Joe McClane: Praise be to Jesus Christ. Welcome back to Catholic. Take a bold synthesis of information and inspiration. I’m your host, Joe McClane. It’s great to be on with you, resisting error in the church. Just be Catholic. Let the chips fall where they may. That pretty much sums it up. We’re going to have a conversation with Bishop Athanasia Schneider at 30 past the hour, nonetheless, about pushing back against errors in the church but also pushing back against a set of contests. Boy, he’s getting it from both sides of the equation. So am I, by the way. Nonetheless, it’s going to be a great conversation with Bishop Athanasia. What do we do as lay folk in dark and confusing times? That is coming up in the show today.
Also, critics are wrong to accuse Pope Pius the 12th of his inactivity during the Holocaust. That’s an op-ed over at the Catholic Herald. I want to touch on that because there was a trove of documents that came out recently. I did comment on them I don’t know two weeks ago, but I wanted to have a bigger conversation about that today because we should pursue the truth. We should find darkness and shine the light of Christ into it. Where we find light, we should rejoice in it. That is what is going on in that story. I have more to share with you, including the testimony of a Jew who knew him personally. All of that is coming up at 15 past the hour.
Don’t forget, next week we kick off our fall fund drive. It is our on-air appeal where we come to you and ask you for your financial support so that we can continue to do what we are doing. There’s no one else in Catholic radio doing quite like what we’re doing, and we are grateful for your support in making that happen. Tune in next week, and we’ll tell you more about that. We’ll post show notes today of everything we discuss at thestationofthecross.com forward slash A C T.
Let’s pray. Let’s begin:
In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thine intercession was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my mother to thee. Do I come before thee? I stand sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions but in thy mercy hear and answer me. Amen
In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
The Gospel today comes to us from Luke chapter eight, verses 16 through 18. Jesus said to the crowd, no one who lights a lamp conceals it with a vessel or sets it under a bed. Rather, he places it on a lamp stand so that those who enter may see the light. For there is nothing hidden that will not become visible and nothing secret that will not be known and come to light. Take care then how you hear. To anyone who has more will be given, and from the one who has not even what he seems to have will be taken away. The Gospel of the Lord.
Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ. Eusebius said as if he said, as a lantern is lighted, that it should give light, not that it should be covered under a bushel or a bed. So also the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, when uttered in parables, although hid from those who are strangers to the faith, will not, however, to all men, appear obscure. Hence he adds, for nothing is secret that shall not be made manifest, neither anything hid that shall not be known and come abroad. As if he said, though many things are spoken in parables, that seeing they might not see and hearing they might not understand because of their unbelief, yet the whole matter shall be revealed.
Where do we go to find that light? The Church, Holy Mother Church, which was given the clarity of those parables, is then placed in a position to instruct us. As the eunuch from Ethiopia might also suggest, the origin. He would say it becomes not him then who lights the lamp of reason in his soul to hide it under a bed where men sleep, nor under a vessel, for he who does this provides not for those who enter the house for whom the candle is prepared. But they might set it upon a candlestick. That is the whole Church. Do you add your light to Holy Mother Church, the institution Christ founded? There is only one. He only founded just the one in spite of what Glenn Beck may have to say about that, although Taylor Marshall did try; I have to give it to him; he did try. Nonetheless, you are to add your light to Holy Mother Church.
St. Maximus, a fifth-century Bishop of Turin, would say, or perhaps the Lord calls himself a light shining to all who inhabit the house that is the world. Since he is by nature God but by the dispensation made flesh, and so like the light of the lamp, he abides in the vessel of the flesh by means of the soul, as the light in the vessel of the lamp by means of the flame, but by the candlestick. He describes the Church over which the divine Word shines, illuminating the house, as it were, by the rays of truth, but under the similitude of a vessel or a bed, he referred to the observance of the law under which the Word will not be contained. St. Maximus.
