Council, I mean, there was a tendency, also present in some texts of the Council, especially Gaudium et Spes, to give primacy to temporal affairs, to temporal life here on earth, to the detriment of grace, the supernatural life, and eternity. This was a tendency. It is still going on, and in our day the Church has reached the height of this tendency of naturalism, to be concerned only with nature. This is not Christian. This is pagan. This is Freemasonic. It is not Christian. So we must return to the Gospel. Really, the Gospel breathes the supernatural, eternity, and the vision of heaven. We are made for God, for eternity.
Why are we here on earth? In the old catechisms, all generations of Catholics since apostolic times learned simply that God created us. We are here on earth, first, to know God, I mean to have the true faith and know Him, then to love Him, and, loving Him, to serve Him. This means observing His commandments, and then to be with Him for all eternity, with Him in everlasting beatitude. This is everything.
Mark Lambert: It’s beautiful. A lot of us in the West, like many of the people who listen to what you say, Bishop Schneider, have grown up in a world where there is probably a church on every corner. In England, for example, there are churches everywhere, and it is easy to go to Mass. But your experience growing up was very different, wasn’t it? Can you tell us what that was like and what difference it made to your faith?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, I give God thanks every day that I grew up in the persecuted clandestine Church during the Soviet era.
My parents, whose names were Joseph and Mary, were both active members of the clandestine Church. They put their lives in danger, even though they had four children, by hiding priests and organizing secret prayer meetings. I grew up in this environment. I received it, so to speak, with my mother’s milk, and this is one of the greatest gifts. Both of my grandmothers had the same spirit, and I knew them personally. This was the way we lived.
We were taught the traditional catechism in the underground Church. Even as children, we knew our faith while being surrounded by a hostile atheist regime. At school we received atheist instruction, but at home our parents strengthened us. By God’s grace, we did not accept the communist ideology.
Living under these difficult circumstances strengthened my faith. As a child and later as a young boy, I lived there until I was almost thirteen years old. I was very conscious of all this.
I knew confessor priests who had previously been in concentration camps. Father Pavlovsky, in Estonia, who had suffered imprisonment, gave me my First Holy Communion. Then there was the martyr priest, Father Alexis Zaritsky, who died in a concentration camp in Kazakhstan, near Karaganda. He was the confessor of my parents. I was only a small child and did not know him personally, but he blessed me when I was very young. I believe that his influence as a martyr became one of the deepest roots of my priestly vocation, first through the example of my parents, then through this martyr priest who was so close to our family, and also through the confessor priest who gave me my First Holy Communion.
There were times when we lived for several months, or even longer, without Holy Mass or a priest. In Kyrgyzstan, a priest would come secretly only two or three times a year. Whenever he arrived, it was truly a feast. We had to remain very quiet because the secret police were always watching and patrolling.
It was a great feast for us. We longed for the sacraments, and because of that we deeply appreciated every Holy Communion and every Holy Mass. This appreciation has remained with me throughout my life until now. Thanks be to God.
Mark Lambert: I imagine the Mass must have been a truly joyful occasion. Whenever you were able to go to Mass, it must have been an extremely joyful time for your family.
Bishop Schneider: Oh, yes. For example, in Kyrgyzstan, the nearest Mass was perhaps one thousand kilometers away, in Karaganda. Later, when we went to Estonia, the nearest church where Mass was offered was one hundred kilometers away. Our parents would say, “Oh, children, now the church is so close, only one hundred kilometers away.”
Mark Lambert: It’s amazing, isn’t it? Can you explain what difference being a Catholic made in your life? You must have seen how it sustained your parents through those difficult circumstances. How would you describe the difference that being a Catholic made in your life?
Bishop Schneider: Yes. It is the greatest gift in my life that I am a Catholic. Ever since my childhood, and especially as I grew up, I came to appreciate this more and more by the grace of God. This is our happiness. We cannot have anything greater.
This holy martyr priest, Father Alexis Zaritsky, often repeated this thought: “When we have the Catholic faith, even if we are poor and have nothing, we are the richest people.” But when we do not have the Catholic faith, even if we are rich, we are the poorest people. We have to appreciate the faith because it is the truth. The Catholic faith is happiness, the true Catholic faith, not a mixed Catholic faith, not an ambiguous Catholic faith.
