Gary Michael Voris: Your Excellency, so it was almost three years ago, almost at the end of 2010. So, two and a half years ago, you mentioned that there should be a kind of syllabus of errors produced because of the bad interpretations of the Second Vatican Council. In that context, what do you think are some of the most important misinterpretations of the documents of the council?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: First, I think it is the general perception and understanding of Vatican Two in general, because the major interpretation and understanding of the council is an understanding of rupture, either among the liberal ones or among the traditional ones. It is necessary to have an official interpretation that states that the Second Vatican Council did not have the intention or the finality to make a break with the past. When we carefully read all the speeches given by Pope John Twenty Three at the beginning of the council and by Pope Paul VI, we can see that they stressed that the council did not intend to pronounce new doctrines, only to explain the truth of the faith more deeply and to protect the Catholic truth. This was the intention of John Twenty Three: to protect and to deepen, not to make new doctrines. This is the key to interpretation, the words of the magisterium, not the interpretations of theologians or even some bishops, but the magisterium, the supreme Magisterium. We also know the famous speech of Pope Benedict the Sixteenth in 2005 to the Roman Curia, where he stated officially that we have to accept and interpret the council in continuity with all tradition. This is global, but of course, there are some specific moments in the documents that have to be clarified because some are open to different interpretations.
Gary Michael Voris: You are aware that in April this year, Cardinal Kasper published an article saying there were compromised formulas written into the doctrine. Many people were surprised that he would say that. Some people were surprised he would admit that.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, he admitted this, but of course, Cardinal Kasper is not speaking as the magisterium. My intention was that the magisterium itself, meaning the Pope, the supreme Magisterium, has to give clarifications or indications of the misinterpretations. We have to be very concrete because we are living in a situation of much confusion, and many voices speak about the council. We have to ask the magisterium with humility to give us clear interpretations of some specific subjects.
The first example is Lumen Gentium, the numbers about collegiality, the episcopacy, and the relationship with the Pope. Even the council and the Pope himself admitted that the text about collegiality was not clear enough. Therefore, Paul the Sixth ordered the famous explicativa previa, the previous explanatory note, which was added at the end of the document. It is not a text of the council, but an explanatory note which the Pope said has to be read together with the text. This is what I meant, to make such a note or notes, or better one document in the same way Pope Paul the Sixth did during the council.
Perhaps it is necessary to examine how, in these fifty years, the subject of collegiality and primacy has been interpreted. I think the magisterium can make a clear statement about this. This is one example. We need to avoid the non Catholic teaching that the universal church is governed ordinarily by the College of Bishops. This is not the structure given to us by our Lord. Our Lord gave the mission to Peter to govern his flock, Peter, shepherd my sheep and my lambs, and these are the bishops, because the Pope is also shepherd of all the bishops. We can read this in the Gospel of John, chapter twenty-one. It was always so.
The bishops are successors of the apostles, not of a specific apostle, but in general of the apostles. They are pastors and shepherds of their flock, the diocese, but every bishop by his consecration also has responsibility in some way for the universal church because we are one body, the Mystical Body of Christ. The Pope and the bishops are in this one body. Therefore, this unity and this responsibility of all the bishops for the whole church is extraordinary and was always extraordinary in the two thousand years of the church. This form was extraordinary in the ecumenical councils. The bishops, together with the Pope, governed the church together, but always under Peter. This was not continuous. It is not the structure given by our Lord.
We have to be attentive because there were centuries without a council. The church was governed, and sometimes governed very well. So I think it would be helpful for the magisterium to give clarifications about the correct manner of interpreting collegiality and the manner of exercising collegiality. This is one example. Another example, in Lumen Gentium number sixteen, there is an expression which, to my understanding, needs an explanation.
There is that saying that we Catholics, together with the Muslims, adore the one God. It has to be clarified because there are two substantially different levels. We as Catholics adore God always as the Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Our adoration is an adoration of faith, supernatural faith. To worship God as creator only or as one God only does not require faith. It is sufficient to use reason. This is a dogma of the First Vatican Council, that every person is able only by natural reason, without the light of faith, to recognize the existence of one God as creator and consequently to worship him according to the knowledge of natural reason. This applies to the Muslims. They have no supernatural faith and therefore no supernatural act of worship. Even the Jews who rejected Jesus as God as the Trinity have no faith, and therefore their worship is also natural, not supernatural.
Gary Michael Voris: May I ask you, Your Excellency, I do not know if you are aware or not, but last week Cardinal Dolan of New York was visiting a mosque, and he said, and it was quoted all over the secular press, hold on to the Muslims, hold on to your faith, and we worship the same God.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, therefore I say this expression of Lumen Gentium. Perhaps the cardinal was referring to this expression of the council. You are now observing that it is necessary to stress this distinction. This distinction is essential. We Catholics never worship on the natural level, always on the supernatural level.
Another example that has to be clarified, though these are only small examples, thanks be to God, not many, because we also have to stress the majority of expressions in the council text, which are very rich and traditional. Often, we forget this and only stress the controversial or ambiguous expressions, which are not many and not so important. In doing this, we forget the richness of the council. In Germany, there exists a book written by a bishop, I think Austrian, titled The Forgotten Council. He collected the beautiful and traditional expressions of the council.
Another expression that has to be explained or clarified is in Gaudium et Spes, twelve. It says all the things that exist on Earth are directed and oriented to man as their aim and supreme summit. I think this is very ambiguous, the expression that all things on Earth are directed to man as the aim and summit. It is not correct because all things that exist on Earth have their final aim in God and have to glorify God as the summit. We say plenis uncele etera Gloria Tua, all things that exist are created for the glory of God. All things are created for Christ, through Him, and for Him. Christ is the aim of all created things, even those on Earth.