But I believe it’s the venerable Saint Bede. He’s a saint, but we still call him the venerable Bede. I think he had something truly insightful about how lazy and complacent we who have been given much are with the gifts we have been given, refusing to make sure our light can be seen by the world and refusing to add it to Holy Mother Church. The venerable Bede would say, give heed with all your mind to the Word which ye hear. To him who has a love of the Word shall be given also the sense of understanding what he loves. But whoso hath no love of hearing the Word, though he deems himself skillful, either from natural genius or the exercise of learning, will have no delight in the sweetness of wisdom. For oftentimes the slothful man is gifted with capacities that if he neglects them, he may be the more justly punished for his negligence, since that which he can obtain without labor he disdains to know. And sometimes the studious man is oppressed with the slowness of apprehension, in order that the more he labors in his inquiries, the greater may be the recompense of his reward.
St. Bede, pray for us. St Maximus, pray for us. Eusebius and all you holy angels and saints, pray for us today.
Praise be to Jesus Christ. Welcome back to Catholic. Take a bold synthesis of information and inspiration. I’m your host, Joe McClane. It’s great to be on with you. At 30 past the hour, Bishop Athanasius Schneider joins us to have a conversation about resisting error in the Church today. Wherever it may be found, we should shine a light into the darkness, and where we find light, we ought to rejoice. All of that and more is coming up with Bishop Athanasia Schneider at 30 past the hour. Do join us if you can.
There are lots of stories in the news. Of course, they are of great concern to me, and I’m sure they are to you as well. Let me take a straw poll here. Raise your hand if you’ve ever encountered somebody, some anti-Catholic somewhere, probably an evangelical or a family member, a friend, a coworker, someone who said, you know, Pope Pius the 12th, he was Hitler’s Pope, he was a Nazi Pope, a Nazi sympathizer. Have you ever heard that argument? I know I have on a number of occasions. Pushing back is definitely a part of our job as baptized and confirmed Catholics. We must push back against these errors. We must always be ready, as St Peter would have us, always be ready to give an account for the hope, for the reason that lies within.
Today, we’re going to be doing some of that because just recently, there was a treasure trove of documents that came out of the Vatican. They’ve opened up the archive when it comes to Pius the 12th, and they’ve allowed people, journalists, and scholars to go in and start reviewing the letters, the documents, just to try to figure out exactly what happened. Shed light, let everything be known, let it all come to the light. A lot of people are finding things that they say are proof. They say, see, look, this is proof, this is what’s going down. Pius 12 just didn’t do enough. Is that true? That’s the question. Is that true?
I would like to read to you an op-ed from the Catholic Herald. We’re going to be linking to this over at the show notes, thestationofthecross.com forward slash A C T. Critics are wrong to accuse Pope Pius the 12th of inactivity during the Holocaust. I think you’re going to find this very fair from Neil Gooch here. I’m going to link to it again. He says Pope John the 23rd, that short-serving but consequential pontiff, was in office for less than five years but was responsible for convening the Second Vatican Council. He was, by all accounts, a gentle, kindly man. It was almost certainly an unpleasant surprise to him, therefore, to discover in the Vatican apartment an SS dagger which had apparently been gifted to his predecessor, Pope Pius the 12th, by a repentant Nazi who had originally planned to attack Pius with that dagger. That made me very curious because that seems eerily similar to Bruno Corniciola, who also had a dagger with “death to the Pope” engraved on the blade, and he also gifted that to Pius the 12th. So interesting. There’s another article there we’re going to link to in the show notes.
This article goes on to say the story of the dagger is one of the more startling details among new information that has emerged concerning one of the most heavily scrutinized and contested subjects in modern history, the approach taken by the Holy See to the Holocaust during the Second World War. The Vatican has released a new tranche of documents from its archives ahead of an academic conference in Rome next month. The media have focused heavily on a letter from Pius the 12th, a German Jesuit and anti-Nazi father, Lothar Koenig, written in 1942. The letter details the atrocities occurring at a camp in German-occupied Poland. The emerging narrative, as pushed by the Guardian among others, is that the letter proves, air quotes, proves that Pius the 12th knew about the systematic murder of European Jewry in 1942.
The implication is that his alleged inaction and silence thereby become all the more inexcusable, and that his defenders are being dishonest by claiming that Pius did not realize how serious the situation was. The problem is that there are two false premises here. First, it is not in dispute that Rome was aware at an early stage of the Nazis’ organized killing in occupied Europe. The Koenig letter is obviously historically important, but fundamentally, it is not new information that Pius the 12th had a clear view of the scale of brutality of the Holocaust. Historians who are sympathetic to Pius, such as William and David Dahlen, a rabbi, do not lean heavily on his ignorance as part of their case for the defense.