No. We would not give our life for something that is ambiguous, for something that is not clear. Never. I will give my life only for that which is crystal clear in the Catholic faith, without any mixture of ambiguity. Only for this will I give my life.
Mark Lambert: Well, we are so grateful for all that you are doing. The last time I saw you was at the CIC in Pittsburgh, and I said to you, “Thank you so much for everything you’re doing.” It is incredible to me.
I have often commented that so many of us, the little ones, if you like, are looking for that clarity. Thank God you are brave enough and willing to give so much of your time to come and help us understand. We really do appreciate that. I remember your answer to me. You said, “I’m a bishop. What else would I be doing?” I just thought that was amazing. So, thank you again.
Bishop Schneider: As a bishop, I cannot do otherwise. When I grew up in such circumstances, I would say that I received a spiritual vaccination against all the modernist and liberal ideas for my whole life. How could I, after living in such a situation, suddenly begin to adapt myself to the world, to be politically correct, to remain silent when there is such confusion in the Church? Spiritually speaking, metaphorically, the house is burning, and I simply watch it and say, “Everything is fine.” No. It is not fine.
I will not behave like in the French comedy, Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise. The house is burning. I must say that it is burning. We must help. We must extinguish the fire. This is my task.
Sometimes I must simply state the truth, and for doing so I must be ready to accept temporal disadvantages. But I hope to receive eternal advantages from God.
Mark Lambert: Please God. Turning to that a little more, Pope Benedict XVI warned about a dictatorship of relativism, didn’t he? I feel that warning has perhaps not received as much attention as it should have. When we look at the Church today, do you think the deepest crisis is doctrinal, moral, liturgical, or do you think it is ultimately more anthropological?
Bishop Schneider: No. Ultimately, yes, I think it is metaphysical, in the sense that the root of everything is relativism.
What does relativism mean? It is a philosophical movement, a philosophical theory, which says that there is no stable truth at all. It claims that truth cannot truly be expressed, that truth changes with time and with history. Therefore, there is no stable truth. This is the most dangerous error. When there is no stable truth, then we have no firm convictions, nothing for which we would be willing to give our life.
This was one of the essential characteristics of the so-called modernism within the Church more than one hundred years ago, against which Pope Pius X fought. Modernism is the synthesis of all errors and heresies. It is precisely this relativism that says there is no stable truth.
Once relativism is accepted, confusion follows. There is confusion in doctrine. There is confusion in moral life. There is confusion in the liturgy, because then people say that the liturgy can also be changed, and so on. This is our problem.
Mark Lambert: Yes. So I suppose what I’m getting at is that many of the modern documents of the Church speak about themes such as human flourishing, human dignity, dialogue, and fraternity. These seem to be anthropological themes.
How do we ensure that these important themes remain rooted in Christ, rather than becoming ends in themselves? It sometimes seems that this is the direction in which the Church is moving.
Bishop Schneider: Yes. I understand your question. The crisis manifests this relativism. That is the root, the metaphysical root, but it manifests itself outwardly in what I would call anthropocentrism. You mentioned the anthropological aspect, but more concretely we should specify that it is anthropocentrism.
What does this mean? It means that man is at the center. Man puts himself in the place of God and claims for himself more attention than is given to Christ and to God. Concretely, in many churches Christ is placed to the side in the tabernacle, while the priest places himself visibly at the center in his chair.
You also mentioned dialogue, climate, migration, and similar issues. This is pure anthropocentrism. We are circling ourselves, and this cannot bring us salvation. Only God can lift us and bring us to the supernatural life, to true happiness, to true supernatural love, and ultimately to eternity.
This is our problem, this anthropocentrism, which manifests itself in giving priority to nature, temporal affairs, and temporal life, what may be called naturalism.
Theologically, I think it is very close to the historical heresy known as Pelagianism. This was a very dangerous heresy in the fourth and early fifth centuries, against which Saint Augustine fought throughout almost his entire episcopal ministry.
Mark Lambert: He was a Briton as well, wasn’t he? Pelagius?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, Pelagius was a Briton. At that time they were not yet the Anglo-Saxons, but the native Britons.
