Old lady, just keep playing Bingo and keep voting for my tax cuts. While you are finding more excuses for your issues, think about why you don’t speak Latin but demand the Churches around the world switch to pre Vatican II masses.
It’s because of your type of responses, women won’t be Deacons in my lifetime.
Jesus buddy, read more. SSPX is not part of the Church. You should know this. Benedict, the Enabler allowed some SSPX Bishops back to the Church and they immediately talked about making Hitler a Saint.
Now THIS is the way to go. Vastly better than the statements recently made by other prelates who don't seem to grasp what's at stake or how to move forward. God bless Bishop Schneider.
This is an excellent letter from Bishop Athanasius Schneider. He has put the Pope on the spot. Will Pope Leo IV be the abusive father who acts as "an Angel outside but is a Devil in his own home" or will he be a true charitable father to his Catholic children?
I am grateful for the clarity in this letter and as a consequence will support the FSSPX. I am presently at the FSSP and was Novus Ordo before that but now I see clearly that the FSSPX are the true defenders of the Faith.
Now is the time when we will see the true colours of Leo IV, whether his father is the Devil or God. Let us not worry, Jesus himself told the head of his church "your father is the devil". If we have another Pope whose Father is the Devil we will soon see, and the actions of Pope Leo XIV and how he treats the FSSPX will show the world who his father is.
Lets us continue to pray that God exposes and destroys the enemy in the Catholic Church, let us work as the Militia Christi to fight the good fight because "Catholics are born for combat"...bring it on... All for the Glory of God!!
If you have come to the conclusion that a society with irregular status is the true church and the pope needs to be manipulated into agreeing with them you have gone very badly astray. May I suggest that a lent spent away from the internet and devoted to prayer might be better for you than involving yourself in church matters?
Did you not read Athanasius Schneiders letter? I never said they were the true church, don't put words in my mouth, thats wrong . May I suggest you think before you write otherwise you just come across as being stupid and rude. Maybe it would be worthwhile to reflect on that during lent. Real Catholics should get involved in church matters, as matters have been for too long in the hands of pro-sodomisers and those who hate the Catholic Faith.
I am surely stupid and rude, but I am inside the true Church alongside Bishop Schneider, whom I respect enormously, and the pro-sodomisers, whom I respect a little less. What I dislike about the debate is the strong whiff of Donatism around the SSPX. The Church is not invalidated by being run by people who hate the Catholic faith, and nobody should put themselves outside the Church because they think that it is. I would rather be with Augustine inside the Church than with Donatus outside it.
Cool, but the SSPX are not outside the church, and doing their consecrations would not put them outside the church. Canon 1323 section 4 makes it very clear that someone who breaks a canon out of necessity for the good of souls is not subject to the consequence. If you read Quo Primum by Pope Pius V, it seems very clear that the continued existence of the latin mass is a very good thing for souls, as all should agree. If the SSPX goes down, the Ecclesia Dei communities will follow.
You or I do not get to apply Canon law, that is for the catholic and apostolic church to decide. The continued existence of the Latin Mass is not under threat: not even Francis abrogated it and it is available in every diocese. I wish it were more available and we should pray for that, but its existence is not under threat.
Your logic is not really any different from Henry VIII, and someone who consecrates a bishop without papal authority will be automatically excommunicated. It is really important to remember that schism is not a matter of opinion or intent, it is a matter of law.
Dr K, may I suggest that you don’t seem to grasp what’s at stake either? Since you quit your teaching position and failed to grow your Substack into what you wanted you have gotten very, very shrill. Maybe a period of silence would help you regain summer balance?
My Substack did better than I could have imagined. I helped found Pelican+ from a position of strength. Nor is there any shrillness in my messages. It seems you might be projecting (your unwarranted assumptions are a telltale sign).
That is not how I remember your pleas to upgrade my subscription, you clearly said that you couldn’t get the number of subscribers above 800. And Close The Workshop was ridiculously shrill, being your own editor has been a very bad move. Honestly, I think an offline lebt world do you a lot of good.
Very important: I am NOT talking about OPINIONS. I am refering to the INFALLIBLE Ordinary Magisterium. The same one that is "DIVINELY revealed" (Dei Filius) and is written with "DIVINE ASSISTANCE" (CCC 892). That is the one that the SSPX denies. That is the second great heresy: believing that the Church is ONLY infallible via Definitions of New Dogmas as per the EXTRAordinary Magisterium. SSPX denies and disregard both Pastor Aeternus and Dei Filius. What Cardinal Muller calls Heresy of the Ultra Traditionalists.
---Bishop Ocariz, Vicar General of Opus Dei (December 2011): “…if the Magisterium proposes a teaching without DIRECTLY invoking the charism of infallibility, it does NOT follow that such a teaching is therefore to be considered "fallible" - in the sense that what is proposed is somehow a "provisional doctrine" or just an "authoritative opinion". EVERY authentic expression of the Magisterium MUST be received for what it TRULY is: a teaching given by Pastors who, in the apostolic succession, speak with the "charism of TRUTH" (Dei Verbum, 8), "endowed with the authority of Christ" (Lumen Gentium, n. 25), "and by the light of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.). ..to deny this to the entire episcopate gathered to teach the universal Church cum Petro and sub Petro, would be to deny something of the VERY ESSENCE of the Church (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 24 June 1973, nn. 2-5).
----First Vatican Council Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius (1870) : “Further, by DIVINE and Catholic faith, ALL those things MUST be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ORDINARY and universal teaching power, to be believed as DIVINELY revealed”
------“Catechism of the Catholic Church 892: DIVINE ASSISTANCE IS ALSO GIVEN to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, WITHOUT ARRIVING at an infallible definition and WITHOUT PRONOUNCING in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ORDINARY Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of FAITH and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an EXTENSION of it.”
Cool, if you agree to this, then Quo Primum is infallible, in which Pope Pius V said, "in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used." He also goes on to say the missal should not be altered. By your logic here, every single pope since Pius XII is by definition a heretic and a schismatic according to Canon 751.
