Gary Michael Voris: Your Excellency. It was three years ago, near the end of 2010. So yes, two and a half years ago, as you mentioned. You said that there should be almost a syllabus of errors produced because of bad interpretations of the Second Vatican Council. In that context, what do you think are some of the biggest and 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. The major interpretation and understanding of the council itself is an understanding of rupture, either from liberal interpretations or from traditional ones. Therefore, it is necessary to have an official interpretation stating that the Second Vatican Council did not have the intention or finality to make a break with the past. When we carefully read all the speeches given by Pope John the Twenty Third at the beginning of the council and also those of Pope Paul the Sixth, we find that they stressed the council did not intend to pronounce new doctrines. It is intended only to explain the truth of the faith more deeply and to protect Catholic truth. This was the vision of John the Twenty Third to protect and deepen, and not to make new doctrines.
This is the key to interpretation, the words of the magisterium, not the interpretation of theologians or even of some bishops, but of the magisterium, of the supreme Magisterium. We also know the famous speech of Pope Benedict the Sixteenth in 2005 to the Roman Curia, where the pope stated officially that we must accept and interpret the council in continuity with all tradition. This is the general principle. Of course, there are specific moments in the documents that need clarification because some passages are open to different interpretations.
Gary Michael Voris: You are aware that in April of this year, Cardinal Kasper published an article saying that there were compromised formulas written into the documents. Many people were surprised that he would admit that.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, he admitted this. But Cardinal Kasper is not speaking as the magisterium. My intention is that the magisterium itself, meaning the pope, the supreme Magisterium, must pronounce clarifications or give indications regarding misinterpretations. We must be very concrete because we are living in a situation of much confusion, and many voices speak about the council. Therefore, we must ask the magisterium with humility to give us clear and very clear interpretations of specific subjects.
For example, Lumen Gentium contains passages about collegiality and the episcopacy and the relationship with the pope. Even the pope himself admitted that the text on collegiality was not clear enough. Therefore, Paul the Sixth ordered the famous explanatory note, which was added at the end of the document. This note is not a text of the council but an explanatory note that must be read together with it, as the pope stated.
It would be helpful to do something similar today. Perhaps it would be necessary to examine how, over these fifty years, the subject of collegiality and primacy has been interpreted. The magisterium could make clear statements about this. This is one example. This would help avoid a non-Catholic teaching that the universal Church is ordinarily governed by the college of bishops. This is not the structure given by Our Lord. Our Lord gave authority to Peter to govern His flock. Peter is the shepherd of the sheep and of the lambs who are the bishops. The pope is also the shepherd of the bishops. This is found in the Gospel of John, chapter twenty-one.
The bishops are successors of the apostles, not of one specific apostle but of the apostles in general. They are pastors and shepherds of their dioceses. Of course, every bishop by his consecration also has a responsibility in some way for the universal Church because we are one body, the Mystical Body of Christ. The pope and the bishops are within this one body. Therefore, the council rightly stressed unity and collegiality. However, the responsibility of all bishops for the whole Church is extraordinary and has always been so throughout two thousand years of Church history.
This extraordinary form was expressed in councils, especially ecumenical councils, where the bishops, together with the Pope, governed the Church, always under Peter. But this was not continuous governance. It is not the ordinary structure established by Our Lord. There were centuries without councils, and yet the Church was governed, and sometimes governed very well. Therefore, it would be very helpful for the magisterium to give clarifications on the correct interpretation and exercise of collegiality.
Another example comes from Lumen Gentium number sixteen. There is an expression that needs explanation. It says that Catholics, together with Muslims, adore the one God. This must be clarified because there are two substantially different levels. We as Catholics adore God always as the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Our adoration is an act of supernatural faith.
To worship God as creator only or as one God without the Trinity does not require faith. It requires only the use of reason. This is a dogma of the First Vatican Council. Every human person, by natural reason alone, without the light of faith, can recognize the existence of one God as creator and worship Him according to natural knowledge. This is the case with Muslims. They do not have supernatural faith, and therefore, they do not perform a supernatural act of worship. The same applies to Jews who reject Jesus as God and as the Trinity. Their worship is natural and not supernatural.
