Bad theology has consequences…
A Refutation of Bp. Athanasius Schneider’s Defense of the SSPX
Novus Ordo auxiliary bishop Athanasius Schneider in 2022
(image: Copyright 2022, KNA GmbH, www.kna.de, All Rights Reserved)
This post was updated after it was first published to correct an error in a translation from the original German.
In a recent interview given to the German Certamen association, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary of the diocese of Maria Santissima in Astana, Kazakhstan, answers questions regarding his position on the tensions between ‘Pope’ Leo XIV and the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX or FSSPX).
The SSPX has announced episcopal consecrations for July 1, which will merit their bishops a decree of excommunication from Rome because they are acting independently and without the canonically required ‘papal mandate’ from Leo XIV.
Bp. Schneider is attempting to mediate between the two parties to avoid a schism, which the Vatican has said would be the consequence of the July 1 ordinations. His thoughts on the matter carry some weight in the Novus Ordo Church because in 2015, the Vatican had sent him to SSPX seminaries in France and the United States to conduct a canonical visitation, and his assessment of the Lefebvrists was extremely positive. The Kazakh auxiliary has gone on record asking Leo to grant the apostolic mandate and so authorize the consecrations they are determined to carry out regardless.
Schneider has given a number of interviews since the SSPX announced their intent to ordain more bishops. In this latest one, with Certamen, he cranks out some real howlers regarding the Church and the Papacy in his attempt to square the Vatican II Church and its pseudo-magisterium with the traditional Roman Catholic Faith from before the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).
The interview was conducted in German and published on Mar. 25, 2026:
- Treue zum Erbe – Weihbischof Athanasius Schneider über das Apostolische Mandat und die FSSPX (Certamen)
Vatican reported Michael Haynes has written on the matter in English here:
All of the quotes from Schneider’s interview given below are based on a translation rendered by ChatGPT, whose accuracy has been confirmed by a native German speaker.
Schneider’s Suggestions for the SSPX
Let’s begin our critical review by looking at what the famous auxiliary of the Central Asian nation suggests the Lefebvrist leadership do:
First, the leadership of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, regardless of their unresolved canonical status, should request Pope Leo XIV to grant the Apostolic Mandate for episcopal consecrations by submitting a dossier of the candidates, just as Archbishop Lefebvre did in 1988. At the same time, the Superior General of the Fraternity, along with the candidates, should sign the traditional Professio Fidei (Tridentino-Vaticana) that was valid until 1967 and present it to the Pope. Additionally, they should write a brief declaration recognizing Pope Leo XIV and expressing their desire to serve the Church through the apostolate of the Fraternity by preserving and transmitting the traditional faith and liturgy, especially through priestly formation, sacramental ministry, and the pastoral care of the faithful in the time-tested form that the Roman Church has upheld and practiced for centuries. They should also affirm that the Priestly Fraternity has no other intention than to ensure that its bishops, priests, and faithful are true children of the Roman Church.
While it would make sense for the Lefebvrists to formally ask the entity they believe to be the Holy See for approval of their candidates for episcopal consecration, since surely none will be granted if not even requested, both sides know that such a request would be accompanied by a deafening undertone of, “And if you don’t give us permission, we will consecrate these men anyway.”
Furthermore, the Lefebvrists have been rather polemical in their published material on Leo XIV and the state of the Vatican II Church as of late (see example here). This is not surprising, since their moral defense of the unauthorized episcopal consecrations depends on there being a state of necessity in the Church, and one that is even graver and more urgent today than it was in 1988, when their founder, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, first consecrated bishops without authorization.
Thus the SSPX would have to manage the balancing act of blasting Rome for the apostasy it is responsible for unleashing and sustaining, while at the same time begging for the papal mandate to consecrate more bishops as “true children of the Roman Church” — pretty, please!
While this may seem perfectly reasonable to a recognize-and-resist adherent, the Neo-Modernists at the Vatican won’t be impressed, protestations of recognizing Leo XIV as a valid Pope notwithstanding. Furthermore, Schneider’s suggestion that the Lefebvrists advertise their desire of “transmitting the traditional faith and liturgy” will be understood by today’s Rome as a threat rather than a token of filial obedience.
In any case, given the history of the SSPX and their current polemics needed to justify their scheduled episcopal consecrations, any type of “we would loyally like to request Your Holiness’ gracious permission to have more bishops” will inevitably be seen as ingratiating, insincere, and hypocritical. And in a way, it would be. With its flawed theology, the SSPX has maneuvered itself into a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position.