The BIG problem is that the words of Archbishop Lefebvre actually are NOT deeply moving as Bishop Schneider wrongly states because just as Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos explained many years ago to Fellay, the WHOLE paragraph of Pastor Aeternus is needed:
For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they KNEW VERY WELL that this See of St. Peter ALWAYS remains unblemished by ANY ERROR, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." This gift of TRUTH and NEVER-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
The failure of quoting the WHOLE paragraph leads to the big THEOLOGICAL error of Lefebvre and the Society: The Church that is only infallible and indefectible but not ALL DAYS UNTIL THE END OF TIMES, but only until 1965.
This is a simplistic reading of both Pastor Aeternus and of recent church history. The SSPX absolutely believes the Church is indefectible and that popes, when they exercise their full teaching authority ex cathedra, are infallible. (A pope hasn't done that since, arguably, John Paul II.) However, no theologian disputes that the ordinary papal magisterium might contain error, as it is non-infallible, which means fallible.
Actually that is the other great Heresy of the SSPX, you just proved: the Ordinary Infallible Universal Magisterium does not exists! The Church is ONLY infallible once every 200 years during the EXTRAordinary magisterium and can officially teach heresy on all other official documents....and therefore the SSPX also uses Dei Filius as toliett paper! You just proved the other great heresy of SSPX.
---Pope Pius XI (CASTI CONNUBII, 31 December 1930): “… let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that FALSE autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such PRIDE as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to TEACH AND GUIDE ALL NATIONS, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all TRUE followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in ALL THINGS that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.”
---Ad Tuendam Fidem, Doctrinal Commentary , Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith: " The third proposition of the professio fidei states: “Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciates when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they DO NOT intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act”. To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings …require religious submission of will and intellect….A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore “tuto doceri non potest.” [Cf. Canons 752, 1371)
---As per the four types of THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS:
1. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be known only through Revelation.
2. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the human race came from one set of parents.
3. SENTENTIA COMMUNIA (common teaching) like the Church's prohibition & proscription of artificial contraception.
4. SENTENTIA PROBABILIS (probable teaching) like the premise that the Virgin Mary died before being Assumed into Heaven.
According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive SUBMISSION of MIND and WILL of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they CANNOT be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority. The heterodox concept of a dual magisteria, i.e., (the pope & bishops plus) the theologians, is not based on scriptural nor traditional grounds. Some have gone as far as to propose a triple magisteria, (adding) the body of believers. While it is true that as a whole, the body of believers is infallible in that SENSUS FIDEI is that the Church as the Mystical Body cannot be in error on matters of faith and morals, the TEACHING AUTHORITY (Magisterium) resides solely with the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops in union with him.
---Bishop Ocariz Vicar General of Opus Dei (December 2011): “…if the Magisterium proposes a teaching without directly invoking the charism of infallibility, it does NOT follow that such a teaching is therefore to be considered "fallible" - in the sense that what is proposed is somehow a "provisional doctrine" or just an "authoritative opinion". Every authentic expression of the Magisterium MUST be received for what it TRULY is: a teaching given by Pastors who, in the apostolic succession, speak with the "charism of truth" (Dei Verbum, 8), "endowed with the authority of Christ" (Lumen Gentium, n. 25), "and by the light of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.). ..to deny this to the entire episcopate gathered to teach the universal Church cum Petro and sub Petro, would be to deny something of the VERY ESSENCE of the Church (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 24 June 1973, nn. 2-5).
----POPE PIUS XII (HUMANI GENERIS): Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not in itself demand consent, since in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority (assensum per se non postulare, cum in iis Pontifices supremam sui Magisterii potestatem non exerceant). For these things are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is also true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents (<in actis suis>) purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
----First Vatican Council Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius (1870) : “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed”
------“Catechism of the Catholic Church 892: DIVINE ASSISTANCE IS ALSO GIVEN to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, WITHOUT ARRIVING at an infallible definition and WITHOUT PRONOUNCING in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.”
---Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
I'm not suggesting that one should habitually be skeptical toward the non-infallible magisterium. On the contrary.
However, Pope Francis's pontificate in particular presented unique challenges, as detailed in this book. If you want to reckon seriously with facts, then read it. If you prefer to dwell in ivory-tower abstractions, let it be.
In my humble view I fail to understand how the German bishops can still be regarded as being in unity with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, the example of China, given here by Bishop Schneider, is a reminder of the great sufferings of the faithful in this vast country. If a ( secret) deal could be made with China, maybe some kind of deal could be made with the SSPX? I don't know them but from what I have read in numerous articles they are very faithful to the Doctrine of the Church. As someone who has no other choice but to attend a NO Mass exclusively, apart from occasional Sundays far away, I appreciate SSPX's fidelity to the old Roman liturgy where beauty and reverence is respected. Some people reject the complaints about hammering guitars etc saying that instead of complaining we should use Mass as a mortification. What happens to these faithful after having endured noisy irreverent Masses for 20- 30 years? One really wonders how many Catholics left the Church in the 70's and 80's and until now because of extremely poor liturgy? There are NO Masses celebrated reverently of course, but I am not referring to them here. Especially in countries like Italy and Spain, even Protestants are astounded by either the complete lack of music or hammering guitars. No organ. No choir. Even the hallelujah acclamation sounds "semi unconscious". The songs are always in Spanish/ Italian. Latin is effectively extinct. A kind of perverted understanding of participation is painfully obvious. In some cases Mass isn't allowed to take more than 25 minutes even on Sundays and during Christmas. Dry and uninspiring. Often more like a social gathering focusing on " let's get together ". After such Masses one leaves without having been able to enter into the mysteries of the Passion of Christ and the Living God. One professor in Liturgy has said that in Spain and Italy the seminarians don't receive any formation whatsoever in liturgical music. If this is still so, how can it be that this is not widely discussed? Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict said that there was no doubt in his mind that bad liturgy was the main cause of the loss of faith.
I pray for unity and bridges to be built. TC destroyed the liturgical peace created by Pope Benedict with his Summorum Pontificum. Praying for Pope Leo, that there will be a peaceful solution beneficial to the whole Church.
If you don't condemn false pipes since 58 then leave German false bishops, James martin, stowe cupich etc... Leave them to Sedes who do so lawfully and without your sickening hypocrisy
Once again Bishop Schneider has perfectly articulated the problem and the solution. With all due respect to Cdl. Sarah, the Cardinal's response pales when left to stand next to the Bishop's analysis.