Gary Michael Voris: May I ask you, Your Excellency, then, when 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 got 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, yes. Therefore, I say this expression of Lumen Gentium. Perhaps the cardinal was referring to this expression of the council. And therefore, you are now observing that it is necessary, necessary really, to stress this distinction. This is an essential distinction. And we Catholics, I repeat, we never worship on the natural level, always on the supernatural level.
For one example, another which has to be clarified, but these are only little examples. Thanks be to God, not so many, because we also have to stress the majority of the expressions in the text of the council, very rich and very traditional. Often, we forget this, and we only stress the controversial or ambiguous expressions, which are not so many and not so important. And in doing this, we forget also the richness of the council.
In Germany, there exists a book written by one bishop, I think Austrian, with the title The Forgotten Council. There, he collected all the beautiful traditional expressions of the council.
And so another expression which has to be not only explained but clarified. Besides Lumen Gentium sixteen, there is Gaudium et Spes twelve. Gaudium et Spes says that all the things which exist on earth are directed and oriented to man as their aim and summit. The culmination, the finality, the top, the summit. I think this expression is very ambiguous, this expression that all things on earth are directed to man as the aim and summit.
It is not correct because all the things that exist on earth finally have their aim in God and have to glorify God as the summit. As we say, all things which exist are created for the glory of God. All things are created through Christ and for Him. Christ is the aim of all created things, even those on earth.
Of course, I understand the intention of this expression. God created all non-rational things for the service of man. Man is the ruler or king of created things. God gave man such dignity. This is true. But I think we cannot say it in this manner. We have to stress that even if things on earth are created for man, they are not ultimately for man. All things are ultimately for God, and He is the summit.
Otherwise, this becomes anthropocentrism. I think one of the problems and crises of these fifty years is very much the anthropocentric vision, not only vision but also practice, Christian life, liturgy, and theology, very anthropocentric. This is the biggest danger for humanity and for the Church, to be anthropocentric, because this was the first sin of Adam and Eve. It was anthropocentric. This is very dangerous. Such expressions in council texts can be used for this. Therefore, we do not have to correct but to add further explanation.
Then there is another text in the document about ecumenism, Christian unity. There is an expression that God uses even non-Catholic communities or churches as a means of salvation. This could be interpreted in a wrong manner, in the way of the Anglican branch theory, that there are several branches of Christianity, which are all ways of salvation. Therefore, this also has to be clarified.
We have to say that God can use other Christians, but individually, because they are baptized and united by baptism to the Mystical Body of Christ. The baptism is valid. And as Saint Augustine said, what non-Catholics have they taken from the Church? He even said they stole them. They took them from our house. What they have that is Catholic is not theirs. Therefore, this must be explained, or it can be understood wrongly.
And then, of course, there is the issue of religious liberty in the document Dignitatis Humanae. This also has to be clarified and stressed. For example, religious liberty is only a declaration and not a decree or a constitution. It is a very low level of conciliar authority. I think the council intentionally chose this level, and therefore, it is open to further addition. Therefore, we do not have to be worried about this. It is open for further development.
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?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes. This is the nature of the equality of religions. And we have to correct this, and this is in the heads of so many teachers in theology, in religious teachers and so on, in the catechisms, in teaching, I mean. And we have to correct this because one aspect of the traditional teaching of the magisterium was always that all human beings, I mean all creation, and even human society, is also a creation. It has to be directed to God, not for themselves, and therefore it cannot be a human society, artistic, or without God. They have to pay God the honor, even as society globally, not only as the Church but as civil society, because we cannot separate civil society. Ultimately, do we have the same goal? The Church and civil life have the same ultimate aim, eternity, eternal life, and not only this, but also the glorification of God, at least as the Creator. And therefore, there cannot exist a government, artistic or neutral to God. It is against our creation, against the plan of God. There was never in human history a government or civil society without God. Homo naturaliter religiosus. Human being is naturally religious. Or Tertullian told homo naturaliter Christianus. It is not Christian because he is oriented to be Christian, but to be Christian Catholic, I would say, homo naturaliter Catholicus, because what does Christianos? It is Catholic because there is only one truth and one Church. There are not many churches. We do confess in the Creed every Sunday, I believe in one Church, and therefore it is only one Church, and the one Church is Catholic. And therefore Christian means Catholic. And so this has to be added. This, I mean, the principles that human society, even civic society and government, has to recognize and pay God, to recognize God in some manner also, and ultimately to recognize the true God and not to worship the devil or false gods, this devil or idolatry. No. This is not. But the true God, and the true God is the Trinity, and the manner of worship is Catholic worship because there is only one Church. It is very clear. I mean that this is the principle.
