Transcript:
Timothy Flanders: Hello, and welcome to the Mass of the Ages Podcast. I am Timothy Flanders from One Peter Five, and I am very happy to be joined once again by His Excellency, Bishop Athanasius Schneider. Your Excellency, thank you for your time today.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: You are welcome. Today is the day of May, dedicated to Our Lady. So we agreed, let us greet our lady.
In nomine Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis, peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.
Gloria, patri et filio et spiritui sancto, sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
In nomine Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Timothy Flanders: Thank you so much, Your Excellency. We are talking today, and this is being recorded on May 31, the Queenship of Mary, also the Visitation in the new calendar. We are talking about your new book, Flee from Heresy, which is being released in Sacred Heart Month in June. The first thing that struck me about your new text, Your Excellency, is that it was very similar to other texts of this kind, notably Saint Alphonsus, who has a history of heresies. Is that what you are going for, sort of making an updated form of this long tradition of texts? Your Excellency, what caused you to write this book?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: The current situation in the church caused me to write it, which is evident even to a blind person. The enormous extent of the confusion in doctrine that reigned in the church, basically since the Council, started with some ambiguous and unclear affirmations. These have been then abused, and new erroneous statements were introduced and penetrated almost the vast majority of theological faculties, priestly seminaries, homilies, and sermons all around the world in the Catholic churches. Basically, I would say the basic error, the root is the relativism, the principle of relativism, doctrinal, moral, and liturgical relativism, which has reached in our day the culmination, with many statements, unfortunately, which are even coming from Rome. Sometimes from the Pope, sometimes from cardinals and bishops who are confusing the faithful. Therefore, I think it was helpful for the people, for the faithful, to specify various heresies and errors, also heresy in a broader sense. Errors that were already in the church, so that they can recognize that what we have today, they have their roots already in the past, or from which they developed. My intention was that as a bishop is a teacher, a pastor, but also the Magisterium has in some sense also a kind of physician, a doctor, in a spiritual way, to cure the spiritual diseases and errors, and heresies. This is a spiritual disease, and very dangerous, very contagious.
Therefore, from the first times, the apostles already warned the first Christians to be aware of the false prophets. The apostles already said in the New Testament, “Do not accept foreign or alien teachings.” Then the admonitions of our Lord, Jesus Christ, in the Book of Revelation, in the first chapters, the letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor, which representatively for all times. There are already enumerated by the Lord concrete heresies which were in the first generation of Christians in these churches, which are enumerated in the Book of Revelation. The great bishop, Ignatius of Antioch martyr, one of the first disciples of the apostles, warned as and also Saint Polycarp, his friend, also a disciple of the apostles, warned the faithful repeatedly of the danger of real heresies and errors, and false teachings. I took the title of my new book from Saint Ignatius, the disciple of the apostles, Flee from Heresy. The first known book, or the work against heresies, was Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, who was a disciple of Saint Polycarp, who in his turn was a disciple of Saint John, the Evangelist. Saint Irenaeus gave his work he did his title known already at the end of the second century, the title Against the Heresies, Adversus Haereses. Before him, Saint Justin the Martyr had already written a book against heresies. Unfortunately, this was lost. We have only the information that such a work existed, but we have no text. From Irenaeus, we have the entire text, five books against the heresies. Since then, the great Fathers of the church.
Then, in the following centuries, especially in times of confusion, she published at least descriptions of heresies. Like a good physician, when there is a pandemic or epidemic, a good physician, he must enumerate the diseases and the danger. It is a service of charity. We have then from Saint Augustine in the fourth century, the most famous after Irenaeus, was Epiphanius of Salamis in Crete and in Cyprus, and so on. Therefore, in such work, I was simply following the example of the great Fathers of the Church, and we have to learn from history and from the saints.