I greatly believe Bp. Athanasius Schneider echoes the thoughts of many good people. I myself would encourage those who think SSPX is the problem to look elsewhere. Rome bears the primary reeponsibility for unity in the Church, not SSPX. It cannot be true that a society is implicated for disunity before Rome is examined as conducing to unity.
I believe it is problematic to imply that a society (or any person) cannot be "implicated for disunity before Rome is examined as conducing to unity." Unity always requires both parties to collaborate, and even a failure on one side does not excuse the other.
Furthermore, I think the issues you raised in the article fail to indicate that Rome is failing to discuss unity with the SSPX. If the problems are purely doctrinal, why would the SSPX decline discussions with Rome to clarify Vatican II. If they truly believe the teachings from Vatican II are beyond repair, then they are denying the authority of the Church. This point is completely omitted by Bishop Schneider, which causes great harm to the dialogue.
One of the major questions dividing Rome and SSPX is whether there can be salvation outside the Church. Vatican II said there can be. SSPX's refusal to discuss this and similar points shows a lack of charity towards those who believe differently from the Catholic Church. Do you really think all non-Christians and Protestant Christians will be damned for all eternity? I certainly don't.
Even before the council catechesis contextualize this reality. No one knows what transpires between the soul and God at the moment of death, and surely those who have never been offered a responsible clear unambiguous articulation of Catholicism can be held responsible for that deprivation.
Sometimes I think the Lord has allowed the chaos of the last five-hundred years in order to be able to rectify the deficiencies of Catholic evangelization Himself. We need pray ardently for the episcopate. They shoulder a frightening responsiblity.
This does seem to be the issue on which the SSPX have sadly painted themselves into a corner. With more charity on the part of the hierarchy they could surely be weaned out if the corner and into full communion, which would be a huge benefit to the whole church.
I would argue more charity on both sides. But then I lived until recently in a diocese (FW-SB) with FSSP parishes in both cities, on opposite sides of the diocese.
"They are denying the authority of the Church"? This argument is non sequitur. Authority is a principle, the council is its application. That says something about why Fernandez wished to discuss levels of obedience required for different texts. The Vatican itself seems to put the council on the dicing board, but of course some Catholics will regard it as superdogma. But negotiations between the Holy See and the Greeks, Byzantines, Armenians, etc all occured on the doctrinal level in the past, yet this is the path that seems to be closed now. In this case, I do not see that what you suggest, viz; that SSPX denies the authority of the Church, is true. The whole detail is that the DDF itself has refused dialogue at more peaceful times. These theatrics of consecration being the cause for dialogue are something of yesteryear. Certain questions might have been settled earlier if some parties did not block the path. I do not see that rejecting the frantic response of Fernandez is tacit disobedience. It is, instead in my opinion, an act of honesty. Dialogue can be resumed after the consecrations which, for the society, are more urgent.
Thanks Dianne Montagna for bringing us this consoling news. At least there is one bishop, his name is Athanasius and he seems to be against the world like his patron saint: contra mundum.
By now, everyone should be aware that a Freemason created the Novus Ordo mass to destroy our Church, and he was the infamous Msgr. Annibale Bugnini. Why does Rome insist on standing behind this atrocity? Maybe the reason hardly anyone still believes in the "Real Presence" is because there isn't any in the Novus Ordo, at least in the often irreverent ones by unbelieving priests. And a priest that is involved in or supports sodomy, like so many do these days, certainly does not believe in Christ or he would have the fear of damnation. And how can anyone receive in the hand if they believe in the Real Presence? They think they are actually worthy of touching our Lord with their unconsecrated hands? And extroadinary ministers are a disgrace! Now we have alter girls! What is going on? And these people standing behind Vatican II are going to excommunicate the very people that are trying, and will EVENTUALLY SAVE our Church as we know in the end that Satan will not prevail? Why is Rome trying so hard to make us all protestants? Why are Sodomites running our Church? Why is our Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Víctor Manuel Fernández an author of soft porn books?
Pope Leo XIV had such a great opportunity after succeeding one of the worst pontificates in recent history. The bar was so low, but has thus far has been failing miserably. His bishop appointments have been disappointments to say the least. He should have named himself Francis instead of Leo and his name would have been exactly what it would have read, Francis II.
I love Bishop Schneider. Why couldn't we have had a holy Catholic like him become our Holy Father? Because of too many freemasons and Sodomites that voted for one of their own once again?
Richard, I sincerely appeal to your insight. What is this all about?! Can you make it simple enough for a lay person like me? What is the core essential disagreement? Surely not English vs Latin or guitar vs organ?! With so many real life and death issues, like millions of abortions, why on earth are we pushing arguments like this as a priority? Why isn’t the SSPX asking how they can reduce abortions or reduce risk of wars or stop the slaughter in Gaza?
This is about deadly serious Theology and Doctrine. There were countless deviations and changes made at Vatican 2, but being a Pastoral Council (with no new dogmas or anathemas) it supposedly didn’t “change” anything, yet the decades since have exploded with loss of Faith and Faithful.
The SSPX simply holds the line and says “We cannot, in good conscience, follow until these serious Theological and Doctrinal questions are addressed.
Once again, Bishop Schneider has proven himself to be the adult in the room - I don't mean that as a cut to the Holy Father - I don't have a bead on him yet. What he does with this situation will greatly clarify that. We all need to pray fervently for a good outcome.
No, l don't. Actions speak louder than words. Some have been good, some have been bad. He is a product of his era and the time of his formation as a priest and he is still finding his way as pope. So, in charity, l have not. I just pray for him.
Amen to that! May God grant the grace to all concerned for this. thanks be to God for Bishop Schneider. Clearly the Holy Spirit is pouring out of his mouth
This is absolutely fantastic! Bishop Schneider and Bishop Strickland have so far shown that they are on the side of the Eternal Church. May the good God bless them.
Regarding the fire analogy, couldn't it possibly said that it is lacking faith in God's timing and grace to assume one's way is the most correct way to deal with the problem? Wasn't this Luther's error? I think of Moses striking the water to make water. The error wasn't that he provided water. The error was his pride in claiming he was the one who ought to provide life saving water to the people.
I don't know... just trying to think through this. I'm sure my ignorance is evident in my comment.
