This is SO well done. I hope someone in the Vatican actually reads it. Yes, the SSPX is ABSOLUTELY doing the Church a service by trying to compel it to address the "ambiguity" of the last sixty years. God bless Bishop Schneider!
Thank you for posting both links. There is one sentence near the end of the Rorate Caeli article that resonates with me: “As Cardinal Ratzinger said to me in 1988: in a schism, the faults are unfortunately shared on both sides.” How true in this case. It seems that both the SSPX and the Vatican (especially since 2013, in my opinion) have drifted further to the extremes.
Indeed @Scotty H . My family has been personally shielded somewhat from some of the craziness and scandal because we attend an FSSP apostolate. The FSSP priests I believe go out of their way to avoid any public criticism of the Vatican, and we try not to surf headlines in search of each new outrage. But things are definitely materially worse. The only remedy is to pray, live holy lives, and support ALL those who truly love God and his Church.
I occasionally attend an FSSP personal parish for Sunday High Mass - it’s an hour from home. My sister lives about a mile from their seminary in Nebraska.
As a Catholic attached to the TLM and attending an FSSP parish, I have been torn about this issue since the beginning, trying to balance my desire for unity and fidelity to the +HF with distrust of certain bishops and the Roman curia, which no doubt members the SSPX understand much more thoroughly, and feel more deeply, than I. +Bp. Schneider's statement greatly clarified the matter, and I believe I understand more fully the unfortunate position they are in.
Without their own bishops, if a pope were to prohibit other bishops from performing SSPX ordinations, the SSPX would enter into an untenable position, having no choice but to either die out or resort to sedevacantist bishops. To me, therefore, their decision to unilaterally consecrate their own bishops demonstrates a desire for unity, just not at at the cost of the SSPX's extinction. Given the outright hostility toward Tradition from ++Francis and key members of his curia, who can blame them for seeking to unilaterally secure their future?
I, too, attend an FSSP parish, Chuck. I sympathize with what you've written here. I agree with much of what Bishop Schneider has posted here, as he asks very good questions. Especially these:
"Why is the SSPX’s unconditional acceptance of the texts of Vatican II being presented as a conditio sine qua non for full communion with the Holy See, while no comparable requirement exists with respect to the pastoral, disciplinary, or non-definitive teachings of the preceding twenty Ecumenical Councils?"
"The German Synodal Way has advanced clear doctrinal deviations that promote de facto heresies and even blasphemous positions. Why, then, should reconciliation and patient dialogue be emphasized in one case but not in the other?"
These are honest questions, and I also believe that Bishop Schneider's call to peace is a worthy one. The Holy Father could certainly supply the jurisdiction needed.
However, as Pope Benedict had mentioned, the reason the SSPX has still not come into full communion is doctrinal. I believe there are valid questions for the SSPX to be made as well. As one commentator asked, "Does the SSPX think that priests and laity commit a sin, either due to object or circumstances, by celebrating and assisting at a Mass of Pope Paul VI?" A priest of the SSPX answered at Crisis Magazine, and said this:
"Not necessarily... Attendance at such a rite is not intrinsically evil because circumstances may exist—ignorance, charity, coercion, etc.—to make it excusable. For example, a soul with a genuine desire for sanctity who has never heard of the TLM, or has never been in a position to understand the nocive [harmful] effect of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, would not sin by attendance at this rite on account of what the moral theologians call invincible ignorance....
"On the other hand, if a soul perceives the deficiency of the Mass of Pope Paul VI and has no sufficient reason to justify attendance, then that soul would sin."
This is gravely concerning, especially if this is not just the position of one priest, but the SPPX as a whole, as this priest suggests. What's more Chuck, is considering what others have said such as Dom Louis-Marie di Blignieres, founder of the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer. In a recently published article on the planned consecrations this year, he notes that "Separation is not a Catholic solution".
Indeed, as a priest of the FSSP recently pointed out, "one can act in the name of the Church only with the authorization of the Church." A bishop who consecrates other bishops without due authorization bears false witness as he says he acts in the name of the Church, when in reality, he is not since he has not been given authorization or jurisdiction to do so. This is deeper than just the Canon law cited, but goes to to the very heart of what the episcopate is.
Think of it this way, analogously: the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches validly ordain bishops. But they do not have jurisdiction, a mandate, from the Church of Christ. Those OO/EO bishops in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and elsewhere do not exercise legitimate authority. But the bishops of the Ukrainian-Greek Catholic Church DO exercise legitimate authority and DO have a mandate given to them by Christ's Catholic Church, the one, true Church.
Now of course, the SSPX are different from the EO/OO since the SSPX indeed ARE a part of the Catholic Church. It's an analogy. That's why this whole "impartial communion" phraseology is confusing; you are either in communion or you are not in communion. But the act of schism does not apply to religious orders like the SSPX; it applies to individuals. The sin of schism is a personal sin. That's why we cannot say the SSPX itself is in schism, but we can say that certain members are capable of being in schism. I understand the point Bishop Schneider is trying to make in his second section with Canon Law, but I respectfully submit that a key text from the Council of Trent was not considered.
Since one can only act in the name of the Catholic Church with the authorization and mandate of the Church, Session XXIII, Canon 7 of the Council of Trent teaches, "If anyone says... that those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments, let him be anathema."
Again, I sympathize with everything you wrote, Chuck. And with what Bishop Schneider has written. I have been torn as well on this whole issue. But it's important to ask questions of both sides, Rome and Écône. While I do hope jurisdiction can be supplied in these consecrations through a peacemaking effort, so that the good questions that Bishop Schenider has brought up can be addressed, I also believe we must push legitimate questions to the SSPX as well and consider the positions held by men like Dom Louis-Marie and others.
I pray for peace and reconciliation, and most importantly, I pray for all confusion and error to be dispelled from Holy Mother Church. May our Lady, Extirpator of all heresies pray for us!
Larry Chapp has made some cogent (if borderline uncharitable, certainly impatient) critiques as well. My post was merely meant to underscore my sympathy for the SSPX dilemma, but I agree with your and Chapp's concerns. One important additional observation (that I've not really seen elsewhere) is that the SSPX is showing a surprising unwillingness to trust in Divine Providence, or to publicly suffer for their cause.
Thank you, Chuck. I certainly understand your point with your original post, as I also have sympathy for the SSPX dilemma. My sympathy for the SSPX itself has taken a hit, particularly following that piece from Crisis Magazine that I posted. But I also realize that many people are not as fortunate as us to have the FSSP, ICKSP, or even Eastern Catholic parishes nearby in their home countries like we do. My sympathy is most especially (but not exclusively) for the lay faithful who are suffering at this time.