Second, to criticize Pius purely on the grounds that he did not speak out strongly against the Hitler regime is to ignore an important part of the debate. Actions ultimately are more important than words. Eloquent and theatrical denunciations of Nazi atrocities by senior Catholic clergy would have been satisfying and powerful, but they would probably have achieved very little in practical terms while inviting reprisals against the millions of Catholics under German control. This was not a purely academic possibility. The Nazis reacted to the campaigns of an anti-Nazi Dutch Archbishop, Johannes de Jong. Among other things, he advocated the denial of communion to known Dutch Nazis by deporting hundreds of Dutch Catholics of Jewish heritage. So when the Church hierarchy spoke out, bad things happened. Does that mean they shouldn’t have spoken out? That’s the question.
Anyway, it goes on to say, and if we consider actions, the image of a heartless and anti-Jewish Pope washing his hands of Europe’s tragedy becomes impossible to sustain. Thousands upon thousands of Jews were sheltered in Rome, including in the Vatican itself. The Irish priest Hugh O’Flaherty, played by Gregory Peck in the film The Scarlet and the Black, was only one example of a Church official who used his position to save numerous Jews, something which would not have been possible without the support of higher authorities. Pius himself is known to have instructed Church leaders and officials to offer aid to those suffering under Nazi tyranny throughout Europe. In the hardest of circumstances, he was in touch with the anti-Nazi resistance in Germany.
We should not overcorrect in the face of unfair criticism and claim that the Church under Pius the 12th was unimpeachable in its response to the Nazis. This is obviously not the case. Sadly, many Catholics, for various reasons, failed to stand up to the monstrous terrors of National Socialism. Which of us can say with certainty that we would have been among the heroes?
However, it is possible to say with some certainty that the most serious allegations leveled against Pius, that he was indifferent to the fate of Europe’s Jews because of personal prejudice and political calculation, and even facilitated cooperation with Hitler in some cases, are all false. Therein lies the opinion of Mr. Gooch over at the Catholic Herald. We’re going to place a link to that.
In the same recent tranche of documents, there is a discovery of all kinds of information showing that thousands of Jews were held by Vatican institutions, by religious houses, parishes, and even at the Vatican itself. Inside the Vatican, Jews were not only kept, but their records, or their baptismal records, were falsified so that they could obtain passports and try to find freedom, all under the hand of Pope Pius the 12th.
But golly gee whiz, maybe Pius 12 was the bad guy, Joe, and maybe it was just all the good religious and good priests that were doing it without his instruction. Maybe, maybe. Let’s find out why.
In my hand right now is a book out of my collection called Why I Became a Catholic by Eugenio Zoli, the former chief rabbi of Rome. Eugenio Zoli was, in fact, the rabbi during the same timeframe that Pius the 12th was Pope of Rome. When asked the question, did you convert because of Pius the 12th, his answer was no. He converted for love of Jesus Christ. However, he does not detract from Pius the 12th at all. He says, quote, on page 187 of his memoir:
No hero in history has commanded such an army. None is more militant, none fought against more, none more heroic than that conducted by Pope Pius the 12th in the name of Christian charity. An army of priests works in cities and small towns to provide bread for the persecuted and passports for the fugitives. Sisters go into unheated canteens to give hospitality to women, refugees, orphans of all nations and religions are gathered together and cared for. No economic sacrifice is considered too great to help the innocent flee to foreign lands from those who seek their death. A religious, most learned man works incessantly to save Jews, and himself dies a martyr. Sisters endure hunger to feed the refugees. Superiors go out in the night to meet strange soldiers who demand victims. They manage, at the risk of their lives, to convey the impression that they have none when they have several in their care.
He goes on to say, I did not hesitate to give a negative answer to the question of whether I was converted in gratitude to Pope Pius the 12th for his numberless acts of charity. Nevertheless, I do feel the duty of rendering homage and of affirming that the charity of the Gospel was the light that showed the way to my old and weary heart. It is the charity that so often shines in the history of the Church and which radiated fully in the actions of a reigning pontiff. Close quote, Eugenio Zoli, who became Catholic after the war, his own testimony.