Moses was told to SPEAK to the rock, not to strike it at all.
He didn't follow directions.... just like NONE of the Popes have followed the directions to Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in union with all the bishops of the world.
When you can do something to help, but wait for God to intervene instead, you are simply tempting God. It's as if you need to get to the dentist, but there's a curfew, so you wait at home hoping that God will cure your tooth without you having to go to the dentist because you're scared of being punished for violating the curfew.
“Provisional and minimal pastoral measures for the SSPX, undertaken for the spiritual good of the thousands upon thousands of its faithful around the world—including a pontifical mandate for episcopal consecrations—would create the conditions necessary to calmly clarify misunderstandings, questions, and doubts of a doctrinal nature arising from certain statements in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent Pontifical Magisterium. At the same time, such measures would provide the SSPX with the opportunity to make constructive contribution for the good of the entire Church, while maintaining a clear distinction between what belongs to divinely revealed faith and doctrine definitively proposed by the Magisterium, and what has a primarily pastoral character in particular historical circumstances, and is therefore open to careful theological study, as has always been the practice throughout the life of the Church.”
A question I have is, if the “church” as it has evolved since V2 and hardened in its adherence to the principles of 1789 (Lienart, Suenens, Ratzinger, etc) would have a corrupting influence on the SSPX insistence on doctrinal clarity prior to any agreement or supposed “olive branch.” The conciliar church must renounce its love affair with 1789. The SSPX are simply in continuity with the Catholics of the Vendée. Read “Heroes of the Vendée” by Joseph Pearce. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/heroes-of-the-vendee
I don't understand how THIS is the way to go. The SSPX decides it needs new bishops because two have passed away, and the other two are in their 60s. Then they "humbly ask" the Holy See for more bishops, and when they don't get the response they like, they decide that they can just do it anyways for "the salvation of souls". Then, they get invited for a dialogue with the Holy See! What an opportunity. Something, as the Superior General himself said, they have been wanting for years, since 2019! But what do they decide to do? Decline to talk, blame Rome for following canon law by telling them excommunication is on the table if they go through with it, say the discussion would be fruitless because Vatican II is has been repeated and clarified in the Post-Conciliar period. Essentially, they are indicating:
1. They deny parts of Vatican II.
2. They can subjectively decide when the Pope's decisions can or can not be followed based on their own understanding of crises and emergencies in the Church.
3. They have no serious intent to reconcile (they even stated that they don't care if Rome recognizes them or not).
The SSPX is not being threatened by anyone but themselves. There is no rush to consecrate bishops in the coming months, except to celebrate the date of the excommunication of their founders. There are no threats of schism or excommunication made by the Vatican, it's just against canon law to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate, regardless of what the procedure was 1500 years ago. They want to hold their own set of beliefs, disregard the authority of the Pope and local bishops when its against their own interests, and they have no genuine desire to reconcile. If they did want to reconcile with Rome, they would actually take this chance to have a dialogue, even if it means they have to delay consecrations from their celebratory excommunication day.
I have no patience for claims that "Rome is not acting in good faith... Rome will only delay... Fernandez has no interest in reconciliation". Who knows! They refuse to dialogue! They wanted a response, it came back negative! They wanted a dialogue, they refused! I guess we'll never find out, because the SSPX decided it must be July 1, 2026.
As for this letter, it reminds me of so many SSPX sermons and defenses of their actions. Full of ill-fitting analogies, appealing to "by their fruits you shall know them", and framing the SSPX as trying to aid the Church. Every time I read SSPX material, or hear a talk from an SSPX priest, or read a letter from their higher ups, it's always the same. "Rome is corrupt, we are not, its full of scandal. We are charged with steering the ship and correcting course" "We respect the Pope, we pray for him in the mass by name!" while using the pulpit to sneer at comments the Pope made years ago instead of talking about the Gospel, and having no respect for his authority. And teaching false beliefs like attending a NO is a sin.
To me, Rome isn't threatening at all, it's just stating the facts. If Pagliarani wants to stick to his schedule, so be it. He knows the consequences, he just doesn't care, he states it in his letter! If Pope Leo decides to be merciful, that's his decision, but I don't know how affirming this behavior and teachings could be good for the Church.
As on other occasions, this framing blurs essential ecclesial distinctions. Comparing the shared faith of baptized Christians with full Catholic communion confuses categories. Unity in baptism is not the same as hierarchical communion, sacramental discipline, and assent to the Church’s living Magisterium.
This does not clarify the crisis. It deepens confusion among the faithful.
This is not journalism; it is advocacy presented as reporting. Shame on you. -AE
Bishop Schneider is proving to be one of the few with true charity and pastoral care for souls. May God bless and protect him 🙏
Agreed! We need more bishops like him!
Why would we need more self serving, angry Bishops?
You're projecting
You? You critiquing anyone in regard to self-absorption and anger? Really?
What gives you the impression Bo Schneider is angry and self-serving?
The fact he still has a man crush over the ex communicated and widely disgraced SSPX.
Do you have a more thoughtful comment using logic and facts?
Old lady, just keep playing Bingo and keep voting for my tax cuts. While you are finding more excuses for your issues, think about why you don’t speak Latin but demand the Churches around the world switch to pre Vatican II masses.
It’s because of your type of responses, women won’t be Deacons in my lifetime.
Who is excommunicated? Name one in the SSPX.
Jesus buddy, read more. SSPX is not part of the Church. You should know this. Benedict, the Enabler allowed some SSPX Bishops back to the Church and they immediately talked about making Hitler a Saint.
Schneider has all characteristics of a plant
I think he advised fake pope to talk to sedes. That would only happen if it was clear we'd be teaching him, an apostate, the Faith
Now THIS is the way to go. Vastly better than the statements recently made by other prelates who don't seem to grasp what's at stake or how to move forward. God bless Bishop Schneider.
Amen!
This is an excellent letter from Bishop Athanasius Schneider. He has put the Pope on the spot. Will Pope Leo IV be the abusive father who acts as "an Angel outside but is a Devil in his own home" or will he be a true charitable father to his Catholic children?
I am grateful for the clarity in this letter and as a consequence will support the FSSPX. I am presently at the FSSP and was Novus Ordo before that but now I see clearly that the FSSPX are the true defenders of the Faith.
