“Bishop” Schneider: “After Francis’ Pontificate there could be Judgments about his Behavior,” denounces “Cardinal” Kasper for “Lying to Souls”
For months now we’ve been predicting that if things continue as they have been going, there will eventually be a schism within the Novus Ordo Sect — essentially a division of the conservative Ratzinger Modernists versus the progressive Bergoglio Modernists. In an exclusive interview with French journalist and blogger Jeanne Smits, Athanasius Schneider, a “conservative” Novus Ordo auxiliary “bishop” in Kazakhstan, sounds off on Francis, Kasper, and the controversial Synod in Rome.
Below we present an exclusive English translation of this interview, which was released on June 5, 2015. We share the thoughts of “Bp.” Schneider to underscore the strong anti-Francis tendencies found among some in the Novus Ordo episcopate, and as an opportunity to warn our readers not to fall for the false opposition to Francis by the “conservatives” in the Vatican II Church. Although Mr. Schneider — who is actually a layman — is no doubt well-intentioned and sincere, he too is yet another adherent of the false Vatican II religion and its papal impostors. He is thus extremely dangerous because he puts an orthodox, conservative veneer on the false Novus Ordo Sect, effectively perpetuating the wholly flawed idea that one can be a Roman Catholic in the Vatican II Church and recognize its shepherds as genuine Catholic authorities.
[The following is the translated transcript of the June 5, 2015 post on the Jeanne Smits blog. The original French is available at http://leblogdejeannesmits.blogspot.com/2015/06/une-interview-exclusive-de-mgr.html
. All photos are taken from the original blog post and are © Olivier Figueras.]
Exclusive Interview with Bishop Schneider on the Synod: The True Pastoral Welcoming of “Remarried” Divorced Persons
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, the auxiliary bishop of Astana, in Kazakhstan, answered my questions when he was passing through Paris for this blog. The first part of this interview, regarding the liturgy, angels, the Order of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross, and communion in the hand was published just recently in Tu es Petrus, the magazine of the Fraternity of St. Peter, and I waited for its publication to present you these words which yet concern a “hot” topic. He tells here of his concern about the manipulations which took place at the extraordinary synod on the family and recalls how important it is to speak the truth to all, and to speak it “with love”. He concludes by calling on the faithful to be “heralds of the faith”. –J.S.
[In the following text, the words of the interviewer, Jeanne Smits, are rendered in blue italics, the words of “Bp.” Athanasius Schneider in regular black font.]
--Your Excellency gave a very interesting interview on the synod. In it you stated in a forceful manner what was already expressed by Cardinal Müller, Cardinal Napier, Cardinal Pell and others who in various ways referred to a “manipulation” of the synod. Could you speak about this?
--The manipulation was obvious in the eyes of the entire world. Correctly following the synod, the journalists in Rome saw it. And the participating bishops were able to confirm it: they lived moments of obvious manipulation. And this is very sad. This has no place being in a synod of Catholic bishops whose raison d’être is to proclaim the truth and to transmit it. The manipulation of the truth has no place there. There are only a few historical examples of this. I do not like making a direct comparison of the synod that just took place with the pseudo-synod of Ephesus in 449, which was called the “Robbery [Robber Synod] of Ephesus”. This is not the same thing but there are some similarities in methods. I hope that it will not repeat itself.
--Do you think the reaction that occurred was expected?
--I do not know if it was expected, but I believe many synod fathers took notice of the manipulation. And certain protested, thank God.
--This raises a terrible question. It was Pope Francis who appointed the Secretary General of the Synod, Archbishop Bruno Forte, it was he who asked for the closed doors during the first week... What can be his responsibility?
--His responsibility, it must be to God. He has his conscience. In the Church there is a principle: Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. The first see can be judged by no one. It is this which I must follow. Perhaps after his pontificate there could be judgments about his behavior. But today he is our pope, the Vicar of Christ, and just like each one of us, he must one day render accounts to God, including about this synod, according to his conscience.
--You refer in your book to the idolatry of this neo-pagan age: the idolizing of man. The synod began by bringing up the “remarried” divorced, and it slowly slid towards the homosexualist program. Do you see a link between divorce and the “marriage” of same-sex couples? Between the contraceptive mentality and the idea that marriage is for pleasure, and the opening of marriage to same-sex couples?