Next, Schneider’s proposal that the SSPX leadership sign the Professio Fidei (Profession of Faith) formula as it was promulgated by the Council of Trent under Pope Pius IV and complemented after the First Vatican Council under Pope Pius IX, may seem like a good idea at first; it won’t, however, mean anything to the Neo-Modernists at the Vatican, because, for one thing, they themselves couldn’t care less about adhering to Trent or Vatican I; and furthermore, the fact that the Lefebvrists would present a signed a pre-Vatican II Professio Fidei would only highlight the fact that they refuse to sign the post-Vatican II version of this profession — thereby provocatively underscoring that they are not submitting to the Second Vatican Council.
In the 1870s, Pope Pius IX faced a very similar situation with the Armenian schism, and he used the occasion to clarify how genuine submission to the Apostolic See does and does not work:
The chief deceit used to conceal the new schism is the name of “Catholic.” The originators and adherents of the schism presumptuously lay claim to this name despite their condemnation by Our authority and judgment. It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead peoples and princes into error….
But to prove that they are Catholics, the neo-schismatics appeal to what they call a declaration of faith, published by them on February 6, 1870, which they insist disagrees in no regard with the Catholic faith. However it has never been possible to prove oneself a Catholic by affirming those statements of the faith which one accepts and keeping silence on those doctrines which one decides not to profess. But without exception, all doctrines which the Church proposes must be accepted, as the history of the Church at all times bears witness.
That the statement of faith which they published was deceitful and sophistical is proved also by the fact that they rejected the declaration or profession of faith which was proposed to them on Our authority in accordance with custom. … For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree. And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church. As a result, that man is already a schismatic and a sinner who establishes a see in opposition to the unique See of the blessed Peter from which the rights of sacred communion derive for all men.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quartus Supra, nn. 6-8; underlining added.)
Clearly, Pius IX was not dazzled by the schismatics’ preferred ‘declaration of faith’. If they want to impress Leo XIV, it is the post-Vatican II version of the Professio Fidei the SSPX would have to sign!
Schneider Denounces ‘Papalism’
Next, the Novus Ordo auxiliary bishop from Astana is asked why so many of his colleagues in the episcopacy are not joining him in speaking up on behalf of the Lefebvrists, or why they don’t at least refrain from speaking out against them (such as the retired Swiss auxiliary Marian Eleganti). Schneider opines that one such reason is a prevalent but erroneous view of the Papacy — he calls it “Papalism” — which he claims developed after Vatican I:
Over the past centuries, a false and anti-traditional interpretation of two dogmas from the First Vatican Council has spread: namely, the dogma of the papal primacy of jurisdiction (governing authority) and that of papal infallibility. A so-called “Papalism” has developed, which involves the absolutization—or even a kind of deification—of the person of the Pope, making him the central focus of all Church life. This has led to the obscuring of the centrality of Christ and the faith’s and liturgy’s boundedness to Tradition. In such an excessive view of the papal office, any disobedience to a papal directive is regarded as schism.
Here Bp. Schneider neglects to mention that if anyone was guilty of promoting such a terribly-flawed “Papalism”, it was Pope St. Pius X (r. 1903-14), the very Pope and canonized saint the SSPX considers its patron. For on Nov. 18, 1912, Pope Pius X stated:
To love the Pope, it is sufficient to reflect who he is. The Pope is the guardian of dogma and morals; he is the depository of the principles which ensure the integrity of the family, the grandeur of nations, the sanctity of souls. He is the councillor of princes and peoples; he is the chief under whose sway none feels tyrannized, because he represents God Himself. He is par excellence the father who unites in himself all that is loving, tender and divine. …
And this is why, when we love the Pope, we do not dispute whether he commands or requires a thing, or seek to know where the strict obligation of obedience lies, or in what matter we must obey; when we love the Pope we do not say that he has not yet spoken clearly — as if he were required to speak his will in every man’s ear, and to utter it not only by word of mouth but in letters and other public documents as well. Nor do we cast doubt on his orders, alleging the pretext which comes easily to the man who does not want to obey, that it is not the Pope who is commanding, but someone in his entourage. We do not limit the field in which he can and ought to exercise his authority; we do not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of other persons — no matter how learned — who differ from the Pope. For whatever may be their learning, they are not holy, for where there is holiness there cannot be disagreement with the Pope.
(Pope St. Pius X, Address Vi Ringrazio to the Priests of the Apostolic Union; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, nn. 750,752.)
