Off the cliff at full throttle…

Bp. Fellay, “Bp.” Schneider, and Chaos Frank:
A Commentary on Recent Developments

Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X

As far back as April 3, 2013, a mere 21 days after his election, we predicted that Francis would eventually be known as the “Chaos Pope”; from this we derived his moniker “Chaos Frank”. After almost four years of the blasphemous-heretical buffoon at the helm of the Vatican II Sect, most people would agree. In fact, even the Novus Ordo press is finally starting to wake up to the real Francis, the one about whom we’ve been reporting accurately and realistically since day one, when everyone else was still lauding him for his great “humility” and “Marian piety of the most traditional sort”.

On December 26, 2016, the Superior General of the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, gave a conference in Lima, Peru. Perhaps thinking he was disclosing a great new stunner, His Excellency said: “In this moment where more and more confusion is established in the Church, and beginning with the Sovereign Pontiff, it is he who really — I do not know why, but — the ideas he has — it is he who actually establishes this chaos” (source).

While it is nice to see that the SSPX Superior General is willing to admit that the man he considers to be the Vicar of Christ is a purveyor of theological chaos, the question that inevitably has to be raised is, “Why, Your Excellency, are you then trying so hard to be reconciled with and accepted by this creator and perpetuator of Modernist confusion and chaos?”

We recall that back in 2013, Bp. Fellay sounded a bit less gung-ho about making an agreement with the “Pope”, whom he was not afraid to denounce as a “genuine Modernist”:

When we see what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year [2012]. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.

What Gospel does [Francis] have? Which Bible does he have to say such things. It’s horrible. What has this to do with the Gospel? With the Catholic Faith. That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethen. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist.

How much time will be needed for people in the Church to stand up [and say,] ‘by no means!’ [will we accept this new teaching]. I hope and pray this will happen. But that means an enormous division in the Church.

(Bp. Bernard Fellay, qtd. in John Vennari, “Bishop Fellay on Pope Francis”, Catholic Family News, Oct. 14, 2013)

By 2015, Fellay had changed his tune. After announcing that Rome had appointed him to be judge of the first instance for all SSPX priests, Fellay cryptically declared, without being specific, that “we are on the eve of important events”.

Just what those important events might be was never clarified, but we possibly got a preview of them last year: In April of 2016, an internal SSPX memo was leaked in which Fr. Franz Schmidberger outlined the case for union with Rome. In May of the same year, Bp. Fellay, perhaps not realizing the irony in his words, jubilantly announced that Francis considers the SSPX Catholic and “doctrine is not that important” to him. That Francis also considers the Neocatechumenal Way Catholic, as well as Opus Dei, the Focolare movement, and Hans Kung, does not seem to bother the SSPX superior.

In June 2016, Bp. Fellay disingenuously claimed that the SSPX had never wanted to be separated from Rome and that the Vatican never called them “schismatic”. Unfortunately, both assertions, although probably very conducive to reconciliation with Rome, are false, as we have proved here.

On July 28, 2016, the Vatican’s “Archbishop” Guido Pozzo then revealed that Bp. Fellay had agreed in principle to make the SSPX into a personal prelature under Francis’ authority. Apparently, it was only a question of working out a few more “issues” before that would be realized. On August 24, the SSPX superior treated his hapless followers to another goody bag of anecdotes from Rome about what is allegedly “really” going on in the Vatican, presumably to keep everyone in the game, lest anyone should defect.

It is a neverending drama with the SSPX-Vatican negotiations, although we suppose that Bp. Fellay will need to act quickly now: His second term as Superior General of the SSPX expires next year (2018), and it is inconceivable that after 24 years at the helm of the Society, he would be elected for yet another 12-year term. In other words: Whatever may happen between the SSPX and the Vatican, it will most likely happen in the next 18 months.

