The following transcript, The Current Crisis in the Church. The Fatima Crusader Exclusive Interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider:

Transcription

1 The Fatima Crusader Exclusive Interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider: The Current Crisis in the Church On October 21, 2016, Bishop Athanasius Schneider graciously made himself available in Washington, D.C. for an interview with the Fatima Crusader, conducted by longtime contributor Christopher A. Ferrara. Bishop Schneider is the auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan and titular bishop of Celerina. He is also a member of the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross of Coimbra. He is known throughout the Catholic world for his courageous witness in defense of Catholic truth in a time of great confusion in the Church, which Sister Lucia of Fatima rightly described as diabolical confusion. This interview covered a wide array of subjects relating to the current crisis in the Church, including the controversy over Amoris Laetitia and the admission of divorced and remarried people to Holy Communion, the relativism of doctrine and the attack on morality now threatening the Church, and the consecration and conversion of Russia. Excerpts of Interview by Christopher A. Ferrara The following transcript, which has been edited for length and minor corrections, is being published with His Excellency s approval. The subject of Mr. Ferrara s questions are identifed in bold print preceded by [Q]. Bishop Schneider s responses are noted with a preceding [A]. All emphasis is added unless otherwise indicated. [Q] On the Declaration of Fidelity in response to Amoris Laetetia. [A] This statement is a common voice to profess our fidelity una voce, with one voice in the darkness of this time There are representatives from cardinals, bishops, priests, religious and lay people in this declaration of fidelity. Today there are about signatures from all over the 28 The Fatima Crusader Spring 2017

2 world. It is already a help, for the people who are depressed and in confusion, to have this. This is the voice of the Magisterium, since the text consists almost of quotations from the Magisterium. [Editor s Note: The statement, entitled Declaration of Fidelity to the Church s Unchangeable Teaching on Marriage and to Her Uninterrupted Discipline, is available at org/full]. [Q] The parallels between today and the Arian Crisis: Persecution of the orthodox. False synods. Rising resistance. Orthodoxy restored. [A] During the Arian crisis in the 4th century, the episcopacy was divided in more or less three parties: one extreme Arian, clearly heretical, the larger was the ambiguous party, who said that Christ is not directly equal to the Father in divinity, but similar, so that everyone could interpret this also in a heretical way. The third group was the minority of the bishops was clearly orthodox, whose most famous representative was Saint Athanasius. At one time even the Pope, it was Pope Liberius, endorsed the ambiguous party and excommunicated Saint Athanasius because he asked Saint Athanasius to make peace with the heretical bishops in the East, and Saint Athanasius refused. Therefore the Pope excommunicated him. The Arian heresy was a policy of the government. The obstacle was Saint Athanasius, because he was teaching clearly and was refusing all collaboration with doctrinal ambiguity. Therefore, the government had a plan to eliminate Saint Athanasius, to isolate him. Unfortunately, the Pope yielded to the pressures of the heretical and semi-heretical bishops of the East and of the Emperor excommunicating Saint Athanasius in 357. Two years later, the Emperor forced the Latin bishops to hold a Synod in Italy and the Oriental bishops in the Orient in order to approve a heretical formula. There was much pressure during these discussions there were representatives of the government there during these discussions. Finally, in both Synods the bishops accepted the heretical formula even the Latin bishops that Christ is only similar to the Father. Yet Saint Athanasius had not participated in these Synods. When this happened, it was really a darkness in the The Fatima Crusader Spring