He propagated this heresy, basically saying that we are all fine. There is no original sin. We are good. We do not need grace because our nature itself is already sufficient. We are so good. This was an exaggerated view of human goodness and, in effect, a denial of original sin and of its consequences. It also denied that we necessarily need the grace of God to free us from our sins and our disordered tendencies, and to raise us to the life of God. This was a very dangerous heresy.
Today it has essentially returned, not under the name of Pelagianism, but in practice. It suggests that human beings and human concerns, such as dialogue, immigration, and all these other issues, are sufficient. We simply gather around tables and discuss them. This is, in fact, a manifestation of the same tendency found in the heresy of Pelagianism. I would also say that there is, in part, a kind of new Gnosticism.
Gnosticism was a philosophical and religious movement that existed about two thousand years ago, during the time of our Lord and the Apostles, and in the first two centuries of the Church. It tended to deny the Incarnation of God and the importance of the visible signs of God’s presence, such as the sacraments and His presence in the tabernacle.
Mark Lambert: Is the real disagreement here about the Second Vatican Council itself, or about the theological method by which we interpret the Second Vatican Council?
Bishop Schneider: No. Some affirmations are, objectively, ambiguous. We cannot switch off our minds. I like Chesterton very much. You know his style. He once said, “We Catholics, upon entering a church, are required, at least the men, to take off our hat, not our head.”
Mark Lambert: Yes.
Bishop Schneider: We cannot switch off our intellect when we are Catholics. No. We must use our intellect.
Some formulations are obviously ambiguous. As long as I use my intellect, I can recognize this. But if I switch off my intellect and say, “Everything is fine. Let us perform some mental acrobatics,” then that is intellectually dishonest. It is unworthy of a Catholic, indeed, unworthy of any human being.
There are such formulations. I will give only one small example. In Lumen Gentium 16, it says that we Catholics, together with the Muslims, adore the one God. This is, at the very least, highly ambiguous. How can we say that we, together with the Muslims, perform an act of adoration? Listen, this is important. When we Catholics pray or adore God, we always and only do so as children of God, on the supernatural level, because through Baptism we have become adopted children of God.
If I say that Muslims adore the true God, let us say that some of them possess a good natural religion. This may be possible. But then they adore God only on the natural level, because they have not received divine sonship through Baptism.
You see, I repeat, our act of prayer and adoration is substantially different from Muslim adoration. Yet this formulation of the Council places them on the same level. This is very dangerous. It is wrong.
Mark Lambert: Why do you think they did that?
Bishop Schneider: You cannot simply interpret it away and begin making sophisms or trying to square the circle. That is not intellectually honest. I would say that the formulation is highly ambiguous, even if one hesitates to call it wrong.
However, I see no problem here because it was not a dogmatic council. Pope Paul VI repeatedly said this, and the Council itself stated that it had no intention of proclaiming a dogma ex cathedra or definitively proposing doctrine. These are the words of the Council and of Pope Paul VI. We must remember them and acknowledge them.
Therefore, such affirmations, and similar ambiguous statements, are not definitive teachings. Non-definitive teachings can contain errors. This is Catholic doctrine. This is Catholic teaching. We cannot treat every sentence of the Council as though it were infallible. That is completely mistaken theologically. I see no difficulty in future popes correcting these formulations, and I believe they will do so. They must be corrected.
This is not a scandal because, I repeat, it was a pastoral council that intentionally renounced speaking definitively. Therefore, statements made in that manner can be corrected.
For example, the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century made a non-definitive doctrinal statement concerning the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders. It stated that the matter was the handing of the chalice to the candidate during priestly ordination. Later, however, the Church corrected this and taught that the essential matter is the imposition of hands, not the giving of the chalice.
Pope Pius XII corrected this in his solemn Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis in 1947. Thus, he corrected a non-definitive teaching of an ecumenical council.
Mark Lambert: So do you think they were…
Bishop Schneider: It will be the same with these formulations, not only the one I quoted but others as well. They must be corrected so that only crystal clear formulations remain, formulations that are not open to ambiguous interpretation.
Mark Lambert: It’s interesting because a lot of people say that it was the Council of theologians. There were many theologians who, in a sense, got carried away with their ideas, and that’s how we ended up where we are.