How convenient that, right on cue, “Bp.” Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan, a darling of indult and SSPX-type traditionalists, has once again popped up and given another interview, one in which he urges Bp. Fellay to finally seal the deal with Francis to become fully subject to him in a “regularized” personal prelature. The following are bits and pieces from the interview, as related and translated by Rorate Caeli:

“I am convinced that in the present circumstances, Msgr. Lefebvre would accept the canonical proposal of a personal prelature without hesitation”

“Msgr. Lefebvre is a man with a deep sensus ecclesiae”

“The episcopal ordinations were done in 1988 because in good conscience he thought that he had to do it, as an extreme act, and at the same time said that this situation should not last a long time”

“If you remain canonically autonomous for too long, you run the risk of losing a characteristic of the Catholic Church, that is, to be subject to the pope”

“We cannot make our subjection to the Vicar of Christ dependent upon the person of the pope; this would not be faith. You cannot say that “I don’t believe in this pope, I don’t submit, I am going to wait until one comes along that I like.” This is not Catholic, it is not supernatural; it is human. It is a lack of supernaturality and trust in Divine Providence, that God is the one who guides the Church. This is a danger for the SSPX”

“I have asked Msgr. Fellay not to delay his acceptance any longer, and I trust in Providence, though it is not possible to have 100% certainty”

“It is my great wish that the SSPX might be recognized and established within the regular structure of the Church as soon as possible, and this will be for the benefit of all, for them and for us. Actually it will be a new force in this great battle for the purity of the Faith”

“I have told Msgr. Fellay: “Monsignor, we need your presence to join together with all of the good forces in the Church to achieve this union.”

(“Bishop Schneider: ‘I have asked Msgr. Fellay not to delay his acceptance any longer'”, Rorate Caeli, Jan. 4, 2017)

The video of the full interview in Portuguese/Spanish can be accessed here.

Mr. Schneider’s advice to Bp. Fellay is curious. First, it is nothing short of absurd to claim that “in the present circumstances”, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre would have accepted a personal prelature under “Pope” Bergoglio. Not that it matters what Abp. Lefebvre would or wouldn’t have done — what’s strange here is simply Schneider’s unqualified assertion that he definitely would have, even without so much as hesitating! Really?

Consider that Lefebvre himself was on the verge of declaring the Holy See vacant when “Saint” John Paul II called the interreligious World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi in 1986. That was 27 years before all the endless bunk about the god of surprises, accompaniment, favelas and peripheries, discernment, no Catholic God, who am I to judge?, sin as an imperfect realization of virtue, adultery as the “most generous response possible” that corresponds to “what God is asking” at the moment, lifelong fornication as “real marriage”, Talmudic Jews as the Chosen People, ecumenism of blood, the doubting St. John the Baptist, the blaspheming Virgin Mary, comments involving fecal matter, Catholic morals as rabbit-like breeding behavior, hobnobbing with Communists, etc. The list is endless. An extensive link collection sourcing all this junk can be found on our topical “Pope Francis” page here. And Abp. Lefebvre wouldn’t even hesitate to submit to such a man?

Secondly, Mr. Schneider should be aware that one cannot be canonically autonomous at all while truly being subject to the Pope. What does he propose as an alternative? Five weeks? Ten years? 39 years but definitely not 40? Until “Cardinal” Burke says so? Where is the line, and which Catholic dogmatic theology book mentions this?

Schneider is entirely right in saying that submission to the Vicar of Christ cannot be dependent upon who is Pope. This is fundamental in Catholicism, yet it is a doctrine that the semi-traditionalists — because of their a priori refusal to consider Sedevacantism as even a possibility — have entirely abandoned. They instead believe in a human church. This is not surpising, considering that theirs really is a human church — and thus not the Catholic Church, which is divine.

In a 2015 interview, Bp. Fellay brazenly stated: “We must avoid the caricature of wishing for a Church without wrinkles or stains here below: that is not what the good Lord promised us on this earth”!

Really? Let’s see. Here is what the Popes have taught:

Peter still maintains the concern of all pastors in guarding their flocks, and his high rank does not fail even in an unworthy heir.

(Pope Leo XII, Encyclical Ubi Primum, n. 22)


…the Church has received from on high a promise which guarantees her against every human weakness. What does it matter that the helm of the symbolic barque has been entrusted to feeble hands, when the Divine Pilot stands on the bridge, where, though invisible, He is watching and ruling? Blessed be the strength of his arm and the multitude of his mercies!