Now is the time when we will see the true colours of Leo IV, whether his father is the Devil or God. Let us not worry, Jesus himself told the head of his church "your father is the devil". If we have another Pope whose Father is the Devil we will soon see, and the actions of Pope Leo XIV and how he treats the FSSPX will show the world who his father is.
Lets us continue to pray that God exposes and destroys the enemy in the Catholic Church, let us work as the Militia Christi to fight the good fight because "Catholics are born for combat"...bring it on... All for the Glory of God!!
If you have come to the conclusion that a society with irregular status is the true church and the pope needs to be manipulated into agreeing with them you have gone very badly astray. May I suggest that a lent spent away from the internet and devoted to prayer might be better for you than involving yourself in church matters?
Did you not read Athanasius Schneiders letter? I never said they were the true church, don't put words in my mouth, thats wrong . May I suggest you think before you write otherwise you just come across as being stupid and rude. Maybe it would be worthwhile to reflect on that during lent. Real Catholics should get involved in church matters, as matters have been for too long in the hands of pro-sodomisers and those who hate the Catholic Faith.
I am surely stupid and rude, but I am inside the true Church alongside Bishop Schneider, whom I respect enormously, and the pro-sodomisers, whom I respect a little less. What I dislike about the debate is the strong whiff of Donatism around the SSPX. The Church is not invalidated by being run by people who hate the Catholic faith, and nobody should put themselves outside the Church because they think that it is. I would rather be with Augustine inside the Church than with Donatus outside it.
Cool, but the SSPX are not outside the church, and doing their consecrations would not put them outside the church. Canon 1323 section 4 makes it very clear that someone who breaks a canon out of necessity for the good of souls is not subject to the consequence. If you read Quo Primum by Pope Pius V, it seems very clear that the continued existence of the latin mass is a very good thing for souls, as all should agree. If the SSPX goes down, the Ecclesia Dei communities will follow.
Br... They believe the great harlot is Bride of Christ. Anyone who believes this isn't Catholic
You or I do not get to apply Canon law, that is for the catholic and apostolic church to decide. The continued existence of the Latin Mass is not under threat: not even Francis abrogated it and it is available in every diocese. I wish it were more available and we should pray for that, but its existence is not under threat.
Your logic is not really any different from Henry VIII, and someone who consecrates a bishop without papal authority will be automatically excommunicated. It is really important to remember that schism is not a matter of opinion or intent, it is a matter of law.
Agree. I also would suggest Angry Pete attend a local community college class on reasoning and logic. Pete, we praying for you.
Dr K, may I suggest that you don’t seem to grasp what’s at stake either? Since you quit your teaching position and failed to grow your Substack into what you wanted you have gotten very, very shrill. Maybe a period of silence would help you regain summer balance?
My Substack did better than I could have imagined. I helped found Pelican+ from a position of strength. Nor is there any shrillness in my messages. It seems you might be projecting (your unwarranted assumptions are a telltale sign).
That is not how I remember your pleas to upgrade my subscription, you clearly said that you couldn’t get the number of subscribers above 800. And Close The Workshop was ridiculously shrill, being your own editor has been a very bad move. Honestly, I think an offline lebt world do you a lot of good.
You must have remarkable ESP to know that I have no outside editors work on my writing (when in fact I do; CTW was published by Angelico Press).
In any case, thanks for your unsolicited advice. This exchange indicates to me that you may have a bit too much time on your hands!
Very important: I am NOT talking about OPINIONS. I am refering to the INFALLIBLE Ordinary Magisterium. The same one that is "DIVINELY revealed" (Dei Filius) and is written with "DIVINE ASSISTANCE" (CCC 892). That is the one that the SSPX denies. That is the second great heresy: believing that the Church is ONLY infallible via Definitions of New Dogmas as per the EXTRAordinary Magisterium. SSPX denies and disregard both Pastor Aeternus and Dei Filius. What Cardinal Muller calls Heresy of the Ultra Traditionalists.
---Bishop Ocariz, Vicar General of Opus Dei (December 2011): “…if the Magisterium proposes a teaching without DIRECTLY invoking the charism of infallibility, it does NOT follow that such a teaching is therefore to be considered "fallible" - in the sense that what is proposed is somehow a "provisional doctrine" or just an "authoritative opinion". EVERY authentic expression of the Magisterium MUST be received for what it TRULY is: a teaching given by Pastors who, in the apostolic succession, speak with the "charism of TRUTH" (Dei Verbum, 8), "endowed with the authority of Christ" (Lumen Gentium, n. 25), "and by the light of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.). ..to deny this to the entire episcopate gathered to teach the universal Church cum Petro and sub Petro, would be to deny something of the VERY ESSENCE of the Church (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 24 June 1973, nn. 2-5).
----First Vatican Council Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius (1870) : “Further, by DIVINE and Catholic faith, ALL those things MUST be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ORDINARY and universal teaching power, to be believed as DIVINELY revealed”
------“Catechism of the Catholic Church 892: DIVINE ASSISTANCE IS ALSO GIVEN to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, WITHOUT ARRIVING at an infallible definition and WITHOUT PRONOUNCING in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ORDINARY Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of FAITH and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an EXTENSION of it.”
Cool, if you agree to this, then Quo Primum is infallible, in which Pope Pius V said, "in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used." He also goes on to say the missal should not be altered. By your logic here, every single pope since Pius XII is by definition a heretic and a schismatic according to Canon 751.
Michael Davies never departed from the Catholic Faith.
The BIG problem is that the words of Archbishop Lefebvre actually are NOT deeply moving as Bishop Schneider wrongly states because just as Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos explained many years ago to Fellay, the WHOLE paragraph of Pastor Aeternus is needed:
For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they KNEW VERY WELL that this See of St. Peter ALWAYS remains unblemished by ANY ERROR, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." This gift of TRUTH and NEVER-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
The failure of quoting the WHOLE paragraph leads to the big THEOLOGICAL error of Lefebvre and the Society: The Church that is only infallible and indefectible but not ALL DAYS UNTIL THE END OF TIMES, but only until 1965.