Do you think that, in this particular instance we’re discussing, it was simply a product of its time? That this was how Islam was viewed at the time, and that they thought it would be better to reach out to our Muslim brothers and sisters and try to draw them into the Church in that way? Or do you have any idea what they were thinking when they included that in Lumen Gentium?
Bishop Schneider: No. You will not draw them to us. On the contrary. This is exactly what happened after the Council. Because of such formulations, missionary work basically stopped. We no longer have missionary work as before. We say, “Well, if together we adore the one God, why should I convert him?”
Mark Lambert: Right.
Bishop Schneider: Logically, please use logic. If they already, together with me, adore the one God, why should I seek to convert them?
Mark Lambert: It’s so dangerous. It’s like saying we’re all climbing the same mountain from different sides, isn’t it? Then people ask, “Why become a Catholic?”
Bishop Schneider: This is the danger of relativism, which entered the Council. The Council became a catalyst for relativistic and modernist theologians. They essentially took over the leadership during the Council.
Thanks be to God, however, there was a remarkable number of bishops during the Council, the so-called conservative minority, led at that time by Archbishop Lefebvre. They opposed these tendencies, and thanks be to God they were able to correct some formulations that would have been even more dangerous.
Katherine Bennett: I heard Maria Alvarado, whom Pope Leo has just appointed to the Dicastery for Communication, say in an interview that Jewish people do not need to convert, that they are fine as they are. That also seems problematic.
Bishop Schneider: This is against the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is against the entire New Testament. It is a heresy. Our Lord said to the Jews, “If you do not believe in Me, you will die in your sins.” Saint Paul says, “Whoever does not believe in the Son of God, upon him rests the wrath of God.” This is the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Lord also said, “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” No one.
He also said, “I was sent first to the people of Israel,” not to the pagans, so that they might accept the Son of God. They bear the greatest responsibility because they did not accept Him. The Old Covenant was always directed toward Christ.
Jesus said, “Abraham saw My day and rejoiced.” Abraham saw Christ. At the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, Moses and Elijah stood beside Christ, adoring Him and beholding His divinity. The entire Old Testament points to Him.
Now, when the Jews of today reject Christ, they are rejecting the fulfillment of the covenant that God made with them, a covenant that was always ordered toward His Son. This is the tragedy. We must say to them with love, “Please believe. Christ came to you, and you rejected Him.” As Saint John says in the Prologue, “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.” It is crystal clear.
When someone says such things, as this lady did, and unfortunately some bishops also do, it is a betrayal of Christ. It is a betrayal of the Gospel.
Mark Lambert: Absolutely. You’ve just given that excellent interview with Diane Montagna about the SSPX. Katherine and I have been discussing how to bring this up because it is a difficult subject.
One of the strongest points you made in that interview was that there seems to be one standard for the German Church and another for the SSPX. Cardinal Parolin recently said that they do not want to discipline the Germans, while at the same time the SSPX, who are trying to remain faithful, seem to be singled out.
It raises the question of whether the issue is really about ecclesiological structure. Is it because they established what appears to be a parallel hierarchy by consecrating four bishops?
From our own experience, Katherine and I have met SSPX communities. We have spent time with a wonderful SSPX priest here, for whom we have great affection.
At the same time, we have also met some SSPX adherents who do not seem to care whether they are excommunicated or not. As far as they are concerned, the Church can do whatever it wants because they believe they alone possess the truth and are the faithful remnant, while everyone else is on the road to hell.
Katherine and I really struggle with this tension because we can see that many people are sincerely trying to remain faithful to the Gospel amid all the confusion and what feels like a state of emergency in the Church. Yet there is also a real danger, isn’t there, of becoming inward-looking or spiritually self-sufficient?
Bishop Schneider: I would not describe it as pride or arrogance. I would not judge them so severely. These are often simple people. They are simply saying, “I want the certainty of the faith that I received from my parents and grandparents, and I do not care what others are doing.”
We must understand these people. Of course, the priests have the responsibility to educate the faithful in the Society of Saint Pius X and help them avoid the danger of developing a kind of ghetto mentality, becoming closed in on themselves. This tendency is understandable. It can arise in any community that exists in a certain degree of autonomy and is not directly dependent on Rome.