(Pope Leo XIII, Allocution to Cardinals, March 20, 1900; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 349)


The successors of Peter, mortal like other men, die like them, more or less quickly. But the primacy of Peter will last forever, thanks to the special assistance promised to him when Jesus charged him to confirm his brethren in the faith [Lk 22:32]. What matters the name, the face, the human origins of each Pope? It is always Peter who lives in him; it is Peter who guides and directs him; it is Peter above all who teaches and who spreads through the world the light of the truth which sets men free….

(Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Newlyweds [Jan. 17, 1940]; English taken from Papal Teachings: The Church, nn. 966-967.)


Certainly the loving Mother [Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 66)

This is perhaps the ultimate test of Faith for all those who call themselves “traditional Catholics”. Alas, a great number of such totally disregard the traditional Catholic teaching on the Papacy. Are you listening, Christopher Ferrara? Michael Matt? John Vennari? But then again, perhaps Bp. Fellay and his SSPX and all the rest of the recognize-and-resisters simply “resist” these papal teachings also. They might as well — what difference would it make to their religion anyway?

So, “Bp.” Schneider urges Bp. Fellay to tarry no longer and sign an agreement for a personal prelature in full communion with the Novus Ordo Sect, reporting directly to Francis. This is very curious because…

What is going on here? How can Mr. Schneider recommend Bp. Fellay rejoin with Rome immediately, when he (Schneider) himself is on the verge of a schism with Francis?

Do not put it past the SSPX superior, however, to do precisely that. Remember, Bp. Fellay is someone who simply “weeps” over Francis’ Amoris Laetitia, who is not ashamed to dedicate a Modernist-looking, hideous church (see outside here and inside here) for his own followers, and who fails spectacularly when challenged with inconvenient questions by an aggressive enemy of the Faith.

Why Bernard Fellay ever made it to Superior General of what is supposedly the last bastion of real Catholicism, is anyone’s guess. People who put their trust in him will get their just reward for doing so (cf. Ps 117:9). No one — no one — can replace a true Pope. It is only the Papacy that was endowed with divine protection and a “never-failing faith” (Denz. 1837) — to trust in any other office is entirely arbitrary; it is sheer folly.

Roughly three years ago, Bp. Fellay was quite right in his diagnosis of Francis: He denounced him as a “genuine Modernist” and pointed out what a great danger to the Faith he is. In the time since then, the erroneous, impious, heretical, and blasphemous bilge emanating from Bergoglio’s mouth has increased a thousandfold. In other words, the situation has gotten infinitely worse. Yet, what does Bp. Fellay do? He is now more open to a reconciliation with Rome than ever before! One may indeed say that the worse Francis gets, the more Bp. Fellay wants to be fully reconciled with him.

Look at the absurdity of the whole situation: Just as a new schism is emerging over Amoris Laetitia and the whole sacraments-for-unrepentant-adulterers thing, Bp. Fellay is trying his darndest to be accepted into Chaos Frank’s motley ecumenical sect — and now with the full support of Mr. Schneider! This is madness!

By the way, to add even further insult to injury, “Pope” Francis is now reportedly fighting the Catholic cause against the devilish Masons: “The Pope … made it clear to Cardinal Burke that he wanted Freemasonry ‘cleaned out’ from the order [of Malta], and he demanded appropriate action” (source). Yeah, that’s it! Francis the terror of Freemasons!

How much more ridiculous can it get? Francis is concerned about Masons in the Catholic Church? Talk about fake news! No, we are not saying that the reporter, Edward Pentin, is unreliable. He surely simply reported what was told him. The fault here either lies with his source or with Francis himself. Consider these simple, verifiable facts:

Clearly, this latest revelation that Francis has urged “Cardinal” Burke to rid the Order of Malta of Freemasons is simply another red herring, one more distraction to keep those who are fed up with his wicked heresies and blasphemies from jumping ship. Folks, these people feed you such garbage because they can. They are laughing at you. The next thing they’ll tell you is that Francis is trying to reinstitute the Oath against Modernism but the Roman Curia won’t let him!

It is tragic to see so many good-willed people who mean to be traditional Roman Catholics, being so hoodwinked by this whole sham. Obviously, the intent is to keep everyone in the Novus Ordo Sect happy, to give everyone just enough to hang their hopes on. This trick has worked well for decades and continues to allow the steamroller of Novus Ordo apostasy to run over the remaining ruins of Christendom. Too many people simply lack the backbone to acknowledge the elephant in the living room: The Novus Ordo Sect is not the Catholic Church, and its head, Jorge Bergoglio, is not the Pope.