This is a simplistic reading of both Pastor Aeternus and of recent church history. The SSPX absolutely believes the Church is indefectible and that popes, when they exercise their full teaching authority ex cathedra, are infallible. (A pope hasn't done that since, arguably, John Paul II.) However, no theologian disputes that the ordinary papal magisterium might contain error, as it is non-infallible, which means fallible.
For a deeper dive, I recommend:
https://www.amazon.com/Ultramontanism-Tradition-Authority-Catholic-Studies/dp/1960711598
A Pope can teach error when teaching on Faith and Morals....but never pernicious error.
Catholics should not look for ex cathedra stamp.every time a Pope speaks
Actually that is the other great Heresy of the SSPX, you just proved: the Ordinary Infallible Universal Magisterium does not exists! The Church is ONLY infallible once every 200 years during the EXTRAordinary magisterium and can officially teach heresy on all other official documents....and therefore the SSPX also uses Dei Filius as toliett paper! You just proved the other great heresy of SSPX.
---Pope Pius XI (CASTI CONNUBII, 31 December 1930): “… let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that FALSE autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such PRIDE as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to TEACH AND GUIDE ALL NATIONS, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all TRUE followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in ALL THINGS that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.”
---Ad Tuendam Fidem, Doctrinal Commentary , Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith: " The third proposition of the professio fidei states: “Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciates when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they DO NOT intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act”. To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings …require religious submission of will and intellect….A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore “tuto doceri non potest.” [Cf. Canons 752, 1371)
---As per the four types of THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS:
1. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be known only through Revelation.
2. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the human race came from one set of parents.
3. SENTENTIA COMMUNIA (common teaching) like the Church's prohibition & proscription of artificial contraception.
4. SENTENTIA PROBABILIS (probable teaching) like the premise that the Virgin Mary died before being Assumed into Heaven.
According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive SUBMISSION of MIND and WILL of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they CANNOT be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority. The heterodox concept of a dual magisteria, i.e., (the pope & bishops plus) the theologians, is not based on scriptural nor traditional grounds. Some have gone as far as to propose a triple magisteria, (adding) the body of believers. While it is true that as a whole, the body of believers is infallible in that SENSUS FIDEI is that the Church as the Mystical Body cannot be in error on matters of faith and morals, the TEACHING AUTHORITY (Magisterium) resides solely with the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops in union with him.
---Bishop Ocariz Vicar General of Opus Dei (December 2011): “…if the Magisterium proposes a teaching without directly invoking the charism of infallibility, it does NOT follow that such a teaching is therefore to be considered "fallible" - in the sense that what is proposed is somehow a "provisional doctrine" or just an "authoritative opinion". Every authentic expression of the Magisterium MUST be received for what it TRULY is: a teaching given by Pastors who, in the apostolic succession, speak with the "charism of truth" (Dei Verbum, 8), "endowed with the authority of Christ" (Lumen Gentium, n. 25), "and by the light of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.). ..to deny this to the entire episcopate gathered to teach the universal Church cum Petro and sub Petro, would be to deny something of the VERY ESSENCE of the Church (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 24 June 1973, nn. 2-5).
----POPE PIUS XII (HUMANI GENERIS): Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not in itself demand consent, since in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority (assensum per se non postulare, cum in iis Pontifices supremam sui Magisterii potestatem non exerceant). For these things are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is also true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents (<in actis suis>) purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
----First Vatican Council Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius (1870) : “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed”
------“Catechism of the Catholic Church 892: DIVINE ASSISTANCE IS ALSO GIVEN to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, WITHOUT ARRIVING at an infallible definition and WITHOUT PRONOUNCING in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.”
---Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
Yes, of course, I know all of this.
I'm not suggesting that one should habitually be skeptical toward the non-infallible magisterium. On the contrary.
However, Pope Francis's pontificate in particular presented unique challenges, as detailed in this book. If you want to reckon seriously with facts, then read it. If you prefer to dwell in ivory-tower abstractions, let it be.
https://osjustipress.com/products/disastrous-pontificate
Yikes. What a blow. I knew Peter was a clown based on the one post I just read, now this. Pete- join the Mormons, more your intellectual speed.
He has indeed written as a true shepherd.
Big Peter trashes Pope Saint Pius X the great
If Schneider were Catholic he would apply famous bull of Pope Paul IV
In my humble view I fail to understand how the German bishops can still be regarded as being in unity with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, the example of China, given here by Bishop Schneider, is a reminder of the great sufferings of the faithful in this vast country. If a ( secret) deal could be made with China, maybe some kind of deal could be made with the SSPX? I don't know them but from what I have read in numerous articles they are very faithful to the Doctrine of the Church. As someone who has no other choice but to attend a NO Mass exclusively, apart from occasional Sundays far away, I appreciate SSPX's fidelity to the old Roman liturgy where beauty and reverence is respected. Some people reject the complaints about hammering guitars etc saying that instead of complaining we should use Mass as a mortification. What happens to these faithful after having endured noisy irreverent Masses for 20- 30 years? One really wonders how many Catholics left the Church in the 70's and 80's and until now because of extremely poor liturgy? There are NO Masses celebrated reverently of course, but I am not referring to them here. Especially in countries like Italy and Spain, even Protestants are astounded by either the complete lack of music or hammering guitars. No organ. No choir. Even the hallelujah acclamation sounds "semi unconscious". The songs are always in Spanish/ Italian. Latin is effectively extinct. A kind of perverted understanding of participation is painfully obvious. In some cases Mass isn't allowed to take more than 25 minutes even on Sundays and during Christmas. Dry and uninspiring. Often more like a social gathering focusing on " let's get together ". After such Masses one leaves without having been able to enter into the mysteries of the Passion of Christ and the Living God. One professor in Liturgy has said that in Spain and Italy the seminarians don't receive any formation whatsoever in liturgical music. If this is still so, how can it be that this is not widely discussed? Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict said that there was no doubt in his mind that bad liturgy was the main cause of the loss of faith.
I pray for unity and bridges to be built. TC destroyed the liturgical peace created by Pope Benedict with his Summorum Pontificum. Praying for Pope Leo, that there will be a peaceful solution beneficial to the whole Church.
I totally agree with your observations!
the SSPX doesn't have the kind of money that the Chinese government does that made the deal with the Vatican...