These words of St. Pius X were not mere spontaneous utterances made privately by a Pope with an inflated view of his own importance. They were part of an allocution and therefore part of the official exercise of the papal office, as they were subsequently published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis) of 1912 (vol. 4, pp. 693-95).
In fact, before becoming Pope himself, as Bishop Giuseppe Sarto of Mantua, the future Saint Pius X addressed his flock on the occasion of Pope Leo XIII’s 50th anniversary of priesthood in 1887:
The moment has come to prove to the great Vicar of Christ our unchanging affection and fidelity. For us Leo XIII is the guardian of the Holy Scriptures, the interpreter of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, the supreme dispenser of the treasures of the Church, the head of the Catholic religion, the chief shepherd of souls, the infallible teacher, the secure guide, who directs us on our way through a world wrapped in darkness and the shadow of death. All the strength of the Church is in the Pope; all the foundations of our Faith are based on the successor of Peter. Those who wish her ill assault the papacy in every possible way; they cut themselves adrift from the Church, and try their best to make the Pope an object of hatred and contempt. The more they endeavor to weaken our faith and our attachment to the head of the Church, the more closely let us draw to him through the public testimony of our Faith, our obedience and our veneration.
(Bp. Giuseppe Sarto in 1887; quoted in F.A. Forbes, Pope St. Pius X [reprint by TAN Books, 1987], pp. 34-35.)
If only Athanasius Schneider had been around then to straighten out that hopelessly-misled ‘Papalist’!
Indeed, Saint Pius X would have been horrified at the Asian prelate’s comments. To say that devotion to the Pope obscures the centrality of Christ smacks of the teaching of Protestant heretics who claim that veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints takes away from the veneration and adoration due to Christ. Such nonsense! Just as Christ is honored through the honor given to the Holy Virgin, so Our Lord is honored when practice devotion to His Vicar!
To understand this, we need but review the magisterial teaching on the Papacy, not simply since Vatican I (1870) but also from before:
While St. Augustine tells us that “it is in the chair of unity that God has placed the doctrine of truth” (Epistle 105), there is nothing, on the contrary, that the unfortunate writer [Johann Valentin Eybel] does not use to attack and outrage in every possible way this See of Peter where the Fathers have unanimously recognized and venerated that Chair “in which alone unity was to be conserved by all Christians, and from which flow out to all the churches the rights of communion which we must venerate” (Optatus of Mila, Bk. II, contr. Parm.; St. Ambrose, Epistle XI, 1); “with which it is necessary for every church to be in agreement, that is to say, the faithful from whatever area they come” (St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III, 3).
(Pope Pius VI, Bull Super Soliditate)
But if one wishes to search out the true source of all the evils which We have already lamented, as well as those which We pass over for the sake of brevity, he will surely find that from the start it has ever been a dogged contempt for the Church’s authority. The Church, as St. Leo the Great teaches, in well-ordered love accepts Peter in the See of Peter, and sees and honors Peter in the person of his successor the Roman pontiff. Peter still maintains the concern of all pastors in guarding their flocks, and his high rank does not fail even in an unworthy heir. In Peter then, as is aptly remarked by the same holy Doctor, the courage of all is strengthened and the help of divine grace is so ordered that the constancy conferred on Peter through Christ is conferred on the apostles through Peter. It is clear that contempt of the Church’s authority is opposed to the command of Christ and consequently opposes the apostles and their successors, the Church’s ministers who speak as their representatives. He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me [Lk 10:16]; and the Church is the pillar and firmament of truth, as the apostle Paul teaches [1 Tim 3:15]. In reference to these words St. Augustine says: “Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.”
Therefore, venerable brothers, keep all these words in mind and often reflect on them. Teach your people great reverence for the Church’s authority which has been directly established by God. Do not lose heart.
(Pope Leo XII, Encyclical Ubi Primum, nn. 22-23; underlining added.)
To preserve forever in his Church the unity and doctrine of this faith, Christ chose one of his apostles, Peter, whom he appointed the Prince of his Apostles, his Vicar on earth, and impregnable foundation and head of his Church. Surpassing all others with every dignity of extraordinary authority, power and jurisdiction, he was to feed the Lord’s flock, strengthen his brothers, rule and govern the universal Church. Christ not only desired that his Church remain as one and immaculate to the end of the world, and that its unity in faith, doctrine and form of government remain inviolate. He also willed that the fullness of dignity, power and jurisdiction, integrity and stability of faith given to Peter be handed down in its entirety to the Roman Pontiffs, the successors of this same Peter, who have been placed on this Chair of Peter in Rome, and to whom has been divinely committed the supreme care of the Lord’s entire flock and the supreme rule of the Universal Church.