So why? Why do so many want to repaint Pope Pius the 12th in this light, as someone who would be a sympathizer to such evil? There were, in fact, members of the hierarchy, members of the Curia, a cardinal in fact, who was sympathetic to the Nazi plan and did help the rat lines in helping these people escape after the war so that they could run off to South America, to Argentina of all places, Argentina, where Nazism still has its tentacles and fingers today. Let that sink in for a moment.
Over the weekend, just yesterday, I gave a talk to a group of teens for Gabriel Castillo at a wonderful parish in Sugar Land, Texas. I told the story of Marc Antonio Bragadino, the Venetian knight, who held Famagusta against the Ottoman Empire, against Ali Pasha and Lala Mustafa. 100,000 men attacked and slaughtered all of Nicosia and Famagusta. He held out with only 8,000 men against 100,000 men. He held out in July of 1570 and almost a year. He would not acquiesce until August of 1571. When he surrendered under terms, he had to present himself before Lala Mustafa, the commander of the army of the Sultan. This perverted degenerate broke the treaty he just signed. He wanted the page of Marc Antonio Bragadino, a little boy, as his prize for the war.
Marc Antonio had a difficult choice. He could let him have the boy and walk away, or he and his men could sail off into the night and live to fight another day at the price of one boy. What did Marc Antonio do? He said no, you will not take my page. It cost Marc Antonio his life and the lives of all of his men. This perverted man stole the boys and made them slaves. Marc Antonio had his nose and ears cut off and was skinned alive. Famagusta, Famagusta, Famagusta would be the war cry at the Battle of Lepanto in October of 1571.
Our Lady of Victory crushed the head of the Sultan, Lala Mustafa, and Ali Pasha. On that day, Our Lady of Victory wants to crush the head of all darkness, of all lies, everywhere. Let us hold fast to truth itself. Where we find darkness, let us shed light. Where we find light, let us rejoice. Let us be Catholic. Let the chips fall where they may.
Don’t go anywhere. Bishop Athanasius Schneider comes up next.
Praise be to Jesus Christ. Welcome back to A Catholic. Take a bold synthesis of information and inspiration. I’m your host, Joe McLean.
Joining us right now is Bishop Athanasius. He is the auxiliary bishop in Kazakhstan. He is a very outspoken and courageous bishop in our times of confusion, and we are grateful for his being on the program. Your Excellency, good morning to you, and thank you for being with us.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Good morning.
Joe McClane: Recently, you published a statement, a letter of sorts, pushing back on errors within the Church, I would argue, on both sides of the spectrum. Errors we find from modernists and errors we find from more radical elements. Just over the weekend, we saw Father Altman in America double down on his arguments that Pope Francis, Jorge Bergoglio, is not the Church, or is not the Pope of the Church. Can you tell us again, from your article, from your statement, why that would be in error?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Well, because this contradicts the constant tradition of the church, simply because this theory that there are two things we have to distinguish in the issue of the so-called invalidity of the pontificate of Pope Francis and in the stance of Father Altman. There is one thing, the alleged invalid election of Cardinal Bergoglio, for two reasons, as they say. One party says that because of the invalid abdication of Benedict, the election of Cardinal Bergoglio was invalid. Another party says that some rules of the Conclave norms were not observed, and therefore, the so-called St Gallen mafia had an influence on the election of Cardinal Bergoglio, and therefore, it was invalid.
So let us see the first item. Even if the election of Cardinal Bergoglio had been invalid, there would have been, during the 2000 years, really invalid elections of popes, not just a few. There had been several. Nevertheless, in practice, the church always behaved during these 2000 years in the following manner: from the moment when the majority of the College of Cardinals and the episcopate accepted the newly elected, even if invalidly elected, candidate, and started to name him in the Holy Mass, in the Eucharist, for a considerable time he was considered de facto the valid Pope.
There were cases with antipopes where it was not clear who the true pope was. But then the majority of the Cardinals—this was the practical rule—and we have to apply the same, even if we don’t know with certainty whether the accusations of the invalid observation of the election of Cardinal Bergoglio are true or not. Therefore, we have to follow the more sure, constant practice of the church in such cases of doubtful elections of a pope. This is very wise because otherwise there would be confusion and chaos. One part of the Cardinals would accept, the other not. One part of the bishops would accept the accusation or not, and they would proceed to an election.