If you don't condemn false pipes since 58 then leave German false bishops, James martin, stowe cupich etc... Leave them to Sedes who do so lawfully and without your sickening hypocrisy
Once again Bishop Schneider has perfectly articulated the problem and the solution. With all due respect to Cdl. Sarah, the Cardinal's response pales when left to stand next to the Bishop's analysis.
I greatly believe Bp. Athanasius Schneider echoes the thoughts of many good people. I myself would encourage those who think SSPX is the problem to look elsewhere. Rome bears the primary reeponsibility for unity in the Church, not SSPX. It cannot be true that a society is implicated for disunity before Rome is examined as conducing to unity.
https://gumagumisiriza.substack.com/p/an-african-laymans-response-to-cdl?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=43lt3j
I believe it is problematic to imply that a society (or any person) cannot be "implicated for disunity before Rome is examined as conducing to unity." Unity always requires both parties to collaborate, and even a failure on one side does not excuse the other.
Furthermore, I think the issues you raised in the article fail to indicate that Rome is failing to discuss unity with the SSPX. If the problems are purely doctrinal, why would the SSPX decline discussions with Rome to clarify Vatican II. If they truly believe the teachings from Vatican II are beyond repair, then they are denying the authority of the Church. This point is completely omitted by Bishop Schneider, which causes great harm to the dialogue.
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2026-02/society-of-st-pius-x-rejects-dialogue-proposed-by-holy-see.html
One of the major questions dividing Rome and SSPX is whether there can be salvation outside the Church. Vatican II said there can be. SSPX's refusal to discuss this and similar points shows a lack of charity towards those who believe differently from the Catholic Church. Do you really think all non-Christians and Protestant Christians will be damned for all eternity? I certainly don't.
Even before the council catechesis contextualize this reality. No one knows what transpires between the soul and God at the moment of death, and surely those who have never been offered a responsible clear unambiguous articulation of Catholicism can be held responsible for that deprivation.
Sometimes I think the Lord has allowed the chaos of the last five-hundred years in order to be able to rectify the deficiencies of Catholic evangelization Himself. We need pray ardently for the episcopate. They shoulder a frightening responsiblity.
Everyone can be saved except us sede mushrooms. Many Vatican II sources on this
I do not think that you clearly present the sspx position. Also, the rationale for the consecrations is clear.
https://youtu.be/LmZs3D8Tk1o?si=M9PUAl0OQwDjn-2t
https://youtu.be/AY2OrU-CFiA?si=POlpdLQkTdu9T1tN
This does seem to be the issue on which the SSPX have sadly painted themselves into a corner. With more charity on the part of the hierarchy they could surely be weaned out if the corner and into full communion, which would be a huge benefit to the whole church.
I would argue more charity on both sides. But then I lived until recently in a diocese (FW-SB) with FSSP parishes in both cities, on opposite sides of the diocese.
"They are denying the authority of the Church"? This argument is non sequitur. Authority is a principle, the council is its application. That says something about why Fernandez wished to discuss levels of obedience required for different texts. The Vatican itself seems to put the council on the dicing board, but of course some Catholics will regard it as superdogma. But negotiations between the Holy See and the Greeks, Byzantines, Armenians, etc all occured on the doctrinal level in the past, yet this is the path that seems to be closed now. In this case, I do not see that what you suggest, viz; that SSPX denies the authority of the Church, is true. The whole detail is that the DDF itself has refused dialogue at more peaceful times. These theatrics of consecration being the cause for dialogue are something of yesteryear. Certain questions might have been settled earlier if some parties did not block the path. I do not see that rejecting the frantic response of Fernandez is tacit disobedience. It is, instead in my opinion, an act of honesty. Dialogue can be resumed after the consecrations which, for the society, are more urgent.
Thanks Dianne Montagna for bringing us this consoling news. At least there is one bishop, his name is Athanasius and he seems to be against the world like his patron saint: contra mundum.
Yes, thank you, indeed!🙏🏼
By now, everyone should be aware that a Freemason created the Novus Ordo mass to destroy our Church, and he was the infamous Msgr. Annibale Bugnini. Why does Rome insist on standing behind this atrocity? Maybe the reason hardly anyone still believes in the "Real Presence" is because there isn't any in the Novus Ordo, at least in the often irreverent ones by unbelieving priests. And a priest that is involved in or supports sodomy, like so many do these days, certainly does not believe in Christ or he would have the fear of damnation. And how can anyone receive in the hand if they believe in the Real Presence? They think they are actually worthy of touching our Lord with their unconsecrated hands? And extroadinary ministers are a disgrace! Now we have alter girls! What is going on? And these people standing behind Vatican II are going to excommunicate the very people that are trying, and will EVENTUALLY SAVE our Church as we know in the end that Satan will not prevail? Why is Rome trying so hard to make us all protestants? Why are Sodomites running our Church? Why is our Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Víctor Manuel Fernández an author of soft porn books?
Pope Leo XIV had such a great opportunity after succeeding one of the worst pontificates in recent history. The bar was so low, but has thus far has been failing miserably. His bishop appointments have been disappointments to say the least. He should have named himself Francis instead of Leo and his name would have been exactly what it would have read, Francis II.
I love Bishop Schneider. Why couldn't we have had a holy Catholic like him become our Holy Father? Because of too many freemasons and Sodomites that voted for one of their own once again?
We should go on the streets of the Vatican proclaiming Bishop Schneider the Pope!!!
St. Athanasius has spoken through Athanasius.
Richard, I sincerely appeal to your insight. What is this all about?! Can you make it simple enough for a lay person like me? What is the core essential disagreement? Surely not English vs Latin or guitar vs organ?! With so many real life and death issues, like millions of abortions, why on earth are we pushing arguments like this as a priority? Why isn’t the SSPX asking how they can reduce abortions or reduce risk of wars or stop the slaughter in Gaza?
Worship God first and foremost, in a fitting and worthy manner, and all the rest will follow.
This isn’t about Liturgy… or “smells and bells”…
This is about deadly serious Theology and Doctrine. There were countless deviations and changes made at Vatican 2, but being a Pastoral Council (with no new dogmas or anathemas) it supposedly didn’t “change” anything, yet the decades since have exploded with loss of Faith and Faithful.
The SSPX simply holds the line and says “We cannot, in good conscience, follow until these serious Theological and Doctrinal questions are addressed.
