ROME, 17 August 2026 — Bishop Athanasius Schneider has issued his first public statement since Rome declared six SSPX bishops to have incurred automatic excommunication over the Society’s episcopal consecrations at Écône on July 1, against the will of Pope Leo XIV.
His Excellency has been an outspoken voice in the debate over the consecrations, and his reaction to their aftermath has been awaited with particular interest. In the months beforehand, he repeatedly implored Pope Leo XIV to grant the SSPX an apostolic mandate rather than let the act proceed without his approval — most notably in a February 24 “Fraternal Appeal,” which called on the Pope to act as a “bridge-builder” and warned against “a truly unnecessary and painful further division within the Church.”
In a new statement titled “The Dilemma Between Preserving the Unambiguous Integrity of the Catholic Faith and Being Canonically Recognized by the Pope” (full text below), Bishop Schneider argues that the SSPX faced a “tragic” and rarely seen choice: hold fast to Catholic doctrine as it has always been taught or secure the Holy See’s formal recognition.
He frames the present situation as an instance of a dilemma faced once before in Church history, by St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the fourth century. When Pope Liberius, under imperial pressure, entered into communion with Arian bishops and demanded Athanasius do the same, Athanasius refused — and was excommunicated by the Pope himself, accused of “troubling the peace of the Church.”
The auxiliary of Astana, Kazakhstan, renders no definitive judgment on the Vatican’s actions. Rather, he sets out to explain, through this historical example, the reasoning behind the SSPX’s decision. In comments to this journalist, His Excellency said: “I want to offer elements for a deeper reflection on the Church’s present situation as well as historical examples that will foster greater understanding of the dilemma in which the Society of St Pius X believes it finds itself.”
In his statement, Bishop Schneider also argues that the SSPX, far from threatening the unity of the Church, renders it “a great service” — one of “historical value” — through its insistence on doctrinal and liturgical clarity.
That service, he suggests, could carry consequences for the whole Church, should Rome choose to recognize it: “If the Holy See were to take this stance of the SSPX seriously — and, moreover, acknowledge the objective ambiguities in certain statements of the Second Vatican Council and in the rite of the New Mass — it would mark the beginning of the end for the modernist project within the Church, which in fact began more than a hundred years ago.”
Here below is Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s statement.
The Dilemma Between Preserving the Unambiguous Integrity of the Catholic Faith
and Being Canonically Recognized by the Pope
by Bishop Athanasius Schneider
It is helpful to recall a case in history where a great saint was faced with the following dilemma: the choice between preserving the unambiguous integrity of the Catholic Faith and being canonically recognized by the Pope. That saint was the fourth-century Church Father, St. Athanasius of Alexandria. In 357, Pope Liberius, after signing an ambiguous formula of faith (omitting the crucial doctrinal term “consubstantial”), commanded St. Athanasius to enter into communion with Arian and semi-Arian bishops — bishops with whom the Pope himself, under pressure from the Emperor, had unfortunately entered into communion. St. Athanasius refused to obey the Pope, whereupon the Pope, according to the witness of St. Hilary of Poitiers and other historical sources, excommunicated him, accusing him of troubling the peace of the Church. Despite being excommunicated by the Pope, St. Athanasius continued to govern his diocese in Alexandria and even showed understanding for the regrettable conduct of Pope Liberius. However, Pope St. Damasus, the successor of Pope Liberius, thanked St. Athanasius and consulted him on the affairs of the oriental bishops. Pope Liberius was the first pope not to be canonized, whereas Athanasius was not only canonized but declared a Doctor of the Church.
Today St. Athanasius would be considered a schismatic according to the definition of “schism” in the current Code of Canon Law, since he refused to be in communion with members of the Church (heretic and semi-heretic bishops) who were canonically recognized and thus subject to the Pope.
The episcopal consecrations carried out in Écône by the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) on July 1, 2026, are also an instance of this rare dilemma: of having to choose between preserving the unambiguous integrity of the Catholic Faith as it was taught by the Magisterium throughout the ages, or being canonically recognized by the Pope. This dilemma is evident in the conditions attached to the Pope’s canonical recognition of the SSPX: it must accept certain newly introduced doctrinal ambiguities (as reflected in some non-definitive teachings of the pastoral Second Vatican Council and in certain affirmations and acts of the post-conciliar Magisterium), and accept not only the validity but also the correctness (legitimacy) of the rite of the New Mass — despite its doctrinal and ritual vagueness, which marks a clear rupture with the traditional Roman Rite.
In treating of this complex matter, it is essential to maintain a sober perspective, clarify terminology, and keep before us the Church’s true and ultimate goal and great tradition; for that tradition reaches back far beyond recent centuries or decades. In doing so, one must also consider analogous situations from the major crises in the Church’s history.