Today, to my knowledge, no cardinal considers the election of Cardinal Bergoglio invalid. The College of Cardinals, the electors, all agree. This even heals in the root some possible procedural errors in the election. This is very wise. Otherwise, there is no practical solution.
The same principle applies to the other item; some people consider Pope Francis invalid because of heresy. The topic of a heretical Pope was discussed in church history by some theologians, especially after the Council of Trent, for example, St Robert Bellarmine. Some theologians held the opinion that a pope who pronounces heresy loses the papacy automatically. Robert Bellarmine said this is an opinion. He did not present it as the final or definitive teaching of the magisterium itself.
The magisterium, meaning the teaching of the popes and the Ecumenical Councils, never promoted or accepted this theological opinion of the automatic loss of the papacy by a heretical pope. There is only one case: Pope Paul IV in the 16th century issued a document, a bull, which declared that a heretic cannot be a pope. But this document, the so-called Bull of Pope Paul IV, was not a pronouncement ex cathedra, and it is only one case in church history. One document, one pope does not carry weight over 2000 years of popes who did not promote such an opinion. He has no authority, and therefore, we cannot say this is a constant teaching of the magisterium. One pope is not constant; it is only one document of Paul IV.
In church history, we had cases of heretical popes. Honorius I, in the 7th century, published official letters to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, where the pope had statements that were at least very ambiguous doctrinally concerning Christology. After his death, the Ecumenical Councils declared him a heretic pope. Nevertheless, the Holy See observed that he was not a heretic, but was helping to spread heresy. The councils did not declare that his pontificate was invalid from the moment of his so-called heretical letters. The following popes also did not declare that his pontificate was invalid.
Another case was in the 14th century, Pope John XXII, who spread material heresy, saying that the saints in heaven do not have the beatific vision and have to wait until the end of time, until the Last Judgment. This is contrary to Holy Scripture and the previous tradition of the church. He was criticized by theologians and one cardinal, but no theologian at that time declared his pontificate invalid. Thanks be to God, Pope John XXII repented before he died and retracted his doctrinal error.
We also have to remember that a pope cannot proclaim heresy ex cathedra, because this is a dogma of faith stating the pope is unable to commit error or heresy when proclaiming or confirming a doctrine ex cathedra in the definitive form. Outside of ex cathedra pronouncements, a pope can commit errors or heresies, as happened in the past in very few cases. Even when Pope Francis proclaims some errors, he does not lose his pontificate.
Joe McClane: Hold your thought, Your Excellency. Forgive me, but hold that thought. We were up against a network break right here. We’re talking with Bishop Athanasia Schneider, a very good, detailed pushback on the set of conscious arguments of Father Altman. I think it speaks to… Okay, well, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, as we say here in the United States. What do we Catholics do in the face of error, controversy, scandal, and confusion, which we’re seeing in greater numbers? How are we supposed to reconcile this? What are we supposed to make of all of this? We’re going to ask that question with Bishop Athanasia Schneider after this very quick break. Do us a favor, share this with a friend. We would be very grateful if you joined the team and spread the flame. We’ll be right back. Don’t go anywhere.
Praise be to Jesus Christ. Welcome back to a Catholic Take, a bold synthesis of information and inspiration. I’m your host, Joe McClain. It’s good to be with you. We’re talking with Bishop Athanasius Schneider. He is the auxiliary bishop in Kazakhstan. We’re talking about errors in the church, pushing back on them wherever darkness is; we should shed light. Wherever light is, we should rejoice. I think that’s at the heart of what Bishop Athanasius Schneider is talking about, as well as Bishop Strickland and Bishop Shiner.
Welcome back to the show. You’ve been very outspoken in your support for Bishop Strickland, and we believe that’s right to do so. But we’re living in a time where the bishop in Berlin is promoting blessings of same-sex unions, the bishop in Luxembourg is embracing what seems to be error and heterodox positions, and we see Cardinals in America doing the same thing. There is so much confusion today. Many believe that the Synod on Synodality will, in fact, lead to the Church changing its positions on moral theology. The lay faithful are caught in the middle, confused, wandering, and lacking solid leadership. Bishop Schneider, what should we do as lay faithful in these dark and confusing times?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: First, of course, we have to pray, to implore heaven for divine intervention, that God may send us strong popes who truly do the duty of Peter, to strengthen all the brethren in the clarity of Catholic faith, and to be defenders of the Catholic faith. This is the essence of the papal office, with clarity. This has always been true for 2000 years. The Holy See has been the martyred magistra, a mother and a teacher of all churches, of all faithful. This will come again, because the papacy is a divine institution, not only a human one.