…There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Amantissimus, nn. 2-3)
It is through the Papacy that our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ rules His Church. Therefore, when the Pope is central, Christ is central.
This is true all the more so because, as Pope Pius XII clearly teaches, the Pope and Christ constitute one single head of the Mystical Body, which is the Church:
Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.
They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
…
It is [Christ] who imparts the light of faith to believers; it is He who enriches pastors and teachers and above all His Vicar on earth with the supernatural gifts of knowledge, understanding and wisdom, so that they may loyally preserve the treasury of faith, defend it vigorously, and explain and confirm it with reverence and devotion. Finally it is He who, though unseen, presides at the Councils of the Church and guides them.
…
There can, then, be no real opposition or conflict between the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit and the juridical commission of Ruler and Teacher received from Christ, since they mutually complement and perfect each other — as do the body and soul in man — and proceed from our one Redeemer who not only said as He breathed on the Apostles “Receive ye the Holy Spirit,” but also clearly commanded: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you”; and again: “He that heareth you heareth me.”
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, nn. 40-41,50,65)
Does Bp. Schneider not believe these things? Does he sift and resist not only the Novus Ordo pseudo-magisterium but also the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic magisterium? And who appointed him guardian and interpreter of the magisterium, as opposed to the Roman See?
It certainly wasn’t Pope Pius XII, who clarified:
Besides the lawful successors of the Apostles, namely the Roman Pontiff for the universal Church and Bishops for the faithful entrusted to their care (cf. can. 1326), there are no other teachers divinely constituted in the Church of Christ. But both the Bishops and, first of all, the Supreme Teacher and Vicar of Christ on earth, may associate others with themselves in their work of teacher, and use their advice; they delegate to them the faculty to teach, either by special grant, or by conferring an office to which the faculty is attached (cf. can. 1328). Those who are so called teach not in their own name, nor by reason of their theological knowledge, but by reason of the mandate which they have received from the lawful Teaching Authority. Their faculty always remains subject to that Authority, nor is it ever exercised in its own right or independently.
…
As for the laity, it is clear that they can be invited by legitimate teachers and accepted as helpers in the defense of the faith. … But all these lay apostles must be, and remain, under the authority, leadership, and watchfulness of those who by divine institution are set up as teachers of Christ’s Church. In matters involving the salvation of souls, there is no teaching authority in the Church not subject to this authority and vigilance.
…[T]here never has been, there is not now, and there never will be in the Church a legitimate teaching authority of the laity withdrawn by God from the authority, guidance, and watchfulness of the sacred Teaching Authority; in fact, the very denial of submission offers a convincing proof and criterion that laymen who thus speak and act are not guided by the Spirit of God and of Christ.
(Pope Pius XII, Allocution Si Diligis, May 31, 1954; underlining added.)
In the Vatican II Church, Athanasius Schneider is a mere auxiliary bishop (titular bishop), meaning he has no flock of his own and merely helps the local ordinary with various tasks. Nonetheless, from all his public interventions, interviews, and books, one gets the impression that the Kazakh cleric considers himself the teacher of the Universal Church, even of the man he recognizes as Pope!
But regardless of whether one should consider him as someone genuinely given the mandate to teach (in the Vatican II Church), the fact remains that this mandate can never be exercised against the magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. Hence the canonist Fr. Charles Augustine, O.S.B., wrote that “the bishops must be regarded as true teachers of their flocks, as long as they obey the ordinances and laws issued by the Roman Pontiff” (Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, vol. VI [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1921], p. 337; italics added). This is what Pope Pius XII meant when he stated that the faculty to teach “always remains subject to that [Supreme] Authority, nor is it ever exercised in its own right or independently.”
The fact that Pius XII taught this in an address to cardinals gathered for the canonization of Pope St. Pius X, adds an amusing touch of irony to it all.