Timothy Flanders: Since it is Sacred Heart Month, I would like to focus on the Liturgy of the Eucharist. You speak about reforming the liturgy on page 157, and many people say, “Well, Vatican Two was a gathering of over 2,000 bishops, and virtually all of them agreed that the ritual of the mass had to be reformed. So would it not be a heresy or an error at least, to resist the will of the Holy Spirit? Is it not the will of the Holy Spirit that the mass should be reformed? How can we resist that?” What do you say to that objection?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: First, it is never taught that this is the will of the Holy Spirit. We do not know. The church only says that in cases when the Magisterium of the church, the universal, or in a council or the Pope, proposes, or pronounces officially and solemnly, a doctrine as revealed by God, all faithful are obliged to accept it and to believe. In these cases, it is said that it is not an inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is only said that in these moments, the Holy Spirit assists the Magisterium not to pronounce an error. It means assisting the Magisterium in pronouncing the truth. You see how careful the church is in applying or in using the term “it is the Holy Spirit.” We have to be careful to use such an expression first. This is not given as a fact, that in a pastoral text, which the Second Vatican Council declared itself as only a pastoral Council, Pope Paul the sixth officially declared that the Second Vatican Council did not have the intention to propose to the faithful a definitive doctrine. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is only assisting in definitive teaching. This is logically a consequence. But it is not definitive teaching; we cannot say straight away, “It is the Holy Spirit, it is the will of the Holy Spirit.” We cannot say this. It is only for definitive teaching. We can say, surely, it is possible. It is possible, but it is not necessarily the Holy Spirit. This is the first point I want to make.
The second, the text of the council about liturgy, is in a very general way formulated and vague. It is not concrete. It only says it must be reformed, but in which way, the council did not specify. The council only specified in some points. This is the Latin, the use of Latin, or the vernacular language, saying that in the liturgy, the vernacular language can be used and should be given some place, not totally vernacular. This is against the council expressly, because the council in two points, numbers of the documents, Sacrosanctum Concilium, speaks that Latin must be retained in the liturgy of the Roman rite. The faithful and the bishops are obliged to ensure that the faithful are able to know, to pray, and to sing the Ordinarium of the Mass, the Credo, Gloria, and so on. No one observes this prescription in the usual parishes of the Novus Ordo.
Let us say the next point, it was given the permission of concelebration, but only in some cases, and then in a very vague formulation, concelebration. Then it was expressed the wish, or the suggestion that the Holy Scripture would be more used in the liturgy, or there may be cycles of years, and the communion could be given under both species. These are concrete points. It is not so specified. It could be reformed to the order of mass and so on. This is a second point.
The third very important point, which is today maybe not frequently known, is that a reform of the Mass was made according to the indication of the council fathers in 1965. At the beginning of 1965, the council was not yet finished, because the council was finished in December 1965. In March 1965 was published a new Ordo Missae, a new order of mass by the Pope, which was a very balanced and very careful reform. When the council fathers returned to the last session in September 1965, they already celebrated the Mass according to this. The Pope said that in the congregation at the beginning of 1965, that this order of mass is an application of the wishes of the council fathers. All were happy with such a balanced and cautious reform. Even Monsignor Lefebvre, Archbishop Lefebvre, welcomed this reform in 1965, and since he celebrated the Mass of 1965 and even in the seminary of the Society of Saint Pius the Tenth, the first five years, they celebrated the 1965 Mass. They had no objections, because it was very carefully formulated. For example, there were basically no substantial changes. Only Psalm 42 was removed, but it was also not prayed during the last Lent time and during the masses of the Requiem. Still today, the traditional mass does not use Psalm 42 on this occasion. It was not such a revolutionary change. Then the last gospel was not prayed. But even before the council, on some occasions when there was another celebration, the last gospel was not prayed. In any case, these were only two changes introduced, which were not radical, and the rest remained really as the mass order was before the council, without changes in the content, I mean, there were only changed some rubrics. In which sense, some prayers were said aloud. For example, the Secret, Secretar, and then the prayers after the Our Father, the embolism, were said in a loud voice. But this is not a substantial change. When you speak, the same prayers remain, and then the only visible change for the faithful is the use of the vernacular language. You could use the vernacular language in the entire mass of 1965, with the exception of the beginning with the preface until the Our Father was in Latin, obligatory in Latin and in a silent voice, with all the crosses and the reflections, nothing was changed. It was a very balanced form.
The next point, which is important, is when we speak about this, two years later, after the council, 1967, it was the first synod, assembly of the Synod of Bishops after the council. For this assembly, Bugnini, the so-called revolutionary architect of the Novus Ordo, he and his commission prepared a new form of mass, the normative mass, as it was called, which was basically the same as what we have today, the Novus Ordo, which was then promulgated by Paul the sixth two years later in 1969. You see, in 1965, all the council fathers were happy, mostly. It is a balanced, good, and basically a reform. Then, in 1967, he proposed this revolutionary novelty and celebrated this new Novus Ordo in the presence of the synodal fathers 1967, who were almost all still members of the council two years ago, and they voted on this so-called proposal, a draft of this Novus Ordo, and the majority rejected this. They did not accept. The Novus Ordo was basically rejected by the council fathers because, I repeat, in 1967, the members of the synod were almost all who had already participated in the council two years before. So they rejected the majority of this form. In spite of this rejection, I would say of the council fathers, in spite of this, Bugnini, with the approval of Pope Paul the Sixth, imposed on the entire church a revolutionary Novus Ordo, which was basically rejected by the council fathers in 1967. These are the facts.