I somewhat side with Mr. Addison in saying that my critique is not the quite the same as Larry Chapp's, as he has said some pretty incendiary things that make "more heat than light". I also dislike how Mr. Chapp has mischaracterized Bishop Schneider in various places, and not just on the topic of the Sacred Liturgy. Still, yes, some of his particular critiques on various issues have been helpful; I just see him as a bit of a mixed bag. I often love seeing the back and forth he has with men like Dr. Peter Kwasniewski. They always seem to get on in a friendly manner.
But to your additional observation, Chuck, I agree with you. Not only is your observation not seen too often, but I think it's spot on. The Usus Antiquior of the Latin Rite has not disappeared, and the claim that it was only the SSPX that kept it going is demonstrably false. I don't seek to minimize the work they have done to preserve the Sacred Liturgy, but at the same time, they weren't the only players on the field. They still aren't the only players on the field. Again, the essay recently written by Dom Louis-Marie of the FSVF has some truly cogent demonstrations of this fact.
I might flesh this out a bit more later, but if I understand your point correctly, Chuck, we need to trust that our Lord Jesus Christ can bring good out of bad situations. If we have that trust, we will not do something wrong (like ordaining bishops without a mandate and without being "sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority"), even if that "something" brings about great good. Simply put, the ends don't justify the means. In time, God will provide. I am confident of that, and I am confident that all this with Traditionis Custodes and the surrounding controversy... it, too, will pass. Indeed, God has already provided in many places, and I pray that it continues to increase.
Be assured of my prayers, Chuck, and please pray for me as well.
Where has the SSPX claimed that only they have kept the TLM going? Answer: nowhere.
I appreciate that part of your comment that is favorable toward my statements, but like so many, I also see in your comments the repeating of claims that the SSPX has never made, so you fall into the same category of others who continue to accuse the SSPX of this and that when such is not true. Of course there can be some criticisims that are honest, but so many fall into the kind you have made, as well as others commenting on this article.
If only Dr. Chapp would be more honest, but he sets up strawmen arguments that mislead many others by also claiming the SSPX has done various things that they have never done, and his gullible supporters can't see these things and so they obtusely cry that they don't see detailed breakdowns of the strawmen arguments, which is just laughable.
Over the past few years, Chapp's anti-SSPX articles have appeared in many websites, and you have seen some of the problems with his unjustified attacks and his intentionally mischaracterizing what the SSPX actually does, which are indeed forms of the strawman argument. He's certainly duped other commenters in this combox who prefer his biased comments over the holy and much more scholarly Bishop Schneider.
As I pointed out in my first comment, Chapp has recently written an article denying the level of crisis in the Church that all honest observers and much better historians of the Church have recognized. He knows that acknowledging the crisis gives support to the SSPX, and he can't even be honest about that, and his fellow travelers also deny the Crisis and then make absurd non-sequitur claims that are completely off point.
Oh well. Those who deny the Crisis in the Church remind me of the gullible Neville Chamberlain known for his claim that there was nothing further to worry about Mr. Hitler because he signed a paper stating he had no further expansionist intentions. Chamberlain, like those of today who insist "there is no Crisis in the Church," is of course remembered in history as the man who obtusely claimed "Peace in Our Time."
By the bye, if you want to see a slew of strawman arguments and mischaracterizations of the SSPX and its leaderhip by Dr. Chapp, see his April 28, 2026 Catholic World Report article "The SSPX is now on a clear and direct collision course with Rome," and note how he jumps to one false conclusion after another after another, all the while also acting like a mind reader (he has done the same, sadly, in his bogus criticisms of Bishop Schneider) in telling the reader what he has discerned the SSPX or its leadership actually mean, but again, this is simply unjust and false.
I will leave you with one example among the many you will find in the cited article. Early on, Chapp cheap shots SSPX's Pagliarani by taking Pagliarani's desire for another Pope like Pope St. Pius X (I and many others would also prefer such a Pope), and he states in classic cheap shot Chapp fashion that "Apparently, even Pius XII is a bit too squishy for him, which gives you some indication of the thoroughgoing dissociative mental state the Society is in." This is flat out disgusting and totally unjustified, but such is the frequent modus operandi of the wrongheaded Dr. Chapp.
Again, pore over the rest of this cited article to see more and more and more false statements, strawmen, and jumping to false conclusions by Dr. Chapp because he refuses to engage the SSPX honestly, and then engage the SSPX with honesty without letting Chapp dupe you as he has others who also prefer a false narrative over objetive truth.
I never said "the SSPX claimed that only they have kept the TLM going". I only said the claim has been made. I've seen it made on various comboxes like this over the years, and through social media and elsewhere, usually by very zealous supporters of the SSPX.
I'm not sure where my criticisms weren't honest, but perhaps they've been misunderstood. In any case, I assure you I haven't been "duped" by Dr. Chapp. As I've said multiple times, some things by him I like, others I don't. The article you cited from CWR... I did not like. Same for his recent NCR article on the level of crisis in the Church. I thought he was wrong in his assessment, as you did.
Hi, Nick: These are your words agreeing with Chuck:
"But to your additional observation, Chuck, I agree with you. Not only is your observation not seen too often, but I think it's spot on. The Usus Antiquior of the Latin Rite has not disappeared, and the claim that it was only the SSPX that kept it going is demonstrably false. I don't seek to minimize the work they have done to preserve the Sacred Liturgy, but at the same time, they weren't the only players on the field."
When you readily agree with the conclusion of another, it becomes your own, and this is not the same as "I only said the claim has been made. I've seen it made on various comboxes like this over the years, and through social media and elsewhere, usually by very zealous supporters of the SSPX."
So do you agree with Chuck and others as they have reported or not? If so, then you have accepted the falsehood and made it your own by claiming his bogus conclusion is "spot on." You can't have it both ways, so I hope you will no longer agree with Chuck or your concurring conclusions that "they weren't the only players on the field" which they never ever claimed.
Also, what constitutes "zealous supporters of the SSPX," and why is this also unjust to the SSPX whether true or not? It amounts to this: 'Hey, SSPX: I don't know what you have actually stated and I have no evidence of what you have actually stated but some supporters of yours that I deem to be "zealous supporters" have claimed this about you,...so I will readily believe them instead of finding out what you have actually stated and done.'
A main part of my critiques of others is that they merely accept the conclusions of others instead of actually engaging what the SSPX has actually stated,....not what so-called defenders have claimed. The same goes for my claims and anybody else's if they assert that X claim is a part of the SSPX (and my other claims about Chapp that come from what he has actually written). Check them for yourselves, and do not accept them unless you can actually see that they are true.