The SSPX and the Criteria for Schism
Athanasius Schneider’s argument that it is on account of “such an excessive view of the papal office” that “any disobedience to a papal directive is regarded as schism” is also found to be flawed. First, because, as we have seen, what he refers to as an “excessive view” is not in fact such but the teaching of the Church; and secondly, because the position of the SSPX very much involves a genuine refusal of submission to (the person they believe to be) the Roman Pontiff, which is the textbook definition of schism:
To constitute the delict of schism in the strict sense, the following conditions are required:
1) One must withdraw directly (expressly) or indirectly (by means of one’s actions) from obedience to the Roman Pontiff, and separate oneself from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the faithful, even though one does not join a separate schismatical sect;
2) one’s withdrawal must be made with obstinacy and rebellion;
3) the withdrawal must be made in relation to those things by which the unity of the Church is constituted; and
4) despite this formal disobedience the schismatic must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff.
(Rev. Ignatius Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1948], p. 2; underlining added. Full disclosure: We earn a small commission for purchases made through this link.)
If we apply these four criteria to the Lefebvrist Society, we find it guilty on all four counts:
- They do not allow the person they insist is the lawful and valid Pope of the Catholic Church to govern them; they reserve the right to review, critique, correct, reject, or effectively annul every act of the Holy See, and this according to their own understanding of ‘Tradition’. They are even ready to defy a papal prohibition against consecrating new bishops, despite the threat of excommunication — which disciplinary action they will simply hold to be invalid and of no effect, confirming our indictment.
- Their refusal of submission is made willfully, with full deliberation; perhaps with good intentions, but nevertheless stubbornly; and they refuse to be judged and corrected even by the Church’s highest authority.
- The unity of the holy Catholic Church is constituted through oneness in Faith (doctrine), worship (sacraments, liturgy), and government (all under the same papal rule). Yet, the SSPX does not accept all the doctrines taught magisterially by Rome (hence no post-Vatican II Professio Fidei), and they presume to accuse the ‘Holy See’ and (what they recognize to be) an ecumenical council of numerous deadly errors. The SSPX rejects the Novus Ordo sacramental and liturgical rites and condemns the ‘New Mass’ of ‘Pope’ Paul VI in particular most severely, even if they do not necessarily hold the rite to be invalid. And the SSPX refuses to submit to the government of the Holy See, even though they recognize the authorities as legitimate.
- The SSPX clearly recognizes Leo XIV as the lawful and valid Pope of the Catholic Church, and they agree that he enjoys a full primacy of jurisdiction, as taught by Vatican I. They do indeed profess that submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation, and that this is a dogma.
Thus, it turns out that the Lefebvrists check all the boxes for the canonical crime of schism! At least, that is, subjectively speaking, since Leo XIV is not in fact the Pope and his band of apostates do not truly constitute the bishops of the Catholic Church. However, insofar as the Society believes (and never ceases to profess) that this hierarchy is legitimate, the quintessentially schismatic nature of their operations is manifest. (That they ultimately have good intentions may be true, but is irrelevant to the objective situation.)
The Red Infallibility Herring
Alas, the Most Rev. Schneider’s criticism of “Papalism” continues, as follows:
Furthermore, a false understanding of papal infallibility has become increasingly widespread. Contrary to the clear and narrowly defined conditions for papal infallibility established by the First Vatican Council, there has arisen in the consciousness of the faithful and pastors an absolutization of papal infallibility, where every papal statement is effectively considered error-free.
First, we must remind the auxiliary from Astana that the First Vatican Council did not state that the Pope is infallible only under the specified conditions. It simply defined that he is infallible when these conditions are met. It said nothing about when they are not met. That would explain why the Church’s theology manuals after Vatican I still list more objects of papal infallibility than just ex cathedra pronouncements and solemn definitions in ecumenical councils. The so-called ‘secondary objects’ for which the Pope exercises the charism of infallibility are typically listed to include theological conclusions, dogmatic facts, the Church’s general disciplinary law, the approval of religious orders, and the canonization of saints (more on that here).
Second, it seems that Bp. Schneider does not understand that accepting a papal statement as authoritative and requiring a Catholic’s assent is not the same as holding it to be infallible. The reason why the Pope’s teaching is authoritative at all times is not because he could not possibly make a mistake but because he is the Supreme Teacher exercising his magisterium by divine institution. This was beautifully and convincingly explained by Canon George Smith in 1935:
Schneider’s contention that “there has arisen in the consciousness of the faithful and pastors an absolutization of papal infallibility, where every papal statement is effectively considered error-free” is thus based on at least a misunderstanding.
In fact, the very opposite of what Schneider describes has historically been a problem: the idea that non-infallible papal teaching can be rejected simply because it is not proposed infallibly! This was the argument used by some to dismiss the papal condemnation of contraception, for example, or against the Church’s social teaching, especially regarding economic matters:
Next, Schneider reasons that such a distorted view of papal authority has led to a false conception of schism:
Additionally, a reductive and overly narrow understanding of schism has emerged, equating any canonically irregular situation—regardless of intentions, circumstances, or the fact that individuals in such situations publicly recognize the Pope and pray for him and the local bishop in the Canon of the Mass—with schism.