3 Church. However, the faith was kept by the faithful and by a few bishops. Later, when Saint Jerome described this time he wrote: The entire Catholic world awoke and groaned to find that it became Arian. The enemies thought: We have the victory now. But this was not victory, because the Church is the Church of God, not of the Pope, not of the Bishops, but of Christ. After this victory of the heresy, God started to choose new instruments, new bishops, especially in the Orient: Saint Basil, Saint Gregory of Nazianz and Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Saint Basil made an alliance with new priests and bishops to resist the Arian heresy. The successor of Pope Liberius, Saint Damasus, was strong in the faith, but in the Orient the bishops were still predominantly heretical. It took still ten years, until 379, when divine Providence intervened. There came a new Emperor, Theodosius the Great. He commanded all his subjects to receive the faith of the Pope, the true Catholic faith and to reject Arianism. Since the Emperor commanded this, almost all the bishops who were before ambiguous in faith and semiarians, accepted the clarity of the Catholic faith. They accepted the Catholic faith because the Emperor commanded it! However, the true Catholic reform had been prepared by the fidelity of the simple faithful, by the courage and the sufferings of Saint Athanasius and by the few good, new bishops under the leadership of Saint Basil. Then they was celebrated a new ecumenical Council in Constantinople, in 381, which condemned again solemnly the Arian heresy. The confusion had endured for more than sixty years. Usually when we are observing a crisis of the Church in history, it lasted more or less seventy years, and then the intervention of God came. [Q] On the nature of the current crisis in the Church: relativism of doctrine concerning Christ as only Savior. Today, the confusion is in some way general: the relativism of doctrine. In the time of the Arian crisis, it was the truth of the divinity of Christ and of the Most Holy Trinity, which was denied or ambiguously distorted. Today, in my opinion, the crisis of the Church consists in three main areas: First, in doctrine, there is concretely a spreading of relativism on the uniqueness 30 The Fatima Crusader Spring 2017

4 of Christ as Saviour of all humankind, and there is an implicit acknowledgment of other religions as a legitimate way to salvation. This is really a betrayal of the Gospel. There is no other way to salvation, and we cannot collaborate not even implicitly in acknowledging the legitimacy of other religions. Of course, we respect the followers of the non-christian religions in their dignity as human beings created in the image and likeness of God. However, we cannot respect their doctrines, which are contrary to the Divine Revelation and therefore they are also contrary to the will of God. This relativism undermines the First Commandment. When we are now today engaged in the so-called interreligious dialogue, when we are giving to the other religions (which are false religions) in Catholic properties and churches the possibility of praying in their manner and even of performing acts of idolatry like the Hindus, who pray to their Gods, and the Buddhists, who adore Buddha this is an abomination. This is against the First Commandment of God. There is also this ambiguous, relativistic expression that we Catholics and the Muslims are adoring together the same God. No! This is not true. It is a confusion. [emphasis in original] We Catholics adore always the Holy Trinity with the supernatural act of faith. We do not adore separately the the Supreme Creator on the one side and the Holy Trinity on the other side. The Muslims refuse and condemn every act of adoration of the Holy Trinity; for them there is only Allah, the Creator. We cannot say we adore God together with the Moslems, because they have another understanding of God. The Islam has not the true understanding of the true God, who is the Triune God, the Most Holy Trinity. I am living in a Muslim country. Ordinary Muslims, who do not know the Koran, pray to God with an act of natural worship, according to the light of natural reason, according to a natural religion, and not according to the supernatural religion, which is only the Christian faith. Therefore, the general statement that the Muslims and Catholics adore together the same God is at the least very ambiguous. Such expressions should be avoided. This is very dangerous, this is an attack on the uniqueness of Christ, this is an implicit acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the false religions and every religion, which is not The Fatima Crusader Spring

5 Christian is a false religion. Such dangers we can often state even in the so-called interreligious dialogue, which is going on in the Church. [Q] The reappearance of the Gnostic and Lutheran heresies in the Church. The above mentioned attitude (to admit impenitent adulterers to Holy Communion) reflects a principle of the gnosis, of the ancient heresy of Gnosticism. According to Gnosticism you can have a knowledge, a gnosis, but your practical life can be definitely unconnected to your knowledge. This was a fundamental principle of Gnosticism: the practical life is only material, not touching your knowledge, and that you can be saved only by knowledge. This was the first great crisis in the Church, in the second century, before Arianism. Yet, it was not as widespread as was the Arian heresy. There was a great fighter against Gnosticism, which was infiltrating the Church in the second century: Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, a disciple of Saint Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle Saint John. He was in some way the spiritual grandson of Saint John. He sounded the alarm bell, because the Popes in the second century were not vigilant enough in relation to the spreading of the Gnosticism inside the Church; they were not aware enough of the danger. Yet the Popes were grateful to Saint Irenaeus. Pope Victor, at the end of the second century, condemned and excommunicated the Gnostics, thanks to the work of Saint Irenaeus. And so we can see that in every time there is a Providential instrument that the Holy Spirit is using. Returning to our theme today, we can observe this principle of the gnosis as well: the separation between the practice and the doctrine, in our case the indissolubility of marriage. No change in the doctrine, but only a new practice, say the above mentioned group of Cardinals and bishops. This is, however, a deception. This attitude is contrary to the Gospel. Our Lord said: They will come and say we have preached in Your name, oh Lord, and He will answer: I don t know you. You are doers of evil. The formal contradiction between the teaching of the Church and the praxis (the practice) is against the Gospel, it is against Jesus, and against the continuous teaching of the Church. Cont d on pg The Fatima Crusader Spring 2017