If I may give some pushback as a frequent enjoyer of Dr. Chapp's writings, as well as someone with a far more negative opinion of the SSPX.
For one I read often that Dr. Chapo "hates" the SSPX or gives strawman. But rarely do I see a good detailed breakdown of what those strawman are. In truth I think all to often that it is the opposite, Dr. Chapp recieving uncharitable criticism, precisely because he draws the logical conclusions of SSPX rhetoric rather than simply accepting their framing. Which to be honest Bishop Strickland's criticism is textbook.
For example Michael lists the example of the "crisis" in the Church. But what is this crisis? The term is bandied about a lot. But when one digs into it you find a Sedeprivationist claim that even if the Pope is the Pope, he is no longer exercising his office. But sedeprivationism is clearly condemned in Vatican 1, and this framing of a crisis comes not from the hierarchy but the SSPX. This is not to deny troubles brewing in the Church as Dr. Chapp points out in his article and his many criticisms of the Germans and other modernist forces. For better arguments on the so called Crisis I would point to an author like Dr. Andrew Mioni.
I likewise find hus Excellencies arguments to be wanting. It seems to me to be (if not by him) then by the SSPX generally a Motte and Baily defence. They raise points like ambiguities or the pastoral nature of the council on one hand, showing a certain ambiguity. But when one draws the conclusion of what do you mean by you "don't accept the council?" No you make a strawman. Or they argue on alleged flaws of the Novus Ordo, but still say it's valid, but then you see statements like Fr. Pakistani denying that the ordinary (NO going) layman has the means of salvation. When you draw the conclusion that he is denying the validity of the Novus Ordo and St. Paul VI's authority to reform the mass. Again no you are misrepresenting their nuanced theology. If you want a perfect example of criticism of the SSPX for Motte and Baily tactics Cal Vega has an excellent article detailing it. I would also read St Paul VI's letter to Arch. Lefebvre.
The SSPX and his Excellency also make tu quoque attacks on situations like the German Bishops. Who Pope Leo has publically criticized. How do the German Bishops or the Chinese government (another frequent example) actions justify anything that the SSPX does? You can argue hypocrisy but the situations are different. And as the proverb goes two wrongs don't make a right. I might point out the SSPX is far more public about their fight with the Vatican (causing scandal) than the Germans. We don't know what is going on behind closed doors.
But my final criticism of Bishop Schneiders article is that he treats the SSPX with kid gloves. He treats this problem as though it goes only one way. It is the Vatican who demands to much, the SSPX by comparison are angels. Some of you offer some light criticism but the SSPX has and continues to commit serious crimes against the Church and God. The most obvious being their flagrant offering of illicit masses even after being expressly ordered to stop by St. Paul VI. But we might ask how many couples they decieved into false marriages until Pope Francis gave them faculties? How many false annulments do they give out in their fake mairage tribunals? How many Bishops do they offend by violating their jurisdiction? How much scandal have they caused by their actions against the unity of the Church and calumnous teachings about the Pope.
Yes I am far more hostile because I think they have committed grave sins. Nevertheless his Excellency is absolutely right about prayer for peace. A sentiment that has likewise been given by Pope Leo. They are our Brothers. They are my brothers. So I do hope and pray for unity.
I don't think you're being hostile at all here, Chris. You seem to be very measured in you response (in my view at least), and I share in a good portion of your views here. Indeed, how many couples "married" invalidly before Pope Francis extended faculties? Same on the false annulments handed out. Not to mention how the jurisdiction of the local ordinary is sometimes ignored.
For the record, I have enjoyed Dr. Chapp's writings, but at other times I have not. Just wanted to make that clear as you were replying to my comment and I had not said he "hates the SSPX".
Let's keep praying for unity in the bond of peace, brother.
Well, having a excommunion laid on them is not suffering enough for you? What, in your opinion, would be "trust in Divine Providence" in this concrete situation?
Excommunication is not suffering to the SSPX because they've said they don't believe it's valid theologically speaking. They could suffer and trust in Providence by ending illicit consecrations and submitting to Church teaching re: Vatican II documents (not the very flawed implementation, not all of the screwups and bad judgement, just the documents).
I don't expect this to happen. I worry it won't happen because they're too committed to their own beliefs re: Vatican II, but I also suspect they don't believe post-Vatican II bishops ordained and consecrated according to the new rites are valid, and so they cannot accept their own priests being ordained or consecrated by such men. I pray I'm wrong.
"borderline uncharitable"...??????? Just "borderline"?
Chapp repeatedly mischaracterizes and misrepresents what the SSPX teaches, preaches, and practices, and his arguments lack the cogency you believe they have. Moreover, in recent years he also made some malicious attacks on Bishop Schneider and Bishop Strickland, also purposely constructing straw man arguments against both. As such, he cannot be trusted to objectively review or fairly criticize the SSPX because his hatred for them has also found expression in his desire that they be completely destroyed.
Go ahead and stick with Chapp if you still find his straw men arguments and mischaracterizations and ad hominem attacks compelling. I'll stick with Bishop Strickland, and Bishop Schneider, and the entire history of the Church that includes but does not elevate Vatican II to the heights and authority that Chapp and fellow travelers obtusely believe it achieved, which is rightly described by the much more scholarly and cogent Bishop Schneider in the document featured here by Diane M.
Next, what do you really know of the sufferings of the SSPX, or in the public suffering for their cause, and how are you using this alleged observation to do what Chapp and others do in judging them based on speculation and a predetermined bias against them because you don't see things in them you believe they should show to your satisfaction?
By the bye, I am not a member or supporter of the SSPX and have never attended an SSPX Mass, but I refuse to be bullied or suckered into accepting mischaracterizations of it by some like Chapp who simply want the SSPX to be destroyed, and because of this hatred, they will even go so far as Chapp most recently did by denying the objective reality of the crisis in the Church. On the other hand, I am happy to engage sincere critics of the SSPX, but Chapp is nowhere near being sincere, and the evidence has been provided by him over the past few years in several of his articles published in Catholic World Report and the National Catholic Register, and so on.
If you would like to stretch a bit more regarding this matter, I recently came across a YouTube video by a big-time supporter of the SSPX, and so with the same caution applied to opponents of the SSPX, I began watching his video that is similar to Bishop Schneider's "defense," only in this case it's a video point-by-point addressing what he sets forth as the ten primary arguments against the SSPX. I do not agree with all of his conclusions, but like Bishop Schneider, he also brings up various considerations that need to be fully addressed and thoughtfully considered, and they tend to support many of the actions of the SSPX or at least call into serious question some of the primary objections against it. The YouTube presenter is a fellow named Kennedy Hall who looks like an old-time outdoorsman, and his roughly hour long video can be found on YouTube under the title of:
Marvellous from Bishop Schneider. Just one comment from me as resident in Germany: The Holy See may not want divisions with German bishops to escalate as Cardinal Parolin says, but I wish the Holy See would consider the matter from the point of view of the humble layman going to church in Germany, who is experiencing extreme confusion and watching as teaching and practices are spreading and sending messages that, as they say, are creating facts on the ground -- divisive and confusing. These teachings and practices are growing and expanding here, and the longer this goes on, the more damage it is doing.