--Perhaps, but it is not a necessary link. In Kazakhstan we have a seventy-year heritage of communism and materialism. It was a society of abortion and contraception, but it showed a strong antipathy towards homosexuality. Even today the idea is very deeply fixed in our society that homosexuality goes against reason, against nature. I cannot say there is a direct link. But in a general manner, when one has no reverence for the sixth commandment of God and one does not observe the rule of sexuality given to the ensemble of humanity, whether through extramarital relations or recourse to contraception, that contradicts the sixth commandment. When that is not respected, then the so-called and supposed “marriage” of same-sex couples could be the next step, that one no longer respects the commandment for those who have certain anomalies, like homosexuality. Then comes pedophilia—this minority can also demand rights; and incest and then bestiality, other forms of deviant sexuality. We must recognize that the human being is wounded, including in his sexuality where the wound is very deep. This is why God has given the commandment, to help him to heal.
--To heal wounded persons, who choose a homosexual way of life or who marry after their divorce, what would be the correct pastoral response?
--Saint Paul said that we must transmit the truth in charity. In love. When I speak to a person with reverence and understanding, when I respect him, even a sinner, then he will be more open to the arguments I give. It is only a method, and it is a first step. The second step: we must tell him the integral truth, all of the truth, such as it is. When you teach mathematics, you teach its rules. You do not choose to not observe such a rule, or you will be unable to calculate anything. The human being and its soul are more important than temporal problems. It is therefore necessary to tell all of the truth. “Now you can choose, you are free, I do not force you, but here is the truth. When you want it, I can help you.” We must therefore do catechesis, homilies, very clear statements on the objective rule and law of sexuality, and also invite these persons to utilize the means given by God: prayer. If you do not have the strength to observe these commandments, pray. God will give it to you. Go to church, pray, and ask for the grace of conversion.
--Cardinal Kasper would say the Eucharist is precisely an aid for sinners, a food which would help these persons...
--That is false and untrue. These persons are sick, sick in their souls. To a diabetic, I cannot give sugar—I would kill him. Even though sugar is good for persons in good health. This diabetic loves sugar, he has eaten it all his life. I refuse him sugar and he accuses me of being cruel to him and asks me to give it back to him. I will answer him, “No, I will not give it to you, because you are diabetic, I would kill you.” Cardinal Kasper lies to the souls of these persons by giving them communion. It is a very irresponsible behavior.
--At the synod there was nothing in either the interim report or the final report about mortal sin, about heaven or hell.
--That is very sad. All of the Gospel, all the letters of the Apostles, the Fathers of the Church speak clearly of the dangers of sin; they speak of repentance and grace. This is the language of Jesus: He always called to repentance. He would say: Receive grace, pray; He would speak of the Kingdom of Heaven, He would call people to look towards the Kingdom, the supernatural. This omission—that is to say, not having spoken of mortal sin at the synod—I consider it very grave.
--Much has been said about changing the pastoral practice and not its doctrine. Is it possible to do that and up to what point? And does not changing the practice change the doctrine, at least in the minds of the faithful?
--Yes. It is all simply a lie. It is a contradiction that goes against good sense and reason. How can I say that we respect the indissolubility of marriage and at the same time give to those who contradict this truth, by their living in unions between divorced persons, the most official of recognitions which the Church has at her disposal, which is Holy Communion? Communion is by its nature an expression of the fact that the one who is receiving it is in full communion with God, with His Commandments, and with the Church. Therefore, it is a lie: these persons are not in full communion with all the Commandments of God. It is an attitude which is typical of Gnosis. For the Gnostic, the important thing is the thought, not what one does. That has always been characteristic of Gnosis, even the Christian Gnosis of the second century, for example. That is why this proposition is Gnostic, it is untruthful, and it contradicts reason.
--One cannot say the same thing of the ordinary Christian who sins but communicates; is it not a question of distinguishing between mortal sin and venial sin?
--The question here is not one of mortal sin or venial sin, it is one of repentance. I repent of what I have done. In the case of remarried divorced persons, Cardinal Kasper and his allies are dispensing them from repentance. They continue in mortal sin without repenting because they do not admit that their sexual acts—which are sexual acts outside of a valid marriage—are mortal sins. That is the problem.