6 Cont d from pg. 32 And so we are now in the midst of this crisis. The root of the crisis is this contradiction between truth, unchangeable truth, and the praxis. This fact is demonstrated practically on the question of the admittance of the divorced to Holy Communion. Starting with Amoris Laetitia, as you know, several dioceses already introduced Communion to the divorced in special cases, but ultimately it is an admittance. If you say in certain cases, these words are not effective, because in the praxis it is an opening of the floodgate, and then the waters are flowing. Such an attitude reflects in the root the gnostic theory and the heresy of Luther. Since Luther said fides sola (faith alone). You can believe in indissolubility. This is sufficient. Believe. But in the praxis it is secondary. Luther reveals himself in this aspect as a gnostic, because one of his principles was: you are simul justus et peccator. You are simultaneously justified, pardoned by God, and at the same time you have still the sins in your souls. It is a gnostic contradiction: you are in sin and doing sin, but because of your faith you are already a saint or justified (justus). The practice of admitting the divorced and remarried to Communion without repentance and commitment to live in continence, is in some way similar to the schizophrenic and gnostic idea of simul justus et peccator, which Luther taught. Returning to the issue of Amoris Laetitia: The indissolubility of marriage is stated only in words, not by deeds. This opens the door to a more dangerous crisis in the Church, because once the principle is stated that you can go to Communion and continue living in sin, without repentance, without the will to cease the sin, then you can apply this principle also to the other sins against the Sixth Commandment. Such a theory and attitude is to me basically Gnostic, similar to the above mentioned heresy of Martin Luther (some Lutherans do not accept his ideas in this case). Why not apply this theory to cohabitation before marriage? Or to other sins against chastity? In some way you have gotten a dispensation from the Sixth Commandment. Because others can say: they have gotten a dispensation from the Sixth Commandment, but I have not. And so in some way to me it will logically 34 The Fatima Crusader Spring 2017

7 have other consequences for all the sins against the Sixth Commandment. Now I will refer to the recent pastoral orientations of the Diocese of Rome, which the Cardinal Vicar of the Pope published last September as a kind of implementation of Amoris Latetitia. In these orientations one can find the following statement: When two divorced are not capable to live chastely, when this is not feasible, the way to the Sacraments is open. To justify this, in the norms of the Diocese of Rome, is formulated a kind of axiom, which is completely wrong, without saying it openly: man, the human person, comes first, has primacy before the norm. In this case, however,we deal not only with a human law, this is touching on divine law on the indissolubility of marriage. This is an extreme anthropocentrism: man comes first, the will of man comes first, and then the will of God. The socalled well-being of man comes first even to the extent that God is offended. The Sixth Commandment is not a norm. The Sixth Commandment is the will of God. To be honest, these clerics who promote such a practice would have to say: Man comes first, before the will of God, but they don t dare to formulate it in this manner. However, it is substantially the consequence of what they promote. And then, for example, in the Diocese of Florence, not far from Rome, they are norms contrary to the Diocese of Rome. So the Diocese of Rome permits, the Diocese of Florence forbids. This is the first time in history that neighboring dioceses are contrary in such a matter, which touches the revealed divine will of the Sixth Commandment, and the divine truth of the indissolubility of marriage, even though touching this practically, not theoretically. This is a very deep crisis. But God will overcome it. He will send us through His divine intervention His instruments." Don t miss the continuation of Bishop Schneider s interview in the next issue, answering questions on: The rehabilitation of Luther and the commemoration of the Reformation. Anthropocentrism in the Church, as seen in Mass facing the people.... and more. The Fatima Crusader Spring