It’s a terrible situation- and you’re right about it spreading, not just in Germany but elsewhere too. Look at the rainbow Masses and Bishop supported conferences celebrating sexuality against God’s commandments.
This coupled with the punitive treatment Latin Mass communities are receiving at the hands of cruel Bishops, not allowing our new and upcoming Priests to be trained in celebrating the Extraordinary Form-
How can anyone blame the lay faithful for perceiving this SSPX controversy as part of the whole problem we’re experiencing?
Being shunned with razor sharp clarity in one case but “accompaniment” and ambiguity in others. What is the ordinary faithfully practicing Catholic supposed to make of it?
He has really raised the bar in this fractious debate and his excellent outline needs to be studied by Pope Leo🙏
I am very disappointed with both Cardinal Mueller & Sarah who have not thought this matter through in this detail. I honestly think that both of them also need to consider their positions and give further clarity🙏
Let’s pray for common sense and a desire for unity to pervade this matter🙏
In my opinion Cardinal Fernandez has zero credibility and it’s a disaster that he is being allowed to go on without restraint!
I’m also disappointed with FSSP, who are originally from the SSPX issuing negative statements and I’m one who attends at one of their Parishes!
Catholic Church history tells us that the Council of Trent Church was brought into existence to make absolutely clear what the Protestants had purposefully muddied up to destroy the Catholic Church and make "Christianity" their own "personal" domain. Pope St. Pius V and the other members of the Council of Trent proclaimed clearly and distinctly using the Bible and the Sacraments; the teachings of the Church Fathers; the teachings of the Apostles, themselves, which were given to them by Christ, Himself.
The teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church had already been sending souls to Heaven with Its teachings and Its Sacraments for some 1500 years. Protestantism tried to destroy it. The Council of Trent, with all of its anathemas, helped to get the Faith and the road to Heaven back on the right track. The Protestants' attack had been from the outside-in. The Council of Trent made it very clear that Protestantism was not Catholic.
The devil bided his time until Catholics forgot what Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, brought to the earth to bring us to Heaven. The Protestants, under their new name, mounted an inside attack against Christ and His Church through Vatican II. Error and false teachings from Vatican II did the same thing to the Council of Trent Church that the Protestants had to Christ's original Church.
God sent to the earth Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to begin the process of renewing the Council of Trent and giving it back what Pius V and now Pius X had established as THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Like St. Pius V and St. Pius X, Archbishop Lefebvre did not introduce anything new. In fact, his motto was "I have passed on what I have received." The Protestants and the Vatican II people basically told the Eternal Father that THEY knew better than Jesus and the Holy Spirit and that THEY were taking over TO STRAIGHTEN GOD OUT SYNODALY. Again, through Archbishop Lefebvre the earth was able to receive the "God-established Truth" that Jesus Christ is King and rules in the Name of the Eternal Father and spreads the Truth through the Holy Spirit. Together they comprise the Truth, that is the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth ... nothing of man's invention, but everything from the Blessed Trinity, Who is God Almighty!
How serious is God? He now obviously sees that mankind isn't listening and so He has sent us Bishop Athanasius Schneider, hoping we'll get the hint, and see the lineage of Bishops in St. Athanasius to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, to Bishop Schneider. Can we see the connection? Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. We can easily see that in St. Athanasius and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Athanasius Schneider; all of whom are passing on what they have received through their ordination from Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit.
If we follow that lineage from Christ through His Bishops with no novelties added, we can end up where Jesus and St. Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Schneider no doubt will be there to greet us... And welcome us home!
Bishop Schneider presents a solid and irrefutable case for the postion of the SSPX and the upcoming consecrations. It is almost inconceivable that this could be denied by the Vatican. This is truly a watershed moment in the papacy of Leo XIV that is already rife with concerning issues, not the least of which is the Synod that Bishop Schneider neatly demonstrates the juxtaposition of treatment. Oremus!
As always, many thanks to Diane Montagna for these stellar releases.
Splendid! Thanks giving, adoration, praise to the Holy Trinity and our Blessed Mother for these inspiring words of clarity and empathic regard for all sides in the matter through Archbishop Athanasius (Schneider), not unlike a former Athanasius from whom we have the absolutely magnificent Athanasian Creed. The question now is, will Pope Leo have the courage to re examine his faith lens and thus come into conflict with the many underlying currents flowing through Rome in the spirit of Gallen's mafia, the lavender mob, Rhineland sewage, and modernistic fibrosis of the intellect and will.
I think that Pope Leo is, as you say, surrounded by all those groups (St Gallen and Lavender Mafias, the Rhineland and Synodal cohorts) and must be finding his situation most disagreeable….unless of course he is in sympathy.
We don’t really know at the moment but if he is not in sympathy then life will be made very hard for him.
Correct as Pope Benedict XVI verbally stated concerning himself. However, 'take up your cross daily, deny yourself, and follow me...loses his life for my sake and the gospel he shall save it' is the mandate for each of us as the martyrs honored !! . Several decisions and policy gymnastics put forth by him so far with words flowing from a Hegelian phenomenological perspective suggests a woke mindset and ongoing "updating' (Aggiornamento) to doctrine can never never be! He has played his hand and now, will he reverse it or continue the "Disastrous Pontificate" (Dominic Grigio) of Francis.
I have been a practicing Catholic for 78yrs. If I had an FSSP or SSPX Mass in my area, I would be there in a heartbeat. Few and far between are the shepherds who now speak homilies of God’s unchanging truths, His Mercy, needing repentance, and how to give us strength and courage to get through each day. The offenses, by too many religious ,from priests up to the Vatican ,that are clearly deviating from the Words of Christ, without any admonishment, is truly inconceivable. Too many are either silent, lukewarm, or afraid of being cancelled, leaving the ‘wolves’ to cause confusion and despair. Synodality, same sex blessings with mercy but no repentance, meetings with most anyone who needs validation of sin with no pastoral guidance, German Bishops in direct contradiction of Christ, look within for ‘excommunication’ if you must. Thanks be to God for giving us His Body And Blood to sustain us. I pray for Pope Leo and all those who are causing a deep divide in the Church to be convicted by the One and Only Holy Spirit given to us from Christ, our Lord and our God.