Timothy Flanders: Thank you, Your Excellency, for the very thorough answer, and that you are mentioning some of the most conspicuous aspects the faithful have seen. There is another aspect that you have written a book about, it is Dominus Est, and you mentioned this on page 120. This is, in some ways, this is even more of a conspicuous change, I think, than even the vernacular, because this is where lay people touch Almighty God in the Blessed Sacrament. I am talking about communion in the hand. It is said by those who advocate this that, “Well, the early church practiced communion in the hand. You can look up the text of Saint Augustine, or whoever, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, where it mentions placing the host in the hand of the faithful. So how can we say that that is wrong? The early church did it. Therefore, if we are reviving an ancient practice, is not that something that is okay and permitted, and also the Popes have permitted it. So how can we be against communion in the hand?”
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: First, we have to say that this modern form is not the same as the ancient form, simply because in the ancient form, you received it on your right hand, not in the left, as today, and then you were not allowed to touch the host with your fingers. You had to take it directly from the palm of your hand with your mouth, bowing down your head reverently, and taking it directly with the mouth to avoid contact with the fingers, and so the danger of losing the fragments, evidently, or that something can fall down. The women had to put a white cloth, a sheet of white cloth, on their palm of the hand, which was called the dominicale, and take it directly with the mouth without touching it. The hands were before they were purified. For the ancient church, it was impossible to simply take with your hands, with which you were touching before money or coins and so on, the body of Christ directly. They had to wash their hands and purify them. So you see, this is completely different. The gestures and these gestures today it was introduced by the Calvinists, not by Martin Luther. You take yourself with your fingers and put it in your mouth like you take a kind of common food at the table. So this is the first important difference.
The second, the church is growing in the forms of veneration over the centuries. The doctrine is not new, but it the deepening. For example, we had the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in the monstrance, let us say, came very late, relatively late, maybe in the 13th or 14th century. So now when we say, but the first centuries, they had no exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, they had no monstrances. Let us abolish now the monstrance and the exposition, because in the first centuries, they did not have this. You see, this is a wrong conclusion. It is the same with communion in the hand, because the church made an experience and recognized by facts that this form is not sure enough for the immense greatness and sacredness of the Holy Communion and the host, the holy body of Christ, and therefore the church instinctively in the west and in the east, at least since the sixth or seventh century, at least spontaneously, by a deeper knowledge and by a desire of deeply expressing the reverence, changed or I would say, obliged the faithful to receive directly in the mouth, avoiding the hand, which is a greater danger of losing the fragments and of irreverence.
Then the church is growing, also developing. We had also, in the first Christians, they had not prayed the rosary, probably they had not prayed the litanies to Our Lady, and so on. This is a development which the Holy Spirit is guiding deeper, and the same with the gestures of reverence towards the Holy Eucharist. This is, in this case, the communion on the tongue. Then also a principle which Pope Pius the twelfth rejected, the so-called liturgical archaeologist. It means that we simply restore some rites which were practiced in the first centuries. Pope Pius the twelfth said, “This is a wrong attitude,” because the church is growing. I cannot, as an adult, put on the clothes that I was wearing when I was 10 years old. It is not fitting for my body, because I have grown. The church has grown in deepening in the mystery of the Eucharist. Therefore, this simpler way is not fitting. The church had experienced this and learned from this. Therefore, this argument is not valid. Also, the communion in the hand was not universal. We do not possess documents and proofs that it was practiced, let us say, in Rome. We have from Jerusalem in North Africa, Saint Augustine, or in South Gaul, but not in Rome in Egypt, or in other places. So we cannot truly say it was a universal practice.