It appears that some will not draw the only possible conclusion to this whole mess without Francis stepping up to the microphone and denouncing himself as an antipope, a usurper, a charlatan. Alas, we are convinced at this point that for some dyed-in-the-wool anti-sedevacantists, even such a scenario would not convince them — because they simply do not want to be convinced. This reminds us of these salutary words of warning of our Blessed Lord, put on the lips of Abraham: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead” (Lk 16:31).

Culpable ignorance is responsible for a lot of the spread of this truly great apostasy.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons (KUW; cropped)
License: CC BY-SA 4.0

Share this content now:

21 Responses to “Bp. Fellay, “Bp.” Schneider, and Chaos Frank: A Commentary on Recent Developments”

  1. John Hixson

    I shared this on Twitter. I would like to share it on The Remnant You Tube site but they will just delete it. The members of the SSPX used to try and argue against the Sedevacantist position but lately they just ignore you. No fun.

  2. James Pridmore

    “In the time since then, the erroneous, impious, heretical, and blasphemous bilge emanating from Bergoglio’s mouth has increased a thousandfold. In other words, the situation has gotten infinitely worse.”

    So true and easily verified by reading a good chronology of Bergoglioisms. The Wild Voice has an excellent chronology of quotes and headlines from 2013 to the present ( ) that thoroughly paints the picture NOW is describing above. I challenge any of the faithful to read through this chronology start to finish and NOT have a visceral reaction. Sure Amoris stinks but there are so many more egregious examples!

    Which begs the question, why doesn’t any of the clergy stand up and call out “Chaos Frank” for the stench that seems to follow him and his sycophants? Does Bergoglio have pictures and dossiers on all those who dare to “correct” him? What is Jorge’s leverage because it isn’t collegiality?!

    And while Burke bemoaned the fact, in his recent interview with The Remnant, that there exists an intemperate discourse in the Church today, isn’t it time to take off the gloves and battle Bergoglio and his thugs mano-a-mano? There’s nothing civil about war…

      • James Pridmore

        Yes, I understand completely. My devout 87 year old mother “reminded” me just last week that Wojtyla was a great man. Of course she also stated that Cupich is very conservative. But I don’t criticize her, she gets her information via the mainstream media. And Wojtyla was a cult of personality as is Bergoglio only Jorge strikes me as more of a gangbanger. 😉

        And I’ll share that the priest who married my wife and I in 1983 was laicized about fifteen years ago for aberrant sexual behavior with boys. He would ply them with altar wine then abuse them. Oh, but what’s more heinous than this is that the Archbishop of the diocese where this wolf in sheep’s clothing was a pastor knew with certainty that he had abused a boy in 1982. Records that were compelled to be released by the courts indicate that the Archbishop also took it upon himself to not disclose the abuse to the police, the parish or any other member of the clergy. Twenty years passed between knowledge of abuse and laicization! And he, of course, abused more boys in that period. Candidly, I began to wonder if I should entrust my soul to a Church that could enable a serial abuser to prowl unchecked. I began to read legal and Church documents of clergy members involved in abuse cases and spent time poring over Francis George’s deposition. For the record, I couldn’t believe how evasive and vague he was in his responses, even under oath. Why wouldn’t a prince of the Church speak the truth without swearing on a Bible? And I came to believe that the blame should ultimately be placed at Wojtyla’s feet. In my opinion, he’s no saint.

        All that said, the shenanigans experienced during Wojtyla’s 27 year papacy seem to pale in comparison to the last 3+ years by Bergoglio. But then Jorge stated in a 2015 interview that as a boy he wanted to be a butcher.

  3. Sonia

    2 Corinthians 6: Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?

    The SSPX are a singular disappointment in the post VII milieu; having encouraged yoking with unbelievers, ignoring God’s justice in order to shake hands with those who spurn it; having supported fellowship with darkness; pretending concord between Christ and the devil is doable and even ok; and taking up the VII heresy that the unbeliever shares in part with the faithful – the new ecclesiology. They mix Novus Ordo with Roman Rite, real Popes with false popes, and True Church with New Church until the poison is the norm and the Truth – the remedy – is spurned as harmful. father of lies stuff if ever there was.
    Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy.
    Our Lady, Hammer of Heresy, intercede.
    Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat!