It’s an absolutely shameful irony that the overblown legalism and Papal loyalty of the day is never applied to the Apostolic Constitution governing Papal elections, which no Cardinal nor group of Cardinals has authority to disregard.
This is SO well done. I hope someone in the Vatican actually reads it. Yes, the SSPX is ABSOLUTELY doing the Church a service by trying to compel it to address the "ambiguity" of the last sixty years. God bless Bishop Schneider!
Odds are the Vatican did read every syllable under a microscope.
That's why they don't like it because they are against it.
And, here is the opposing view- very well articulated. Give it a read! https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/06/the-sspx-consecrations-separatism-is.html
Thank you for posting both links. There is one sentence near the end of the Rorate Caeli article that resonates with me: “As Cardinal Ratzinger said to me in 1988: in a schism, the faults are unfortunately shared on both sides.” How true in this case. It seems that both the SSPX and the Vatican (especially since 2013, in my opinion) have drifted further to the extremes.
Indeed @Scotty H . My family has been personally shielded somewhat from some of the craziness and scandal because we attend an FSSP apostolate. The FSSP priests I believe go out of their way to avoid any public criticism of the Vatican, and we try not to surf headlines in search of each new outrage. But things are definitely materially worse. The only remedy is to pray, live holy lives, and support ALL those who truly love God and his Church.
I occasionally attend an FSSP personal parish for Sunday High Mass - it’s an hour from home. My sister lives about a mile from their seminary in Nebraska.
As a Catholic attached to the TLM and attending an FSSP parish, I have been torn about this issue since the beginning, trying to balance my desire for unity and fidelity to the +HF with distrust of certain bishops and the Roman curia, which no doubt members the SSPX understand much more thoroughly, and feel more deeply, than I. +Bp. Schneider's statement greatly clarified the matter, and I believe I understand more fully the unfortunate position they are in.
Without their own bishops, if a pope were to prohibit other bishops from performing SSPX ordinations, the SSPX would enter into an untenable position, having no choice but to either die out or resort to sedevacantist bishops. To me, therefore, their decision to unilaterally consecrate their own bishops demonstrates a desire for unity, just not at at the cost of the SSPX's extinction. Given the outright hostility toward Tradition from ++Francis and key members of his curia, who can blame them for seeking to unilaterally secure their future?
And I think they are trying to preserve the Faith and the traditional liturgy.
I, too, attend an FSSP parish, Chuck. I sympathize with what you've written here. I agree with much of what Bishop Schneider has posted here, as he asks very good questions. Especially these:
"Why is the SSPX’s unconditional acceptance of the texts of Vatican II being presented as a conditio sine qua non for full communion with the Holy See, while no comparable requirement exists with respect to the pastoral, disciplinary, or non-definitive teachings of the preceding twenty Ecumenical Councils?"
"The German Synodal Way has advanced clear doctrinal deviations that promote de facto heresies and even blasphemous positions. Why, then, should reconciliation and patient dialogue be emphasized in one case but not in the other?"
These are honest questions, and I also believe that Bishop Schneider's call to peace is a worthy one. The Holy Father could certainly supply the jurisdiction needed.
However, as Pope Benedict had mentioned, the reason the SSPX has still not come into full communion is doctrinal. I believe there are valid questions for the SSPX to be made as well. As one commentator asked, "Does the SSPX think that priests and laity commit a sin, either due to object or circumstances, by celebrating and assisting at a Mass of Pope Paul VI?" A priest of the SSPX answered at Crisis Magazine, and said this:
"Not necessarily... Attendance at such a rite is not intrinsically evil because circumstances may exist—ignorance, charity, coercion, etc.—to make it excusable. For example, a soul with a genuine desire for sanctity who has never heard of the TLM, or has never been in a position to understand the nocive [harmful] effect of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, would not sin by attendance at this rite on account of what the moral theologians call invincible ignorance....
"On the other hand, if a soul perceives the deficiency of the Mass of Pope Paul VI and has no sufficient reason to justify attendance, then that soul would sin."
https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/sspx-response-to-dubia
This is gravely concerning, especially if this is not just the position of one priest, but the SPPX as a whole, as this priest suggests. What's more Chuck, is considering what others have said such as Dom Louis-Marie di Blignieres, founder of the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer. In a recently published article on the planned consecrations this year, he notes that "Separation is not a Catholic solution".
Indeed, as a priest of the FSSP recently pointed out, "one can act in the name of the Church only with the authorization of the Church." A bishop who consecrates other bishops without due authorization bears false witness as he says he acts in the name of the Church, when in reality, he is not since he has not been given authorization or jurisdiction to do so. This is deeper than just the Canon law cited, but goes to to the very heart of what the episcopate is.
Think of it this way, analogously: the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches validly ordain bishops. But they do not have jurisdiction, a mandate, from the Church of Christ. Those OO/EO bishops in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and elsewhere do not exercise legitimate authority. But the bishops of the Ukrainian-Greek Catholic Church DO exercise legitimate authority and DO have a mandate given to them by Christ's Catholic Church, the one, true Church.
Now of course, the SSPX are different from the EO/OO since the SSPX indeed ARE a part of the Catholic Church. It's an analogy. That's why this whole "impartial communion" phraseology is confusing; you are either in communion or you are not in communion. But the act of schism does not apply to religious orders like the SSPX; it applies to individuals. The sin of schism is a personal sin. That's why we cannot say the SSPX itself is in schism, but we can say that certain members are capable of being in schism. I understand the point Bishop Schneider is trying to make in his second section with Canon Law, but I respectfully submit that a key text from the Council of Trent was not considered.
Since one can only act in the name of the Catholic Church with the authorization and mandate of the Church, Session XXIII, Canon 7 of the Council of Trent teaches, "If anyone says... that those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments, let him be anathema."
Again, I sympathize with everything you wrote, Chuck. And with what Bishop Schneider has written. I have been torn as well on this whole issue. But it's important to ask questions of both sides, Rome and Écône. While I do hope jurisdiction can be supplied in these consecrations through a peacemaking effort, so that the good questions that Bishop Schenider has brought up can be addressed, I also believe we must push legitimate questions to the SSPX as well and consider the positions held by men like Dom Louis-Marie and others.
I pray for peace and reconciliation, and most importantly, I pray for all confusion and error to be dispelled from Holy Mother Church. May our Lady, Extirpator of all heresies pray for us!
Larry Chapp has made some cogent (if borderline uncharitable, certainly impatient) critiques as well. My post was merely meant to underscore my sympathy for the SSPX dilemma, but I agree with your and Chapp's concerns. One important additional observation (that I've not really seen elsewhere) is that the SSPX is showing a surprising unwillingness to trust in Divine Providence, or to publicly suffer for their cause.