As we have seen from the quote of Fr. Ignatius Szal above, “publicly recogniz[ing] the Pope” is not sufficient evidence of submission to the Pope; but it is a necessary piece of evidence of refusal of submission!
This is not simply “Fr. Szal’s opinion”, as many a would-be pundit seeking to dismiss it may assert, no less foolishly than glibly; it is the teaching of the Popes:
How, in fact, can it be said that communion with the visible head of the Church is maintained, when this is limited to announcing the fact of the election merely, and at the same time an oath is taken [by Gallican priests] which denies the authority of his primacy? In his capacity as head, do not all his members owe him the solemn promise of canonical obedience, which alone can maintain unity in the Church and avoid schisms in this mystical body founded by Christ our Lord?
(Pope Pius VI, Apostolic Letter Quod Aliquantum; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, n. 73)
What good is it to proclaim aloud the dogma of the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors? What good is it to repeat over and over declarations of faith in the Catholic Church and of obedience to the Apostolic See when actions give the lie to these fine words? Moreover, is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that obedience is recognized as a duty? Again, does not the authority of the Holy See extend, as a sanction, to the measures which We have been obliged to take, or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See without adding the submission of obedience, — a thing which cannot be maintained without damaging the Catholic Faith?
…In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quae in Patriarchatu [Sept. 1, 1876], nn. 23-24; in Acta Sanctae Sedis X [1877], pp. 3-37; English taken from Papal Teachings: The Church, nn. 433-434.)
This refutes Schneider’s idea that recognizing someone as Pope and praying for him as such in the Holy Mass is somehow evidence that one is not in schism.
In fact, it is hard not to see the words of Pope Pius IX against the so-called ‘Old Catholics’ of Switzerland as being applicable, at least for the most part, to today’s Lefebvrists:
They repeatedly state openly that they do not in the least reject the Catholic Church and its visible head but rather that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine declaring that they are the heirs of the ancient faith and the only true Catholics. But in fact they refuse to acknowledge all the divine prerogatives of the vicar of Christ on earth and do not submit to His supreme magisterium.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Graves Ac Diuturnae, n. 2)
Is Bp. Schneider not aware of all these papal teachings?
The Papacy Has Consequences
The Kazakh auxiliary continues:
Moreover, an episcopal consecration performed against the will of the Pope—that is, without permission—is often automatically labeled as an act of schism or even as intrinsically evil. However, such a view contradicts the Church’s consistent canonical tradition. Until the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, an unauthorized episcopal consecration was not punished by excommunication but only by suspension. Even in the current canon law, such a consecration is not listed under acts against Church unity but rather under acts of usurpation of office or violations of sacramental regulations.
We have bad news for Bp. Schneider: He can put forward all the arguments that seem good and reasonable to him; at the end of the day, there is one Supreme Canonist in the Church that settles all these disputes, and that man is the Pope. His will, his interpretation, his judgment are what counts; not what anyone else argues or thinks about the matter. The papal judgment is authoritative and it cannot be disclaimed, revised, or overturned by anyone else. Schneider is convinced that the Pope is Robert Prevost (‘Leo XIV’), and so he will have to put his money where his mouth is and follow his judgment on the matter.
When the same situation arose in 1988, the Polish bishop Karol Wojtyla (‘Pope Saint John Paul II’) was at the helm of the Vatican II Church, and his judgment of the prohibited episcopal consecrations carried out by Abp. Lefebvre was this:
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act.
(Antipope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, n. 3)
Does Schneider not agree with the official judgment of this ‘canonized saint’? Actually, it matters not whether he does or doesn’t. The point is that it was the solemn judgment of (what he believes was) the Supreme Authority in the Church.
That the SSPX’s illegitimate apostolate impacts the unity of the Vatican II Church can hardly be denied, for theirs is — if not in theory, certainly in effect — a parallel church. If it weren’t so, there would be no point to the existence of the Lefebvrist Society. It is only because it is essentially separate from the authority of the Novus Ordo Church that the SSPX is able to do what it does. The Lefebvrists are independent. It is precisely to reinforce and perpetuate their autonomy that they must consecrate more bishops now, regardless of canonical or theological consequences.