There are two unhealthy developments within the Church over the past centuries that have led to a narrowed view of reality: the tendency to treat the legal aspect as quasi-absolute, i.e., legalism; and the tendency to absolutize the person of the Pope and obedience to him, i.e., papalism. Legalism, i.e., the rigid adherence to the letter of the law, and papalism, i.e., the undifferentiated and almost absolute obedience to the Pope, have come to be prioritized over the necessity for unambiguity in faith and liturgy. Yet during every great doctrinal crisis in the Church’s history, the iron rule was to avoid any kind of doctrinal ambiguity, as with Pope Honorius I, whose doctrinally ambiguous letters, issued as part of his ordinary Magisterium, were firmly condemned by later Popes and by three Ecumenical Councils, despite attempts by his second successor, Pope John IV, at a kind of hermeneutic of continuity.
In our own day, it is widely claimed within the Church that no conflict of conscience can arise between obeying the Pope and preserving the unambiguous purity of the faith. This ultimately means that obedience to the Pope is valued so highly that it is considered better to accept ambiguities in matters of faith and liturgical rites than to act against a Pope’s command — even though that command is only human and may be flawed. Furthermore, a narrow understanding of communion, whether with the Pope or with the Church, has likewise emerged. Obedience to the Pope is viewed as indistinguishable from communion with the Church. This risks elevating obedience to the Pope to the same level as obedience to God’s divine revelation.
One must also distinguish between positive law — i.e. disciplinary laws enacted by human Church authority — and Divine Law, i.e. the truths of faith revealed by God. No one may contradict Divine Law and remain a Catholic. In truly extraordinary and rare circumstances, however, a Catholic may be required in conscience to act contrary to positive law, precisely in order to remain uncompromisingly faithful to Divine Law.
The very concepts of “schism” and “submission” have not yet been fully clarified in their concrete, practical application. The Code of Canon Law (Canon 751) defines schism as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” In fact, a very narrow understanding of “schism” and “submission” has emerged in recent Church history, in which material disobedience to the Pope — regardless of intention — is virtually equated with formal schism.
One must also bear in mind the state of formal schism, which signifies the rejection, in principle, of papal authority through the establishment of a separate hierarchy — as was the case with the Greek Orthodox Church in 1054, and later with the numerous and various sedevacantist groups down to our own day. However, one cannot speak of a state of formal schism as long as the supernatural faith in the dogma of papal primacy and infallibility persists, along with the desire to live in concrete submission to papal authority — even if, due to an extraordinary crisis in the Church, this cannot for the time being be fully realized. Such an extraordinary crisis in the Church can involve a temporary obfuscation or suspension of the chief duty of the papal ministry, namely, to defend and proclaim, unambiguously, the integrity of the Catholic faith and liturgy.
The same applies to the concept of being “in communion” with the Pope. For a very long period, episcopal ordinations were carried out without the direct involvement of the Pope, and particular churches and individual bishops expressed their communion with him in various ways. Only later in the Church’s history did popes require every episcopal ordination to take place with a papal mandate. Yet even after that development, canon law did not regard illicit episcopal ordinations — that is, those performed against the will of the Pope — as offenses against the unity of the Church, as inherently schismatic acts, or as intrinsically evil. Even today, the current Code of Canon Law lists illicit episcopal ordinations among offenses concerning the celebration of the sacraments or classifies them as acts of usurpation of office.
In fact, the norm requiring a papal mandate for episcopal consecrations is a matter of positive law, not Divine Law. Otherwise, this norm would have been observed throughout the entire history of the Church, always, everywhere, and by all, without exception. Of course, a papal mandate for episcopal consecrations is ordinarily necessary, and was wisely established to better ensure the hierarchical submission of the episcopate to the Pope.
The extraordinary nature of the current crisis in the Church is revealed, in the present case, by the fact that a community whose essential characteristic is the desire to be faithful to the Pope — and the Society of St. Pius X regards itself as such — faces a tragic choice: either obey the Pope, and thereby be forced to accept uncertain and unclear aspects of doctrine and liturgy, or disobey the Pope in a matter of grave importance, such as the consecration of bishops, with the sole intention of preserving the means to pass on the faith and the liturgy in their full integrity — as a service to souls, and thus to the entire Church, including the papacy itself.
One must also not overlook the full extent of the Church’s current crisis but rather view it honestly, tracing it back to its very roots. These roots lie in certain vague and ambiguous doctrinal statements of the Second Vatican Council that, over the past sixty years, have sown confusion, such as doctrinal relativism stemming from the teaching and practice of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, which have contributed to undermining the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and His Church as the only way to salvation. Furthermore, some doctrinal and ritual flaws of the liturgical reform with its Protestantizing tendencies have obscured the central sacrificial nature of the Mass and its Christocentric focus.