Once again, Bishop Schneider has proven himself to be the adult in the room - I don't mean that as a cut to the Holy Father - I don't have a bead on him yet. What he does with this situation will greatly clarify that. We all need to pray fervently for a good outcome.
you don't have a bead on him yet ?? He told us on day ONE from the loggia his intentions. didn't you believe him ?
No, l don't. Actions speak louder than words. Some have been good, some have been bad. He is a product of his era and the time of his formation as a priest and he is still finding his way as pope. So, in charity, l have not. I just pray for him.
Bp Schneider uses logic in a very loving way. Let’s all pray Pope Leo’s heart is open to what he argues.
Amen to that! May God grant the grace to all concerned for this. thanks be to God for Bishop Schneider. Clearly the Holy Spirit is pouring out of his mouth
This is absolutely fantastic! Bishop Schneider and Bishop Strickland have so far shown that they are on the side of the Eternal Church. May the good God bless them.
Regarding the fire analogy, couldn't it possibly said that it is lacking faith in God's timing and grace to assume one's way is the most correct way to deal with the problem? Wasn't this Luther's error? I think of Moses striking the water to make water. The error wasn't that he provided water. The error was his pride in claiming he was the one who ought to provide life saving water to the people.
I don't know... just trying to think through this. I'm sure my ignorance is evident in my comment.
Moses was told to SPEAK to the rock, not to strike it at all.
He didn't follow directions.... just like NONE of the Popes have followed the directions to Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in union with all the bishops of the world.
When you can do something to help, but wait for God to intervene instead, you are simply tempting God. It's as if you need to get to the dentist, but there's a curfew, so you wait at home hoping that God will cure your tooth without you having to go to the dentist because you're scared of being punished for violating the curfew.
“Provisional and minimal pastoral measures for the SSPX, undertaken for the spiritual good of the thousands upon thousands of its faithful around the world—including a pontifical mandate for episcopal consecrations—would create the conditions necessary to calmly clarify misunderstandings, questions, and doubts of a doctrinal nature arising from certain statements in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent Pontifical Magisterium. At the same time, such measures would provide the SSPX with the opportunity to make constructive contribution for the good of the entire Church, while maintaining a clear distinction between what belongs to divinely revealed faith and doctrine definitively proposed by the Magisterium, and what has a primarily pastoral character in particular historical circumstances, and is therefore open to careful theological study, as has always been the practice throughout the life of the Church.”
A question I have is, if the “church” as it has evolved since V2 and hardened in its adherence to the principles of 1789 (Lienart, Suenens, Ratzinger, etc) would have a corrupting influence on the SSPX insistence on doctrinal clarity prior to any agreement or supposed “olive branch.” The conciliar church must renounce its love affair with 1789. The SSPX are simply in continuity with the Catholics of the Vendée. Read “Heroes of the Vendée” by Joseph Pearce. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/heroes-of-the-vendee
I don't understand how THIS is the way to go. The SSPX decides it needs new bishops because two have passed away, and the other two are in their 60s. Then they "humbly ask" the Holy See for more bishops, and when they don't get the response they like, they decide that they can just do it anyways for "the salvation of souls". Then, they get invited for a dialogue with the Holy See! What an opportunity. Something, as the Superior General himself said, they have been wanting for years, since 2019! But what do they decide to do? Decline to talk, blame Rome for following canon law by telling them excommunication is on the table if they go through with it, say the discussion would be fruitless because Vatican II is has been repeated and clarified in the Post-Conciliar period. Essentially, they are indicating:
1. They deny parts of Vatican II.
2. They can subjectively decide when the Pope's decisions can or can not be followed based on their own understanding of crises and emergencies in the Church.
3. They have no serious intent to reconcile (they even stated that they don't care if Rome recognizes them or not).
The SSPX is not being threatened by anyone but themselves. There is no rush to consecrate bishops in the coming months, except to celebrate the date of the excommunication of their founders. There are no threats of schism or excommunication made by the Vatican, it's just against canon law to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate, regardless of what the procedure was 1500 years ago. They want to hold their own set of beliefs, disregard the authority of the Pope and local bishops when its against their own interests, and they have no genuine desire to reconcile. If they did want to reconcile with Rome, they would actually take this chance to have a dialogue, even if it means they have to delay consecrations from their celebratory excommunication day.
I have no patience for claims that "Rome is not acting in good faith... Rome will only delay... Fernandez has no interest in reconciliation". Who knows! They refuse to dialogue! They wanted a response, it came back negative! They wanted a dialogue, they refused! I guess we'll never find out, because the SSPX decided it must be July 1, 2026.
As for this letter, it reminds me of so many SSPX sermons and defenses of their actions. Full of ill-fitting analogies, appealing to "by their fruits you shall know them", and framing the SSPX as trying to aid the Church. Every time I read SSPX material, or hear a talk from an SSPX priest, or read a letter from their higher ups, it's always the same. "Rome is corrupt, we are not, its full of scandal. We are charged with steering the ship and correcting course" "We respect the Pope, we pray for him in the mass by name!" while using the pulpit to sneer at comments the Pope made years ago instead of talking about the Gospel, and having no respect for his authority. And teaching false beliefs like attending a NO is a sin.
To me, Rome isn't threatening at all, it's just stating the facts. If Pagliarani wants to stick to his schedule, so be it. He knows the consequences, he just doesn't care, he states it in his letter! If Pope Leo decides to be merciful, that's his decision, but I don't know how affirming this behavior and teachings could be good for the Church.
Respectfully, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
The two remaining Bishops travel around the world to ordain priests, perform Confirmations, etc.
There are close to a million souls attending SSPX parishes around the world. 750 Priests, hundreds of Brothers and Sisters, religious orders, etc.
Far too much for two to handle in perpetuity.
Beyond that, it’s a Crisis for the Church.
Amen!
As on other occasions, this framing blurs essential ecclesial distinctions. Comparing the shared faith of baptized Christians with full Catholic communion confuses categories. Unity in baptism is not the same as hierarchical communion, sacramental discipline, and assent to the Church’s living Magisterium.
This does not clarify the crisis. It deepens confusion among the faithful.
This is not journalism; it is advocacy presented as reporting. Shame on you. -AE