And another principle, even Pope, this was a development of Church teaching about religious liberty. For example, in the beginning with Emperor Constantine, or with Theodosius the Great, at the end of the fourth century, the Emperor Theodosius the Great established that in all the Roman Empire there is only one religion admitted, the Catholic, even the Catholic after the Arian crisis, Arianism. And so it was continuously so. The Church was accepting this, that only admitted, but in the first centuries, I mean in the patristic times, the Church was against some application of force or even recognizing that the Catholic Church in the faith is the only true Church. For example, St Ambrose, St Augustine, they were not, when some were punished, some heretics were killed by the Christian, by the Catholic emperor, they were not so in favor of this, for example. But then in the Middle Ages, they started these great heretical movements, as in the 12th century South France, and then they started the famous Inquisition. It was repression by force of another, and the Church recognized this because it was the work of the Inquisition. But then, when the time changed, after the French Revolution, there was no more Christian society or Christian government in general in Europe. And then the Church started to find another method or another mode, modality for this religious liberty, or I say the tolerance of other believers, even at the end of the famous 30 Years War, 30 Years War between the Catholics and Protestants, and then the famous Peace of Westphalia, the Holy See recognized also that there can be other believers. We have to tolerate them in the same region. In Germany, for example, de facto, not the US, not recognizing their errors, but we have to live together. There were some locations in Germany, some places where they lived together, sometimes. And then lastly, Pius the 12 even spoke about the theory of tolerance of other believers, even tolerance not only of private cult. It was in the 19th century. Pius the Ninth said, Okay, private freedom for the other religions, private cult, private worship. But then Pius the 12th developed also a tolerance of official non-Catholic worship, tolerance. Not that we recognize this as true, but we tolerate them, even in some degree, depending on the historical situation. It could be a very great degree of tolerance, depending, and so it was oriented to the common good.
Yes, of course, always. This was peace and the common good. And this was at the beginning of the council, this teaching, yes. And I think we can continue with this principle that we have to live together. So we have to tolerate one another, even official worship. But theologically, we have to keep the principles, okay, that the Catholic Church is only one, but it is always taught by the Church. And thanks be to God, Pope John Paul the Second and Cardinal Ratzinger, they issued this famous document Dominus Christus, Dominus Jesus. This was very clear, for example, it is already a clarification of the issue of the equality of all religions. And I think we, and another point, that it is always, for example, that I think it is okay, that it is not contrary to the council, that there can be, and it is for us to desire, for example, a Catholic state. Why not? Because here the government recognizes the only true God in the only true worship, the full, full true worship, Catholic. It is not against the liberty of religion. We can tolerate the others. We will not persecute them, or we cannot discriminate against them, but we can tolerate them and recognize their human dignity, while stressing that these people, for example, this nation is majority Catholic, and they want to keep this tradition to hand over to their children and grandchildren. We do not want them to change and become another religion, because we are convinced it is only one true religion. And therefore, in this context where Catholicism is the majority, of course, they have to have some privileges. It is all, I think. It is the rule of democracy, because the rule of democracy is the majority. It does not mean discrimination against others. And so I think these points could be added, and then together read with such a future document, together, read the document like Paul the Sixth did with the note Explicativa Previa during the council. Such a note could be gathered in one document. So that’s my questions. Thank you very much.