--There is also the objection of the “hardness of hearts”. Before Christ, there was divorce, repudiation, “because of the hardness of your hearts”. Christ came, and we know the truth. But such persons do not know it, or have lost it. Is the Christian right to say that marriage is one man and one woman united forever, and that this is true for all, or is it only true for Catholics?
--It is true for all. For Christ said, “In the beginning, it was not so. In the beginning God created man and woman, and the two became one flesh.” In the beginning, at Creation, even before original sin. This is why the unity and indissolubility of marriage are inscribed in the “code” of human nature, in the “code” of man and woman, written by God the Creator. There is no authority which can modify this code written by God, even if it was damaged by original sin. It was not, however, destroyed, it is present. That is why it is possible to abuse this code in polygamy, in second marriages, because of the hardness of heart, but it is not possible to destroy it. Even natural marriage between non-Christians is indissoluble, unless [it is dissolved] by the pope in light of the faith, when one of the spouses is baptized and wants to live in a Christian marriage.
--The coming of Christ has therefore changed the entire world, and not only what is expected of Catholics?
--Exactly, because Christ brought us healing and restoration of the divine order. Christ not only confirmed the original beauty and truth of marriage, He elevated it to a very high dignity, to the sacramental dignity.
--Do you have the sense today that bishops or cardinals who are faithful to the full teaching of the Church on the Eucharist and on marriage are subject to persecution, including from inside the Church?
--There can be hidden persecutions of bishops and cardinals, or priests, who very forcefully defend the truth of Christ regarding marriage. We can see it in certain cases. But I hope it will not extend to within the Church, because the Magisterium has the role of defending the truth, which must necessarily manifest itself in corresponding acts, not changing it. I can imagine though from outside the Church there could be an open persecution.
--You have called Christians, and particularly lay Christians, to resist, including resisting their bishops if they should see them not defending the truth. At the present time it seems to me that many lay people are in confusion regarding the message which is coming from the Church. What must we do, and how to be sure of remaining in orthodoxy?
--It is necessary to remain faithful to the vows of one’s baptism. At baptism, you promised to remain faithful to the faith, not to a part of the faith, but to the integrality of the Catholic faith. You did not make your baptismal vows to the pope, or to your bishop, but to God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And thus you must render accounts after your death, not to the pope or to the bishop, but to God. This is why we must maintain our fidelity, and even be prepared to die for each truth of the Catholic faith. Unfortunately, today, in the crisis in which we live, certain representatives of the hierarchy, certain bishops or cardinals, are trying to destroy a part of the faith, on the question of remarried divorced persons, for example. We must therefore resist, for when one maintains the truth, one defends the Church — it is this that is orthodox. When a bishop or cardinal denies a truth of the faith in his practical dimension by pleading, for example, for Holy Communion for remarried divorced persons, it is he who is no longer orthodox, ceasing thus to be “catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultor” (cf. Canon Missae). It is the one who resists who finds himself most deeply within the Church, because the Church is not only the bishop, or the bishops and cardinals: the Church is the totality of the Body of Christ. It is the Second Vatican Council that insisted on this, saying that today the laity has the special mission of bringing their contribution to the increase of the faith within the Church. Today the laity is called truly to fulfill this commandment of the Second Vatican Council: Christ makes the laity “witnesses and to whom He gave understanding of the faith and an attractiveness in speech (cf. Acts 2:17-18; Apoc. 19:10).... Let them not, then, hide this hope in the depths of their hearts, but even in the program of their secular life let them express it by a continual conversion and by wrestling ‘against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness’ (Eph. 6:12).... The laity go forth as powerful heralds of the faith in things to be hoped for (cf. Heb. 11:1) when they courageously join to their profession of faith a life springing from faith” (Lumen gentium n. 35). In putting this doctrine of the Council in practice, we are thus people of progress, quite modern!
--Would you like, Your Excellency, to give your blessing to those who will read this interview?
--With great pleasure. Dominus vobiscum. Benedicat vos omnipotens Deus, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. Amen.
[end of transcript]
Please be sure to check out the links below, if you have not yet seen them, regarding interesting posts relating to “Bishop” Schneider, Francis, the Synod, and the emerging FranciSchism.