Whether all this can be morally justified or not is irrelevant to the fact that theirs is a genuine separation from what they believe is the Holy See. And such a separation is known in Catholic theology as ‘schism’.
Bp. Schneider continues:
In general, a mindset of an absolutizing legal positivism has developed in the Church over the past centuries. This means that a norm established by human authority—in this case, by ecclesiastical authority—is placed above the necessity of preserving doctrinal clarity and the unequivocal nature of the Catholic faith and liturgy.
The task of “preserving doctrinal clarity and the unequivocal nature of the Catholic faith and liturgy” belongs to the Pope. It certainly does not belong to a priestly fraternity that has been suppressed, is not recognized by the Holy See, is not in communion with Rome, and is willing to defy the Pope to the point of seeing its bishops excommunicated so that its own survival is assured. Clearly, someone is confusing the existence of the SSPX with the existence of the Apostolic See.
Apparently it is the Kazakh prelate’s position that unless the SSPX has bishops, “the necessity of preserving doctrinal clarity and the unequivocal nature of the Catholic faith and liturgy” will not be fulfilled. What does that say about his belief in the Papacy? What does that say about his view of the ‘Pope’ and the world’s ‘Catholic hierarchy’?
Schneider’s defense of the SSPX really reveals a lot about the strange ideas held by the non-sedevacantist traditionalists.
Next, things get a bit amusing. Responding to the question whether he thinks Leo XIV is unduly being pressured and prejudiced against the SSPX by members of his own Curia, Schneider happily notes Leo’s complete sovereignty in deciding and acting:
The Pope has full and unrestricted governing authority and is sovereign in his decisions. Therefore, he can, of course, act against the opinions of his collaborators in the Roman Curia. If he were always dependent on the opinions of his collaborators, he would not truly be free and would, in fact, fail to act truly as Pope. The Pope should stand above factions and act as a true shepherd and father of all his sheep, including the clergy and faithful of the Priestly Fraternity.
Notice how Schneider suddenly emphasizes Leo’s sovereignty in decision-making and ruling “all his sheep, including the clergy and faithful of the Priestly Fraternity”; whereas it is precisely the Lefebvrists who continually refuse to let themselves be governed by Leo.
The Kazakh auxiliary continues with a brief defense of the ‘state of necessity’ — a concept habitually invoked by the SSPX to justify its own existence and the ordination of more bishops, even against the express prohibition of the ‘Pope’:
We are witnessing an incredible, almost apocalyptic scenario on a daily basis: the open propagation of heresies, the legitimization of homosexuality—that is, sodomy—religious syncretism (pagan rituals), indifferentism (the idea that all religions are equal paths to God), the undermining of the Church’s apostolic discipline in the sacraments and priestly celibacy, sacrilege, and apostasy. All of this is being promoted and even practiced with impunity by bishops and cardinals in various parts of the world.
Did you notice it? Schneider has a scathing indictment for “bishops and cardinals” — but conspicuously fails to name the man in charge of them! Why is that? Is it because their boss is also his boss?
Aside from pretty vestments and other ‘papal’ eye candy, Leo XIV quickly proved himself to be yet another man of Vatican II and a ‘worthy’ successor to ‘Pope’ Francis. Does Schneider have no words of condemnation for him? Not for a man who has explicitly expressed his support for the interreligious apostasy of ‘Popes’ Francis and John Paul II? A man who has already gone on record about changing attitudes so doctrine can be changed? A man who lives and breathes ecumenism? A man who claims Christ didn’t heal the deaf-mute but merely convinced a lethargic fellow to choose to speak again? A man who continues Francis’ acceptance of sodomites? A man who celebrates Vatican II’s apostatical declaration Nostra Aetate? A man who has blessed a block of glacial ice in furtherance of the climate religion? A man who was just recently revealed to have participated in a ritual offering to the earth goddess Pachamama as part of a conference on eco-theology in Brazil in 1995?
Alternatively, if Schneider were to say that Leo XIV is not tainted with the apostasy of our time, why then are the Lefebvrists refusing him submission?
Topping It Off with Fireworks
Lastly, the Novus Ordo bishop from Kazakhstan appeals to divine intervention to set things aright:
In this situation, only divine intervention can help—perhaps through massive persecution of the Church and the Pope himself by anti-Christian global elites. Alternatively, it could come in the form of a profound, grace-filled conversion of the Pope to Tradition and apostolic courage, as a fruit of the prayers and sacrifices of countless faithful, especially the so-called “little ones” in the Church. One thing is certain: the Church is always in the almighty hands of God, and Christ is the helmsman of the Church’s ship, even if He seems to be asleep for the moment while the boat is battered by fierce storms and the creaking of some rotten planks seems to foretell imminent shipwreck, as Pope St. Gregory the Great once phrased it. We firmly believe that this time, too, Christ will once again rise and command the storm to cease, and the Holy Roman Church, our mother, will once again become the beacon and chair of truth.