Now, God permits that temporarily this office is obfuscated, darkened by the negative influences of our time. But we have to bear in mind that it is only a relatively short period. The Holy See will again have strength and clarity and will shine. We have to renew our trust and faith. This is the first step, and we should also pray for the current pope, that God may illuminate him, that he may recognize and begin to do his duty as a successor of Peter and imitate his predecessors.
The second step is to know the Catholic faith from the catechisms, from the traditional catechisms. We have this teaching. We have to stick to these teachings of all the popes, the Fathers of the Church, and the Doctors of the Church. Please study and read this so that you are not led to confusion, not even by a pope, not by a synod. The constant teaching of the Church over 2000 years, by more than 260 popes and Doctors of the Church, is stronger than this short-lived confusion which we are witnessing, even in Rome and all over the world. This confusion will collapse, and the Church and the faith will remain.
The third step is to reverently admonish errors, even those of the Pope and bishops, not with anger, because we are not a political party, but clearly and respectfully, with clarity, to admonish the Pope and the bishops to return to the clear, unambiguous teaching of the Catholic faith, to be courageous defenders of the faith, and not fear the world. We must do this in our different ways, through statements, conferences, and other means. Lay people must promote this clarity and help those in authority who may be weak or struggling in their task. Lay people have to remind them of the constant teaching of the Church.
Joe McClane: You also talked about something you just said a minute ago, which reminded me of your statements about how, as Catholics, we shouldn’t follow error. But there are so many bishops today who believe that anything that comes out of the Vatican must be sacrosanct. Any statement made by Pope Francis must be adhered to, or else you’re a bad Catholic. It seems like many Catholics are, to your point a minute ago, uneducated in the faith. They don’t really understand their faith. We are really pushed by the wind, however it blows. It reminds me of, and I would like your comment on this, Matthew chapter 12, when our Lord says to His disciples that the householder, the chief steward who is in charge of the house when the master is away, gets drunk and beats the other stewards of the house.
It seems to me that many today either want to pretend as though the chief steward isn’t abusive, or they want to leave the house and set up their own house. What would you say to that, and what was our Lord’s intention in all of this, Bishop Schneider?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, the Lord’s intention was that He did not say we must leave the house when there are abusive holders of authority. We are one family. Of course, we can temporarily separate ourselves from the consequences of abuses in the sense that we do not obey abusive commands that would damage the faith or the holiness of the liturgy. But we cannot declare them invalid. We have to pray for them nevertheless. This was the case throughout history, and the saints behaved in this way.
Now, what you mentioned is a distorted vision of the papacy. The Pope is not God; he is not divine. He remains human, and he is not continuously infallible in every word and action. This exaggeration of the papacy is a parody and gives Martin Luther and all Protestant sects reason to accuse us of error. We have to correct this. The Pope can commit errors. The Holy See can commit errors in decisions concerning temporal or disciplinary affairs, and even in some doctrinal statements which are not definitive and are not imposed as definitive teaching on the entire Church.
Our measure is the constant tradition of the Church, the constant teaching which we know. I repeat, we have this in the catechisms, in the encyclicals of the popes, and in very clear statements on almost all topics of our day, regarding the relativism of doctrine, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, morality, and so on. We have this teaching. We have to take this and be faithful to it.
Joe McClane: Amen, Your Excellency. We are grateful for your time today. Thank you so much for speaking out on these issues. Would you give us your blessing?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Dominus vobiscum, et cum, spiritu tuo. Et benedictio dei omnipotentis, Patris et Filii et spiritus Santi descendant, super vos et maneat semper. Amen
Joe McClane: God bless you, Bishop. Thank you for your time today. We are really grateful for you being on. By the way, Bishop Strickland is going to be on at 6 p.m. Eastern today to take your phone calls live here on the Station of the Cross. Tune in, download it on your iCatholic Radio app. Be there. We’ll see you tomorrow. God loves you.