Thank you, Chuck. I certainly understand your point with your original post, as I also have sympathy for the SSPX dilemma. My sympathy for the SSPX itself has taken a hit, particularly following that piece from Crisis Magazine that I posted. But I also realize that many people are not as fortunate as us to have the FSSP, ICKSP, or even Eastern Catholic parishes nearby in their home countries like we do. My sympathy is most especially (but not exclusively) for the lay faithful who are suffering at this time.
I somewhat side with Mr. Addison in saying that my critique is not the quite the same as Larry Chapp's, as he has said some pretty incendiary things that make "more heat than light". I also dislike how Mr. Chapp has mischaracterized Bishop Schneider in various places, and not just on the topic of the Sacred Liturgy. Still, yes, some of his particular critiques on various issues have been helpful; I just see him as a bit of a mixed bag. I often love seeing the back and forth he has with men like Dr. Peter Kwasniewski. They always seem to get on in a friendly manner.
But to your additional observation, Chuck, I agree with you. Not only is your observation not seen too often, but I think it's spot on. The Usus Antiquior of the Latin Rite has not disappeared, and the claim that it was only the SSPX that kept it going is demonstrably false. I don't seek to minimize the work they have done to preserve the Sacred Liturgy, but at the same time, they weren't the only players on the field. They still aren't the only players on the field. Again, the essay recently written by Dom Louis-Marie of the FSVF has some truly cogent demonstrations of this fact.
I might flesh this out a bit more later, but if I understand your point correctly, Chuck, we need to trust that our Lord Jesus Christ can bring good out of bad situations. If we have that trust, we will not do something wrong (like ordaining bishops without a mandate and without being "sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority"), even if that "something" brings about great good. Simply put, the ends don't justify the means. In time, God will provide. I am confident of that, and I am confident that all this with Traditionis Custodes and the surrounding controversy... it, too, will pass. Indeed, God has already provided in many places, and I pray that it continues to increase.
Be assured of my prayers, Chuck, and please pray for me as well.
Where has the SSPX claimed that only they have kept the TLM going? Answer: nowhere.
I appreciate that part of your comment that is favorable toward my statements, but like so many, I also see in your comments the repeating of claims that the SSPX has never made, so you fall into the same category of others who continue to accuse the SSPX of this and that when such is not true. Of course there can be some criticisims that are honest, but so many fall into the kind you have made, as well as others commenting on this article.
If only Dr. Chapp would be more honest, but he sets up strawmen arguments that mislead many others by also claiming the SSPX has done various things that they have never done, and his gullible supporters can't see these things and so they obtusely cry that they don't see detailed breakdowns of the strawmen arguments, which is just laughable.
Over the past few years, Chapp's anti-SSPX articles have appeared in many websites, and you have seen some of the problems with his unjustified attacks and his intentionally mischaracterizing what the SSPX actually does, which are indeed forms of the strawman argument. He's certainly duped other commenters in this combox who prefer his biased comments over the holy and much more scholarly Bishop Schneider.
As I pointed out in my first comment, Chapp has recently written an article denying the level of crisis in the Church that all honest observers and much better historians of the Church have recognized. He knows that acknowledging the crisis gives support to the SSPX, and he can't even be honest about that, and his fellow travelers also deny the Crisis and then make absurd non-sequitur claims that are completely off point.
Oh well. Those who deny the Crisis in the Church remind me of the gullible Neville Chamberlain known for his claim that there was nothing further to worry about Mr. Hitler because he signed a paper stating he had no further expansionist intentions. Chamberlain, like those of today who insist "there is no Crisis in the Church," is of course remembered in history as the man who obtusely claimed "Peace in Our Time."
By the bye, if you want to see a slew of strawman arguments and mischaracterizations of the SSPX and its leaderhip by Dr. Chapp, see his April 28, 2026 Catholic World Report article "The SSPX is now on a clear and direct collision course with Rome," and note how he jumps to one false conclusion after another after another, all the while also acting like a mind reader (he has done the same, sadly, in his bogus criticisms of Bishop Schneider) in telling the reader what he has discerned the SSPX or its leadership actually mean, but again, this is simply unjust and false.
I will leave you with one example among the many you will find in the cited article. Early on, Chapp cheap shots SSPX's Pagliarani by taking Pagliarani's desire for another Pope like Pope St. Pius X (I and many others would also prefer such a Pope), and he states in classic cheap shot Chapp fashion that "Apparently, even Pius XII is a bit too squishy for him, which gives you some indication of the thoroughgoing dissociative mental state the Society is in." This is flat out disgusting and totally unjustified, but such is the frequent modus operandi of the wrongheaded Dr. Chapp.
Again, pore over the rest of this cited article to see more and more and more false statements, strawmen, and jumping to false conclusions by Dr. Chapp because he refuses to engage the SSPX honestly, and then engage the SSPX with honesty without letting Chapp dupe you as he has others who also prefer a false narrative over objetive truth.
God Bless.
I never said "the SSPX claimed that only they have kept the TLM going". I only said the claim has been made. I've seen it made on various comboxes like this over the years, and through social media and elsewhere, usually by very zealous supporters of the SSPX.
I'm not sure where my criticisms weren't honest, but perhaps they've been misunderstood. In any case, I assure you I haven't been "duped" by Dr. Chapp. As I've said multiple times, some things by him I like, others I don't. The article you cited from CWR... I did not like. Same for his recent NCR article on the level of crisis in the Church. I thought he was wrong in his assessment, as you did.
God bless you as well.
Hi, Nick: These are your words agreeing with Chuck:
"But to your additional observation, Chuck, I agree with you. Not only is your observation not seen too often, but I think it's spot on. The Usus Antiquior of the Latin Rite has not disappeared, and the claim that it was only the SSPX that kept it going is demonstrably false. I don't seek to minimize the work they have done to preserve the Sacred Liturgy, but at the same time, they weren't the only players on the field."
When you readily agree with the conclusion of another, it becomes your own, and this is not the same as "I only said the claim has been made. I've seen it made on various comboxes like this over the years, and through social media and elsewhere, usually by very zealous supporters of the SSPX."
So do you agree with Chuck and others as they have reported or not? If so, then you have accepted the falsehood and made it your own by claiming his bogus conclusion is "spot on." You can't have it both ways, so I hope you will no longer agree with Chuck or your concurring conclusions that "they weren't the only players on the field" which they never ever claimed.
Also, what constitutes "zealous supporters of the SSPX," and why is this also unjust to the SSPX whether true or not? It amounts to this: 'Hey, SSPX: I don't know what you have actually stated and I have no evidence of what you have actually stated but some supporters of yours that I deem to be "zealous supporters" have claimed this about you,...so I will readily believe them instead of finding out what you have actually stated and done.'