        • Pedro

          Yes, Dum Spiro Spero. As intelligent as most of the Opus Dei members are it is hard to believe they were “fooled” by anyone. Especially as the final approval for its status as a Personal Prelature came well after Vatican II was implemented (1975). Oh well, many wolves in sheep’s clothing (Mother Teresa comes to mind). While not ascribing evil intent, it is evident they are indifferent to attacks on the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Or perhaps their indifference is intended…

  4. Athanasius

    Novus Ordo Watch:

    How are you any different from Martin Luther? You claim to care about the One Church Our Lord founded and yet you are outside of it. Many concerns you raise about the post Vatican II era are legitimate, just as Luther had much to criticize in 1517, but in both cases you can’t leave the Church. Work for real reform with her walls. The entire sedevacantist position is intellectually untenable and, to hold it, one must at bottom line call Christ a liar. He promised the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church. If there is no pope now, if Francis and everyone back to Pius XII is “pope” not pope, if all is confusion and chaos and the quick road to Hell then it seems Christ was wrong in Mt 16. But we all can agree that because Christ really is who He says He is and can never be wrong your position must be the one left wanting. When you guys claim no pope and that you are keeping the flame of the real church alive underground you only oscillate between the poles of gnosticism and Protestantism; both are heresies and neither position is Catholic. Sedevacantism is nothing but Catholic Protestantism. If you really care about the Church than stop all this nonsense and, after getting back to the real and only Church there is, work to reform the problems from within…you are 100% in pointing out the problems, completely wrong in how you’re trying to fix them.

    • Novus Ordo Watch

      Hello Sir:
      The most important point is to understand that the institution that calls itself “Roman Catholic Church” today IS NOT the Roman Catholic Church. Hence we can — MUST — be outside of it. In any case, yours is a very common objection, so please permit me to respond to it simply by referring you to where this has been answered:

      Proof that the Vatican II Church is a different church:
      On whether the gates of hell have prevailed:
      Catholic teaching on the Great Apostasy and the Pope:

      The more you examine sedevacantism, the more you will find that there are no greater defenders of Catholicism, the Church, and the Papacy, than sedevacantists. It is precisely BECAUSE we believe in the Church and the Papacy that we hold that the heads of the Vatican II Sect are not valid Catholic Popes. God bless you.

      • Athanasius

        God bless you as well and thank you for your response. In the literature you linked for me above one subheading claims “the papacy is a divinely protected institution that cannot fail.” Okay, agreed, so if Pope Francis is a false pope and so are the others going back to Pope Pius XII, where is the real pope then? You–being well informed on Church history and the many challenging heresies–have to appreciated how much “hidden popes” etc smacks of the hidden knowledge and secrets of Gnostics. Pope Francis might be super flawed but he’s still the Pope. Chesterton made this point a million times…the greatest proof for our Faith being True is how terrible its people have been; all the more evidence for the divine origin of The Church. Is Pope Francis really worse than some of the 10th century popes you claim as legitimate? This whole situation is analogous to a family: Your brother might be a terrible guy and your best friend a saint; but one is your blood relation and the other cannot be. If Fellay et al live with heroic virtue, are genius Aquinas-type scholars, and have the evangelical zeal of St. Francis, they should be applauded for that…but they’re still outside the Church. Please come back, all of you, everyone, the Church, in this obvious time of confusion needs your love and respect for Tradition and your hatred of error…fix your one obvious error and then set about fixing the Church, bring back the Latin Mass and Commnunion rails and everything…just please come back.

        • Novus Ordo Watch

          Based on what we know from Catholic teaching and what we know about Jorge Bergoglio, we can say with absolute certainty that Jorge Bergoglio is not the Pope of the Catholic Church. Whether there be a true Pope who is hidden, or no Pope at all since Pius XII, is a secondary consideration. The first thing you can definitively rule out is the idea that Bergoglio is the Pope. You can cross that off the list.

          Yes, “Pope Francis” is really worse than some genuine Pope of the past. Absolutely. For more info on that, please see our article, “The ‘Bad Popes’ Argument”:

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.