Of course, I understand the aim of the expression was that God created non-rational things for the service of man, and man is the ruler or king of these created things. God gave man this dignity. But we cannot say it in this manner. We have to stress that things created on Earth, though created for man, are not ultimately for man. All things are ultimately for God, and He is the summit. We have to explain this; otherwise, it becomes anthropocentric. Anthropocentrism is one of the problems and one of the crises of these fifty years, a very anthropocentric vision and practice of Christian life, liturgy, and theology. This is the biggest danger for humanity and the church, to be anthropocentric, because the first sin of Adam and Eve was anthropocentric. This is very dangerous, and such expressions in the council text can be used for such things. Therefore, we have to add more explanation.
Another text in the document about ecumenism and Christian unity has an expression that God uses even the non-Catholic communities or churches as a means of salvation. It could be interpreted wrongly in the sense of the Anglican branch theory, the theory that several branches of Christianity are all ways of salvation. Therefore, we have to clarify this expression. We have to say that God can use the other Christians individually because they are baptized and are united as baptized to the Mystical Body of Christ, because their baptism is valid. Saint Augustine said that what the non Catholics have, they took from the church. He even said they had stolen it, taken it from our house. What they have is Catholic, not theirs. Therefore, we have to explain this; otherwise, it can be understood wrongly.
And then, of course, the issue of religious liberty in the document Dignitatis Humanae has to be clarified and stressed. We have to explain that religious liberty is only a declaration, not a decree, and not a constitution. It is a very low level, and I think the council intentionally chose this level; therefore, it is open for further addition. We do not have to be worried about this. It is open for further addition.
Gary Michael Voris: Do you think, Your Excellency, in the West, in the Western nations, that among churchmen Dignitatis Humanae has been poorly interpreted, and that poor interpretation has been carried out in parishes and chanceries? So you have a kind of equality of religions, almost.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes. This is the idea of equality of religions, and we have to correct this. This is in the heads of many teachers of theology and religious teachers in catechisms. We have to correct this because one aspect of the traditional teaching of the magisterium was always that all creation, including human society, which is also a creation, has to be directed to God and not for itself. Therefore, a human society cannot be atheistic or without God. Society has to give God honor, even as a civil society, not only as the church. We cannot separate civil society from the ultimate aim because the church and civil life have the same ultimate aim, eternity and the glorification of God, at least as creator. Therefore, a government cannot be atheistic or neutral to God. This is against our creation and against the plan of God.
In human history, there was never a government or civil society without God. Homo naturaliter religiosus, the human being is naturally religious. Tertullian said homo naturaliter christianus, not meaning Christian in general but Catholic, I would say homo naturaliter catholicus, because there is only one truth and one church. There are not many churches. We confess every Sunday in the creed, I believe in one church. Therefore, there is only one church, and the one church is Catholic. Christian means Catholic.
This has to be added, meaning the principle that human society, even civil society and government, has to recognize God and give Him honor, and ultimately recognize the true God, not worship the devil or false gods or idolatry, but the true God, who is the Trinity, and the manner of worship is Catholic worship because there is only one church. This is the principle.
Another principle is the development of the church’s teaching about religious liberty, for example, in the time of Emperor Constantine. Theodosius the Great, in the late fourth century, established that in the entire Roman Empire, only the Catholic religion was admitted after the Arian crisis. This continued. The church accepted that only the Catholic religion was permitted.
But in the first centuries, in the patristic times, the church was cautious about the application of force, even while recognizing that the Catholic Church is the only true church. For example, Saint Ambrose and Augustine were not in favor when Christian emperors punished or killed heretics.
Then, in the Middle Ages, when the great heretical movements began in the twelfth century in southern France, the Inquisition began. There was repression by force, and the church recognized this. But when the times changed, after the French Revolution, there was no longer a Christian society or Christian government in Europe. The church began to find another method or mode for religious liberty and tolerance of other believers.
Even at the end of the Thirty Years’ War between Catholics and Protestants and the Peace of Westphalia, the Holy See recognized that other believers existed. They had to be tolerated in the same regions, not recognizing their errors, but living together. In some parts of Germany, this happened.
Lastly, Pius the Twelfth spoke about the theory of tolerance of other believers, including tolerance not only of private worship. In the nineteenth century, Pius the Ninth said there could be private freedom for other religions, private cult, and private worship. Pius the Twelfth developed this further into tolerance of official non Catholic worship, not recognizing it as true but tolerating it to some degree depending on the historical situation. It could be a very great degree of tolerance depending on circumstances.
Gary Michael Voris: Oriented to the common good.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, of course, always, this was for peace and the common good. This was present at the beginning of the council. And I think we can continue with this principle that we have to live together, so we have to tolerate one another, even the official worship. But theologically, we have to keep the principles that the Catholic Church is the only one. This was always taught by the church.
Thanks be to God, Pope John Paul the Second and Cardinal Ratzinger issued the famous document Dominus Jesus. This was very clear. It is already a clarification of the issue of the equality of all religions.
Another point is that it is not contrary to the council that there can be, and that it is even desirable, a Catholic state. Why not? Because the government recognizes the only true God in the only true worship, the full true worship, the Catholic worship. This is not against religious liberty. We can tolerate others. We will not persecute them or discriminate against them, but we can tolerate them and recognize their human dignity while stressing that this people, this nation, is majority Catholic, and they want to keep this tradition and hand it on to their children and grandchildren. We do not want them to change and become another religion because we are convinced there is only one true religion.
Therefore, in this context, where Catholicism is the majority, they can have certain privileges. I think this is a rule of democracy because the rule of democracy is the majority. It does not mean discrimination against others. These points could be added and then read together with such a future document, read together like Pope Paul the Sixth did with the note explicativa previa during the council. Such a note could be gathered in one document.