Timothy Flanders: Thank you, Your Excellency. If anyone would like to go deeper into this topic, your book, Dominus Est, is an essential introduction to this. Later in the text, you mentioned this question: “Isn’t any form of worship inherently sacred? No, only traditional rites enjoy this inherent sanctity.” My question is, it is often said by especially bishops who have been stamping out the Latin Mass, for example, they say, “Well, you can just do the Novus Ordo in Latin. You can do the Novus Ordo ad orientem. You can do all the new Mass in a way that looks very similar to the Latin Mass. Why can’t you just accept the so-called reverent Novus Ordo?” What would you say to your brother bishops who make that argument, Your Excellency?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: First, of course, this would be good to celebrate ad orientem. This would be the first step, I mean, the first most important to change, really, basically, the mind, the anthropocentric and Protestant shaped mind of many Catholics and priests in our day, again to be Christocentric and in the liturgy. This would be the first very important step. And then, of course, communion kneeling and on the tongue without discussion, and then use more Latin. Of course, this is necessary, but not sufficient. Why? Because the Novus Ordo, even in Latin, contains inherently texts which are at least doctrinally ambiguous and undermine the essential sacrificial element and characteristic of the Holy Mass.
Specifically, these are the prayers of the offertory, which are taken from a Jewish meal supper. If there are meal prayers, and in the offertory, the priest expresses the intention, which he is not doing. If these two prayers of the offertory, when the priest is offering the bread and then the wine, are expressing that we are now doing here, a meal to eat and drink, this is reducing the meaning of the Mass in a central part of the Mass, close to the consecration. This is turning from the essential sacrificial aspect, which was always taught since the apostles, in the same way, the Mass is a sacrifice. Of course, it is contained as an integral part of the moment of the banquet, I mean, the communion. But here, the Novus Ordo introduces a new element, alien from the entire tradition of the church, in that the entire celebration itself is characterized as a meal, and so lacking the clear declaration that this is a sacrifice, which the old offertory prayers in the Roman Rite and in the east, in all the Eastern Rites, they are expressing. This is in all the Eastern Rites. It is a universal belief and universal practice of prayer of the entire church. Therefore, these new offertory prayers in the Novus Ordo are a break. This is a rupture in a Protestant-minded rupture. This is serious, and therefore, we cannot use these new Eucharistic prayers even in Latin. I even have a proof of this, a demonstration that there are several Protestant pastors and Anglican pastors who declared several times that we can accept the Novus Ordo but with the new offertory prayers, but only with the second Eucharistic Prayer, which is almost without mentioning of the sacrifice, and celebrate our Protestant supper, as they say, or service, communion service. So you see that these, these offertory prayers, the new one and the second Eucharistic Prayer, when they are together, they are transforming, in some way, the Catholic mass into the communion service. Basically, a banquet service. This is very dangerous. I think that the magisterium and the Pope must very soon truly abolish this new Eucharistic, this offertory prayers, and at least the second Eucharistic Prayer, forbid this and restore the old offertory prayers.
Timothy Flanders: Thank you, Your Excellency. I would like to ask a different sort of question, because you are highlighting the problem with reducing the sacrificial element and increasing the communal meal element. But I would like to bring it back to Pius the 10th, because I read this text by Bishop Lenga, and this includes your preface. In this text, he goes over communion in the hand as one issue, but his second treatise is all about the frequency of Holy Communion, and dealing with the fact that traditionally, the faithful did not receive Holy Communion every Sunday, much less every day. It was really Pius the 10th, his promotion of frequent communion, that seemed, at least some might say it was a revolutionary act of Pius the 10th, or at least his pontificate, so that even in traditional parishes before the Novus Ordo, it is expected that every single person goes to Holy Communion unless they are in mortal sin. So would you say that Pius the 10th helped to reduce that sacrificial element and increase the communal meal element by this frequent communion change?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: No, because Holy Communion is an integral part of the Mass. It belongs; it cannot be missing, so it belongs, but not the substantial part. An integral part, substantial, essential, is the sacrificial, because the meal element flows out from the sacrifice. It presupposes the sacrifice, the meal element, the communion. Therefore, the church always said that when, for example, a priest is celebrating mass, and after the consecration, he collapses and dies or cannot celebrate, then the mass is not finished because he has not received Holy Communion. This aspect of the meal is missing. Therefore, another priest must continue the Mass and consume the body and blood of Christ. You see, this is linked. Therefore, daily communion in no way increases the meal element. It is a part of the mass. Only when we change the texts into a meal shape, or celebrate with people, like around the table, this would be dangerous, then changing the aspect to a more meal shape. But this is not.