A main part of my critiques of others is that they merely accept the conclusions of others instead of actually engaging what the SSPX has actually stated,....not what so-called defenders have claimed. The same goes for my claims and anybody else's if they assert that X claim is a part of the SSPX (and my other claims about Chapp that come from what he has actually written). Check them for yourselves, and do not accept them unless you can actually see that they are true.
If I may give some pushback as a frequent enjoyer of Dr. Chapp's writings, as well as someone with a far more negative opinion of the SSPX.
For one I read often that Dr. Chapo "hates" the SSPX or gives strawman. But rarely do I see a good detailed breakdown of what those strawman are. In truth I think all to often that it is the opposite, Dr. Chapp recieving uncharitable criticism, precisely because he draws the logical conclusions of SSPX rhetoric rather than simply accepting their framing. Which to be honest Bishop Strickland's criticism is textbook.
For example Michael lists the example of the "crisis" in the Church. But what is this crisis? The term is bandied about a lot. But when one digs into it you find a Sedeprivationist claim that even if the Pope is the Pope, he is no longer exercising his office. But sedeprivationism is clearly condemned in Vatican 1, and this framing of a crisis comes not from the hierarchy but the SSPX. This is not to deny troubles brewing in the Church as Dr. Chapp points out in his article and his many criticisms of the Germans and other modernist forces. For better arguments on the so called Crisis I would point to an author like Dr. Andrew Mioni.
I likewise find hus Excellencies arguments to be wanting. It seems to me to be (if not by him) then by the SSPX generally a Motte and Baily defence. They raise points like ambiguities or the pastoral nature of the council on one hand, showing a certain ambiguity. But when one draws the conclusion of what do you mean by you "don't accept the council?" No you make a strawman. Or they argue on alleged flaws of the Novus Ordo, but still say it's valid, but then you see statements like Fr. Pakistani denying that the ordinary (NO going) layman has the means of salvation. When you draw the conclusion that he is denying the validity of the Novus Ordo and St. Paul VI's authority to reform the mass. Again no you are misrepresenting their nuanced theology. If you want a perfect example of criticism of the SSPX for Motte and Baily tactics Cal Vega has an excellent article detailing it. I would also read St Paul VI's letter to Arch. Lefebvre.
The SSPX and his Excellency also make tu quoque attacks on situations like the German Bishops. Who Pope Leo has publically criticized. How do the German Bishops or the Chinese government (another frequent example) actions justify anything that the SSPX does? You can argue hypocrisy but the situations are different. And as the proverb goes two wrongs don't make a right. I might point out the SSPX is far more public about their fight with the Vatican (causing scandal) than the Germans. We don't know what is going on behind closed doors.
But my final criticism of Bishop Schneiders article is that he treats the SSPX with kid gloves. He treats this problem as though it goes only one way. It is the Vatican who demands to much, the SSPX by comparison are angels. Some of you offer some light criticism but the SSPX has and continues to commit serious crimes against the Church and God. The most obvious being their flagrant offering of illicit masses even after being expressly ordered to stop by St. Paul VI. But we might ask how many couples they decieved into false marriages until Pope Francis gave them faculties? How many false annulments do they give out in their fake mairage tribunals? How many Bishops do they offend by violating their jurisdiction? How much scandal have they caused by their actions against the unity of the Church and calumnous teachings about the Pope.
Yes I am far more hostile because I think they have committed grave sins. Nevertheless his Excellency is absolutely right about prayer for peace. A sentiment that has likewise been given by Pope Leo. They are our Brothers. They are my brothers. So I do hope and pray for unity.
I don't think you're being hostile at all here, Chris. You seem to be very measured in you response (in my view at least), and I share in a good portion of your views here. Indeed, how many couples "married" invalidly before Pope Francis extended faculties? Same on the false annulments handed out. Not to mention how the jurisdiction of the local ordinary is sometimes ignored.
For the record, I have enjoyed Dr. Chapp's writings, but at other times I have not. Just wanted to make that clear as you were replying to my comment and I had not said he "hates the SSPX".
Let's keep praying for unity in the bond of peace, brother.
Ah yes sorry didn't mean to put words in your mouth It was sort of a reply to the others as well probably should have placed it better...
Oh well God Bless.
Well, having a excommunion laid on them is not suffering enough for you? What, in your opinion, would be "trust in Divine Providence" in this concrete situation?
(
Excommunication is not suffering to the SSPX because they've said they don't believe it's valid theologically speaking. They could suffer and trust in Providence by ending illicit consecrations and submitting to Church teaching re: Vatican II documents (not the very flawed implementation, not all of the screwups and bad judgement, just the documents).
I don't expect this to happen. I worry it won't happen because they're too committed to their own beliefs re: Vatican II, but I also suspect they don't believe post-Vatican II bishops ordained and consecrated according to the new rites are valid, and so they cannot accept their own priests being ordained or consecrated by such men. I pray I'm wrong.
they believe the rites are valid, they are accepting priests ordenained in the new rite as fsspx priests.
And of course it's suffering. Do you thing St. Athanasius didn't suffer when he was exiled and (with no validity) excomunnicated? It's the same case.
If they're not "re-ordaining" these priests ordained in the new rite, that's a revelation to me. And your St. Athanasius parallel is well taken.
Evidently, Divine Providence only applies when you agree with it. Thanks for the pointed comment, Igor.
I did not say that, Kay.
"borderline uncharitable"...??????? Just "borderline"?
Chapp repeatedly mischaracterizes and misrepresents what the SSPX teaches, preaches, and practices, and his arguments lack the cogency you believe they have. Moreover, in recent years he also made some malicious attacks on Bishop Schneider and Bishop Strickland, also purposely constructing straw man arguments against both. As such, he cannot be trusted to objectively review or fairly criticize the SSPX because his hatred for them has also found expression in his desire that they be completely destroyed.
Go ahead and stick with Chapp if you still find his straw men arguments and mischaracterizations and ad hominem attacks compelling. I'll stick with Bishop Strickland, and Bishop Schneider, and the entire history of the Church that includes but does not elevate Vatican II to the heights and authority that Chapp and fellow travelers obtusely believe it achieved, which is rightly described by the much more scholarly and cogent Bishop Schneider in the document featured here by Diane M.
Next, what do you really know of the sufferings of the SSPX, or in the public suffering for their cause, and how are you using this alleged observation to do what Chapp and others do in judging them based on speculation and a predetermined bias against them because you don't see things in them you believe they should show to your satisfaction?