Over time, two generations have now grown up in this environment, and that naturally shapes a mentality of self-sufficiency, isolation, and fear of being contaminated. I understand this. I am not saying that I approve of it. No. But I can understand it psychologically. I have also told them, “Please be aware of this danger, this tendency toward a ghetto mentality.”
We must also remember that the Society is not the same everywhere. It is a worldwide reality, with communities in Africa, the Philippines, and many other countries. The mentality is not identical in every place.
For example, I have visited the Society of Saint Pius X in the Philippines. I found the faithful there to be more open in their attitudes. Much depends on the country and also on the priests.
That is why, ever since I served as the Holy See’s visitor about ten years ago, I have continually urged the Holy See to take the initiative. The Pope is a father. A good father takes the first step. That is the greatness of fatherhood. He does not say, “I will not move until my son humbles himself and comes back.” That is not how a father acts. A good father, a good authority, makes the first move toward reconciliation.
The Pope possesses all authority. They possess none. When you are the one who has greater authority, you should be the one who humbles yourself first. In that way, your authority becomes even greater in the supernatural sense.
Therefore, I continue to say, “Please, Holy Father, grant them, as an exceptional measure, permission for episcopal ordinations as a first step toward integrating them.”
It would be the first step toward creating an atmosphere of greater mutual trust, speaking on a human level. This would change the atmosphere. I think this is simply a matter of common sense, of sound pastoral judgment, and of fatherly concern. Therefore, I pray that God may enlighten the Pope so that, with a truly fatherly spirit, he may do this.
However, he is surrounded in Rome by people who are very hostile and inflexible toward Tradition, while at the same time being very open and tolerant toward the German bishops, some of whom are almost heretical in their positions, and toward the Communist Party in China regarding the ordination of bishops. This is truly a contradiction. I can only make a respectful appeal to the Pope and pray. Let us pray. We have nothing else to do except ask God to guide and enlighten the Pope.
Surely, one day God will intervene in Rome and give us leaders and popes who are one hundred percent crystal clear in the Catholic faith, just as the popes and saints of the past were.
Katherine Bennett: Perhaps, to finish, Bishop Schneider, because our time is short, what gives you hope for the Church over the next fifty years? Looking ahead, what gives you hope that you can share with our audience?
Bishop Schneider: What gives me hope are the words of our Lord: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against” the rock of Peter.
Even though we are currently witnessing confusion, darkness, and a lack of clarity, even in Rome, a kind of temporary occupation, it is only temporary. The Church in Rome has passed through difficult times before.
In the tenth century, during the so-called Dark Ages, the papacy was, spiritually speaking, held captive by the powerful Roman families of the time. Then came the Avignon exile. For seventy years, Rome was empty and desolate because the Popes were in France.
Now we are also witnessing a kind of spiritual desolation, a lack of clarity, and confusion in Rome. The Pope is not carrying out his primary duty as he should, namely, to confirm the brethren in the faith with crystal clear teaching.
But this will end. It is only temporary. Therefore, I have hope. We must have Catholic faith. We must believe that the Church of God, and even Rome itself, is not in our hands, nor even ultimately in the hands of Pope Leo XIV.
It is in the almighty hands of Christ. He is the true Head of the Church. Christ is the victor. Christ has already conquered the devil.
Therefore, even in these difficult times, we must always keep before our eyes the victory of Christ and hold firmly to that hope.
We must also believe that, in our own time, God takes into account the contribution of so many of the little ones, as you mentioned, simple people throughout the world who faithfully pray, remain steadfast, suffer patiently, make sacrifices, and persevere in their faith: children, young people, families, and many others.
God sees all of this. And we are always under the mantle of Our Lady. She is the Mother of the Church and our Mother.
Katherine Bennett: Yes, wonderful. Thank you so much, Bishop Athanasius Schneider. It is rare to hear someone speak with such clarity. I have found this conversation very helpful, and I am sure our audience has as well. Thank you very much for giving us your time.
Bishop Schneider: You are welcome. God bless you all.
Mark Lambert: Thank you.
Katherine Bennett: Thank you. Bye-bye.