What Pius, because it was in some places or in the first centuries, there were moments and places where there was daily Holy Communion, maybe not for all people, but the practice of some daily is attested by the Church Fathers also. But very soon, it is true, the daily communion, or even the weekly communion, decreased since the even since the early Middle Ages, already until Pius the 10th. Yes, in the Eastern Church, it has even more decreased than in our Church until now. Let us say the Russian Orthodox Church. The practice is that people receive only several times during the year, not weekly, not even monthly. Monthly would be our frequent communion because in the Russian Orthodox Church, the practice is that for each Holy Communion, we have to confess previously. It is linked, confession, and so and therefore they are more rarely in communion. In our practice, before the council, it was even before the council and surely before Pius the 10th, a spread practice that devout Catholics received monthly communion. Therefore, they prepared themselves with a good confession and so. But of course, daily communion was also practiced by saints, and very desired by saints. Saint Therese of Lisieux desires so much to receive daily. It is really a help for the spiritual growth of many souls. This is without doubt, and weekly communion is also helpful for many people, helpful. So this is a principle. This is good. But now comes this element. I think this was helpful and correct by Pius the 10th, to allow again the practice of daily communion, or frequent communion.
But what, in my opinion, Pius the 10th overlooked or forgot or did not pay attention to a very practical norm, and I think in the future, it must be introduced. He said simply, daily communion or frequent communion is allowed under the condition that you are not in a mortal sin, in state of mortal sin. But basically, you are not a judge of yourself. Of course, your conscience says you. But then, simply, there are people who, thanks be to God, are not committing mortal sin for a long time, and so they are not, do not confess, and then do not go to confession. This is a lack of the aspect of purifying even the soul because venial sins are also a problem for spiritual progress, and to receive the Lord with a purified heart, you have to even repent your venial sins. Of course, they are forgiven outside the confession, but confession helps with special graces to purify your soul.
The practice, for example, when you gain indulgences, plenary indulgences, you cannot receive them without a previous confession. At least the practice says it must be. For example, you can receive daily as plenary indulgence when you, for example, when you read daily half an hour Holy Scripture, you can get, you can receive a plenary indulgence or half an hour adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, but you have to receive Holy Communion on this day, pray for the intention of the Pope, and be without attachment to a sin and with a confession, but a confession you have not to do daily when you can receive. But it is sufficient in the practice of the church that if you are still in the state of grace, but you, even in spite of you, are in the state of grace, you must receive the Holy Sacrament of Confession, to receive the plenary indulgences, at least every second week. You see, to receive the indulgences we must confess, even in a state of grace, you must confess much more, in my opinion, is the sacredness of the Holy Communion, even if you are not in the state of mortal sin.
I think the church can oblige you to receive, in certain periods, the Sacrament of Confession, as she obliges you, as a precondition, to receive plenary indulgences in spite of your state of grace. Therefore, this was a lack, in my opinion. For example, I could imagine that in the future, the Pope or the church could make a norm, those who daily receive Holy Communion must confess at least every second week, twice a month. It is independent of the state of grace. And those who receive every Sunday at least weekly, they must confess at least monthly once. So we would have a discipline and a kind of so people would not automatically go all year, but they must, “Oh, I have to confess, once a month at least.” And so it would be contributing to a more conscious and more reverent and more spiritual, I think, profitable practice of the Holy Communion.
Timothy Flanders: Thank you, Your Excellency. That is a very helpful answer. Well, thank you so very much for your time. Once again, click on the link to buy the book, Flee from Heresy. Your Excellency, do you have any further final comments for us as we conclude?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, I would say, love so much the truth. Love the truth of the Catholic faith, the unchangeable truth. You find this in the old, crystal clear catechesis, catechisms. They are published now. Thanks be to God. The project “Ready Box” is published, already are published 12 volumes of traditional, approved catechisms of the last centuries. Very clear language. Please read this. This is sufficient to be sure in your faith and love the Catholic faith. Therefore, you have to know the dangers, like all the dangers to your health. You have to know. So this is a positive aspect, I would say my book Flee from Heresy, to help you to avoid contagion and to be more sure in your Catholic faith, and to say to everyone, “I know my Catholic faith, I know whom I believe.”
Timothy Flanders: Thank you, Your Excellency. Would you leave us with your blessing?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo. Benedictio Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti descendat super vos et maneat semper. Amen. Praise be Jesus Christ, now and forever.