St. John Henry Newman made the following remarkable and timely observation: “Bishops, when not teaching formally [ex cathedra], may err, as we find did err in the fourth century. Pope Liberius might sign a Eusebian [Arian] formula at Sirmium, and the mass of bishops at Ariminum [Rimini] or elsewhere, and yet they might, in spite of this error, be infallible in their ex-cathedra decisions” (Arians of the Fourth Century, London 1876, p. 464). What the Bishop of Regensburg Mgr. Rudolf Graber stated more than fifty years ago, characterizes even more the current situation of the Church: “What happened over 1600 years ago is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria is today the whole Universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into the silence of being ignored, killing by assassination of character” (Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, Edinburgh 1974, p. 23; original: Athanasius und die Kirche unserer Zeit, Abensberg 1973).
The SSPX is virtually the only community in the Church today that openly draws attention to the evident doctrinal ambiguities in certain conciliar statements and in the rite of the New Mass, calling for their unequivocal clarification and, if necessary, even amendment, in accordance with the constant Magisterium of the Church. The “hermeneutic of continuity” or of “reform in continuity” — an approach that is in itself valid and helpful — can also become a kind of “straitjacket,” one that merely covers over, cosmetically, the wounds caused by doctrinal and liturgical ambiguities and confusion. In effect, the Holy See requires a form of circular reasoning: that everything is in order, provided one makes sufficiently strenuous intellectual efforts.
In fact, through its tireless insistence on clarity in doctrine and liturgy, the SSPX renders a great service to the entire Church — a service of historical value. If the Holy See were to take this stance of the SSPX seriously — and, moreover, acknowledge the objective ambiguities in certain statements of the Second Vatican Council and in the rite of the New Mass — it would mark the beginning of the end for the modernist project within the Church, which in fact began more than a hundred years ago.
The current crisis between the Holy See and the SSPX can also be illustrated by the following parable: A fire breaks out in a great house. The fire chief permits the use of only the new firefighting methods, even though these have proven less effective than the old, tested methods and tools. A group of firefighters defies this order, continues to use the tried-and-tested methods, and even recruits new firefighters — all despite the fire chief’s prohibition — and indeed, the fire is contained in many places. Yet these firefighters are branded disobedient and schismatic and are punished for it.
To extend the parable further: the fire chief now admits only those firefighters who acknowledge the new methods and obey the new firehouse regulations. But given the sheer scale of the fire, the desperate struggle to contain it, and the insufficiency of the official methods, other helpers selflessly intervene — despite the fire chief’s prohibition — bringing skill, knowledge, and good intentions, and in the end helping to save the very house the fire chief was struggling to protect.
In time, historical circumstances shift, and a new fire chief emerges — one who recognizes the unfortunate effects of the new firefighting methods. He not only grants permission to use the old, tried-and-tested methods once again, but becomes their zealous champion himself. He also acknowledges the contribution of those firefighters who had once been misunderstood, harshly punished, treated as outcasts, and expelled as rebels — and welcomes them back into the ranks. In the end, once that great upheaval had passed, what had once been condemned as disobedience and rebellion was revealed to have been an act of selfless commitment.
History will one day reveal whether the following words St. Augustine apply to the current situation with the SSPX:
“Often Divine providence permits even good men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When for the sake of the peace of the Church they patiently endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties in the way of heresy or schism, they will teach men how God is to be served with a true disposition and with great and sincere charity. The intention of such men is to return when the tumult has subsided. But if that is not permitted because the storm continues or because a fiercer one might be stirred up by their return, they hold fast to their purpose to look to the good even of those responsible for the tumults and commotions that drove them out. They form no separate conventicles of their own, but defend to the death and assist by their testimony the faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church. These the Father who seeth in secret crowns secretly. It appears that this is a rare kind of Christian, but examples are not lacking. So divine providence uses all kinds of men as examples for the oversight of souls and for the building up of his spiritual people” (De vera religione, 6:11).
What St. Athanasius wrote to his brother bishops throughout the world amid an extraordinary crisis of faith is applicable to our time as well:
“The canons and decrees of the Church were not given at the present day but were rightly and steadfastly transmitted to us from our forefathers. Neither had the faith its beginning at this time, but it came down to us from the Lord through His disciples. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the churches from old time until now, may not be lost in our days, and the trust which has been committed to us be required at our hands, rouse yourselves, brethren, as being stewards of the mysteries of God, on seeing them now seized by aliens.” (Ep. encyclica, 1)
God, in His Providence, writes straight even with lines that, from a merely legal perspective, appear crooked. May He grant that this day come soon. Let us be joyful amid tribulation and say: I believe in the invincibility of the Church and of the Papacy, and I believe that the Holy See will one day shine forth again as the Cathedra of truth before the entire world.
My Substack is sustained entirely by you, its readers. Your support doesn’t just keep it going — it makes possible the kind of reporting, analysis and independence that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. I’m deeply grateful to those who choose to become paid subscribers (below) or support this work by donating here:
SSPX is the firebreak.
re LGBT… Pope Leo XIV said “the Church needs to “change people’s attitudes, before it considers changing what the Church teaches about sexuality” (and other things like ordination).
the way to “change people’s attitudes” is to allow “Pride” masses, promote James Martin and allow an army of lay women to distribute communion.
i m not so sure the FireChief believes the House should stand. just not.