It is truly amazing what this auxiliary bishop gets away with saying. He speaks of a needed “profound, grace-filled conversion of the Pope to Tradition”, but what does that mean? What is this “Tradition” the alleged Vicar of Christ must convert to?
If it is the Roman Catholic Faith, why not say so plainly? Why cloak it in a euphemism? Is it because doing so would reveal that Schneider believes the current ‘Pope’ is not a Catholic because he does not have the Faith? How then can he be the proximate rule of Faith? “[T]his sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith — Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition — to be preserved, guarded and interpreted…”, Pope Pius XII taught (Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 18).
Alternatively, if by “Tradition” is not meant the Roman Catholic Faith, then what is it, and why should it be so important for Leo to convert to it, such that, failing to do so, Schneider hopes for a “massive persecution of the Church and the Pope himself by anti-Christian global elites” instead?
Since the Asian prelate brings up the image of the Lord being asleep in the barque (cf. Lk 8:22-25), let’s recall the words of Pope Leo XIII:
…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.)
It is Schneider’s very last sentence, however, that is most explosive — and revealing: “We firmly believe that this time, too, Christ will once again rise and command the storm to cease, and the Holy Roman Church, our mother, will once again become the beacon and chair of truth.”
Perhaps unwittingly, the auxiliary from Astana here discloses, quite clearly though implicitly, that he believes the Roman Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ, can fail in her mission, can defect from the Apostolic Faith, and can thereby cease to be “the beacon and chair of truth”! What an outrageous heresy! That is manifestly what he is implying, for there would be no need for the Church to “once again become” what she already is!
Although any (and almost every) diocese in the world could conceivably fall from the true Faith, abandon communion with the Apostolic See, and become heretical or apostate, there is one diocese which is guaranteed by God Himself never to fall, and that is the see of Rome, the Holy See: “…no particular part of the Church is indefectibly Apostolic, save the see of Peter, which is universally known by way of eminence as the Apostolic See”, writes Fr. E. Sylvester Berry in his book The Church of Christ (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1927), p. 141.
This is not the peculiar teaching of a single priest or theologian, it is the doctrine of the Catholic magisterium:
Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion. Therefore, because of your special faith in the Church and special piety toward the same Chair of Peter, We exhort you to direct your constant efforts so that the faithful people of France may avoid the crafty deceptions and errors of these plotters and develop a more filial affection and obedience to this Apostolic See. Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7; underlining added.)
On its side the Holy See, faithful to the mission it has received to teach all men and to preserve the faithful from error, follows with attentive and vigilant eye all that happens within the Catholic fold, and, when it is judged necessary and opportune, it will not fail in the future — any more than it has ever failed in the past — to give appropriate light and direction by its teaching. It is to the Holy See first of all — and also, in dependence upon it, to the other pastors established by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God — that belongs by right the teaching ministry. The part of the faithful not in orders is here restricted to a single duty: to accept the teaching given them, to conform their conduct to it, and to second the intentions of the Church.
(Pope Leo XIII, Letter In Mezzo, Nov. 4, 1884; in S.S.D.N. Leonis Papae XIII Allocutiones, Epistolae, Constitutiones aliaque Acta Praecipua, vol. 2, pp. 103-105. Translation from Papal Teachings: The Church, n. 458.)
Thus we can see that although it is possible that the Apostolic See be vacant, even for an indefinite amount of time, it is impossible that it should ever fail.
Hence, by embracing the sedevacantist position, a Catholic merely prefers, as he must, that which is possible — however unpopular, unpleasant, or mysterious it may be — to what is impossible.
We can conclude by observing that in his remarks to Certamen, ‘Bishop’ Athanasius Schneider demonstrates into what contradictions and other absurdities one must fall if one tries to uphold the pre-Vatican II Catholic religion while recognizing the authority of the Neo-Modernists who detest it.
One ends up neither defending the traditional Catholic Faith nor submitting to what one thinks is the Catholic hierarchy.
Image source: KNA (Anna Mertens; cropped)
License: rights-managed
;
No Comments
Be the first to start a conversation