Transcript:
Brian McCall: I want to ask you about a timely topic that many of our readers have been concerned with and have been struck with confusion, because, as we have been talking about, there are sadly many theologians, priests, and even bishops in the church who is promoting heresy and promoting immoral behavior.
In light of that, many of them seem not to be judged by the church, but in early July, a judgment did come from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, declaring an excommunication Latae sententiae against Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. I would like to get your opinion on that. First, I would like to ask you to explain to our readers what your reading of the decree is, because some people have claimed Archbishop Viganò was punished for heresy. First, could you clear up if that’s actually what was said and if that’s true?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: My understanding is that he was formally punished for the crime of schism, not of heresy. As you mentioned, I lament that so many bishops and clergy who are openly spreading heresies are not punished. This is unjust; this is a double measure. In some aspects, heresy is more dangerous than schism. Schism is traditionally defined as being against charity and unity, whereas heresy is deeper. It is undermining the foundations of our faith itself, so it is more dangerous. I lament that the strictness of the Holy See with which it reacted against schismatic statements of Archbishop Viganò should be applied more to concrete heretical clergymen in the church.
Brian McCall: This is a lament beyond that. More specifically, and maybe you have not looked at it enough, but if you had, do you think this judgment of schism is just against Archbishop Viganò, or do you think it is not just?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: I also lament, I regret that Archbishop Viganò is basically promoting Sedevacantism because he does not recognize the validity and authority of the reigning pontiff, whom the entire church, this is important, the entire church, the entire episcopacy, the entire college of cardinals since his election, recognized and is recognizing as the valid Pope. This was the constant and more sure tradition of the church. We have had in the history of the church several cases of evidently invalid papal elections. It would be very good to study the history of the papacy carefully, and there were, but subsequently, the peaceful or the de facto acceptance of an invalidly elected pope by the majority of the episcopate and the faithful made this pope de facto a valid pope. The church, the Holy See, recognized these popes as valid in the list in the Annuario Pontificio. There are many cases when you research history that were evidently invalid in the election mode. It is not a divine law. What is not divine law does not have an absolute validity and absolute value. This is the error of Archbishop Viganò. He establishes a human law, which is the law of the election of a pope, and he absolutizes it. This is not according to the constant and perennial meaning, tradition, and practice of the Catholic Church, of the Holy See.
Also, the issue of a heretical Pope is still a theory of theologians, even saint theologians. It is not an official teaching of the Magisterium. We have to distinguish this, and then, to quote only one Pope, Paul the Fourth, with his bull about a heretical Pope, it is not sufficient because it was not an ex cathedra definition. The church never recognized this bull as an infallible teaching. No Pope and his successors did not continue and did not repeat in their public statements, bulls, and constitutions what Paul the Fourth established, and therefore, the contrary. The old Canon Law, for example, the Corpus Juris Canonici, was a collection of canon law until 1917, and there was contained an expression of the 12th century that the Pope cannot be judged by anyone, unless he deviates from the faith; in this sense, he would be a heretic. But the Magisterium of the church did not teach it.
The Popes did not teach it in their documents, with the exception of only one Pope in the 16th century, so this is not sufficient. One pope is not sufficient; it must be a perennial, a constant teaching of the church. On the contrary, the Code of Canon Law of 1917, which was called the code of Pius and Benedict, removed this phrase from the old Corpus Juris Canonici. If it were the sense of the church to continue with this and what Paul the fourth said, they would not have removed this phrase from the canon law, but it was removed in 1917 and not repeated. This is simply a fact we have to consider to be truly the Catholic meaning, and the sensus fidelium of the church, which I repeat, must be perennial, constantly through the centuries, maintained and repeated not by theologians only, but by the Magisterium of the church. Until now, it is a theory or opinion of theologians, but not an official teaching of the church.
Brian McCall: I do not know if you would agree, but it has been my opinion for some time that one of the dangers of a Sedevacantist position is the danger of curiosity. You want to know everything. Is this theory correct? What would happen if this Pope did this? Instead of understanding there may be some facts or things about the temporal life of the church that we may not know in this lifetime and that are left up to God, and that we do not really need to worry too much about these things because the church has given us the principles to live upon, the truths, and whatever is happening at the highest level of the church, we can proceed to save our souls. Do you think that opinion is a good one and a way to think about this matter, or would you correct something in that?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Yes, I think that one of the basic errors of Sedevacantists is that they infallibilize the Pope. The Pope is not infallible 24 hours a day. This is not Catholic; this is a distortion of the Catholic dogma of infallibility. The infallibility is very precisely defined, and there are conditions for an expression to be infallible. The church says in canon law that a doctrine is not infallible unless it is clearly manifested as such. They cannot simply say that what the Pope speaks or writes in his documents is infallible. They must be carefully examined. The people who promote Sedevacantism commit this basic error of a total or absolute infallibility of the papal Magisterium. Therefore, when they state an error, an ambiguity, or a material heresy of a Pope or after a Council, they draw the wrong consequence of saying that there is no Magisterium and there is no Pope.
The other thing you mentioned is a lack of trust and supernatural vision of the indestructibility of the church. Despite evident errors spread even by a Pope, God is still guiding his church, and God is holding the church in his hands. This phenomenon of doctrinal confusion spread by even a Pope is only temporal. It is temporal; we have to wait, and God will intervene as he did in the past. Simply study the history of the church, and he will intervene. It is his church. These Sedevacantist attitudes are also a kind of human solution. We will take the situation into our hands, and we will resolve it. We will simply declare the Pope is not Pope, or we will elect a new pope, or we will establish a committee, or a kind of imperfect council, or other expressions they invent. This is all a human solution to an issue that can basically and ultimately only be resolved by God himself, as Christ manifested it at the time, during the storm on the sea, where the disciples were with him on the boat. A huge storm started, and the waters came into the boat, and they were incapable of resolving the situation. Only the Lord, who was sleeping, stood up and commanded the wind and storm to be silent. The Lord will do this in our time.
These Sedevacantists lack the basic supernatural trust that the Lord will intervene. This is not promoting passivity, some say, “Oh, you are simply passive and do nothing.” We do, we can, and must, in such cases, admonish the Pope, advise him respectfully, not with disrespectful language, which unfortunately, Archbishop Viganò is sometimes using. We must respectfully admonish him to help him and to spread the true faith. This is an activity. We must pray for the Pope, do penance for the Pope, and do expiation for him and reparation. This is very much active; it is not passive. But leave to the Lord his task. It is not your task to depose the Pope and to declare him not Pope. It is the Lord who will do this through his church after this pontificate. It is better that we must implore with fervent prayers that the Pope, before he dies, will have the grace, the immense grace of God, to retract all his ambiguities and all he did which was contributing to confusion.
Brian McCall: Very, very well said. Thank you. We highly recommend you consider Flee from Heresy, which you can obtain from Sophia Institute Press. We will have a link in the description. Thank you for getting up so early in the morning, your time, Your Excellency, to join us. We will continue to pray for you and your work in the church.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Thank you, God bless you.
Brian McCall: Thank you, Your Excellency.