By the bye, I am not a member or supporter of the SSPX and have never attended an SSPX Mass, but I refuse to be bullied or suckered into accepting mischaracterizations of it by some like Chapp who simply want the SSPX to be destroyed, and because of this hatred, they will even go so far as Chapp most recently did by denying the objective reality of the crisis in the Church. On the other hand, I am happy to engage sincere critics of the SSPX, but Chapp is nowhere near being sincere, and the evidence has been provided by him over the past few years in several of his articles published in Catholic World Report and the National Catholic Register, and so on.
If you would like to stretch a bit more regarding this matter, I recently came across a YouTube video by a big-time supporter of the SSPX, and so with the same caution applied to opponents of the SSPX, I began watching his video that is similar to Bishop Schneider's "defense," only in this case it's a video point-by-point addressing what he sets forth as the ten primary arguments against the SSPX. I do not agree with all of his conclusions, but like Bishop Schneider, he also brings up various considerations that need to be fully addressed and thoughtfully considered, and they tend to support many of the actions of the SSPX or at least call into serious question some of the primary objections against it. The YouTube presenter is a fellow named Kennedy Hall who looks like an old-time outdoorsman, and his roughly hour long video can be found on YouTube under the title of:
"Top 10 SSPX Attacks Refuted: Schism, Canonical Mission, Parallel Church, Pride, Etc."
Go for it, and God Bless!
I think there is more than meets the eye about the SSPX. For one all the SSPX Bisbops have masonic heraldry....
https://johnofrochester.substack.com/p/sspx-in-schism-with-whom?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5yglq7
Thanks be to God for Bishop Schneider 🙏
If Vatican II was pastoral, and thus respondent to contingency of the moment, Why is it treated with more authority than Nicea?
Marvellous from Bishop Schneider. Just one comment from me as resident in Germany: The Holy See may not want divisions with German bishops to escalate as Cardinal Parolin says, but I wish the Holy See would consider the matter from the point of view of the humble layman going to church in Germany, who is experiencing extreme confusion and watching as teaching and practices are spreading and sending messages that, as they say, are creating facts on the ground -- divisive and confusing. These teachings and practices are growing and expanding here, and the longer this goes on, the more damage it is doing.
It’s a terrible situation- and you’re right about it spreading, not just in Germany but elsewhere too. Look at the rainbow Masses and Bishop supported conferences celebrating sexuality against God’s commandments.
This coupled with the punitive treatment Latin Mass communities are receiving at the hands of cruel Bishops, not allowing our new and upcoming Priests to be trained in celebrating the Extraordinary Form-
How can anyone blame the lay faithful for perceiving this SSPX controversy as part of the whole problem we’re experiencing?
Being shunned with razor sharp clarity in one case but “accompaniment” and ambiguity in others. What is the ordinary faithfully practicing Catholic supposed to make of it?
What an incredible Bishop🙏
He has really raised the bar in this fractious debate and his excellent outline needs to be studied by Pope Leo🙏
I am very disappointed with both Cardinal Mueller & Sarah who have not thought this matter through in this detail. I honestly think that both of them also need to consider their positions and give further clarity🙏
Let’s pray for common sense and a desire for unity to pervade this matter🙏
In my opinion Cardinal Fernandez has zero credibility and it’s a disaster that he is being allowed to go on without restraint!
I’m also disappointed with FSSP, who are originally from the SSPX issuing negative statements and I’m one who attends at one of their Parishes!
Catholic Church history tells us that the Council of Trent Church was brought into existence to make absolutely clear what the Protestants had purposefully muddied up to destroy the Catholic Church and make "Christianity" their own "personal" domain. Pope St. Pius V and the other members of the Council of Trent proclaimed clearly and distinctly using the Bible and the Sacraments; the teachings of the Church Fathers; the teachings of the Apostles, themselves, which were given to them by Christ, Himself.
The teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church had already been sending souls to Heaven with Its teachings and Its Sacraments for some 1500 years. Protestantism tried to destroy it. The Council of Trent, with all of its anathemas, helped to get the Faith and the road to Heaven back on the right track. The Protestants' attack had been from the outside-in. The Council of Trent made it very clear that Protestantism was not Catholic.
The devil bided his time until Catholics forgot what Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, brought to the earth to bring us to Heaven. The Protestants, under their new name, mounted an inside attack against Christ and His Church through Vatican II. Error and false teachings from Vatican II did the same thing to the Council of Trent Church that the Protestants had to Christ's original Church.
God sent to the earth Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to begin the process of renewing the Council of Trent and giving it back what Pius V and now Pius X had established as THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Like St. Pius V and St. Pius X, Archbishop Lefebvre did not introduce anything new. In fact, his motto was "I have passed on what I have received." The Protestants and the Vatican II people basically told the Eternal Father that THEY knew better than Jesus and the Holy Spirit and that THEY were taking over TO STRAIGHTEN GOD OUT SYNODALY. Again, through Archbishop Lefebvre the earth was able to receive the "God-established Truth" that Jesus Christ is King and rules in the Name of the Eternal Father and spreads the Truth through the Holy Spirit. Together they comprise the Truth, that is the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth ... nothing of man's invention, but everything from the Blessed Trinity, Who is God Almighty!
How serious is God? He now obviously sees that mankind isn't listening and so He has sent us Bishop Athanasius Schneider, hoping we'll get the hint, and see the lineage of Bishops in St. Athanasius to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, to Bishop Schneider. Can we see the connection? Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. We can easily see that in St. Athanasius and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Athanasius Schneider; all of whom are passing on what they have received through their ordination from Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit.
If we follow that lineage from Christ through His Bishops with no novelties added, we can end up where Jesus and St. Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Schneider no doubt will be there to greet us... And welcome us home!
I pray this enlightens the confusion and ambiguity’s of the current papacy’s poisoned state of mind. Pride versus Humility as Satan stirs the pot.
Bishop Schneider presents a solid and irrefutable case for the postion of the SSPX and the upcoming consecrations. It is almost inconceivable that this could be denied by the Vatican. This is truly a watershed moment in the papacy of Leo XIV that is already rife with concerning issues, not the least of which is the Synod that Bishop Schneider neatly demonstrates the juxtaposition of treatment. Oremus!
As always, many thanks to Diane Montagna for these stellar releases.
Splendid! Thanks giving, adoration, praise to the Holy Trinity and our Blessed Mother for these inspiring words of clarity and empathic regard for all sides in the matter through Archbishop Athanasius (Schneider), not unlike a former Athanasius from whom we have the absolutely magnificent Athanasian Creed. The question now is, will Pope Leo have the courage to re examine his faith lens and thus come into conflict with the many underlying currents flowing through Rome in the spirit of Gallen's mafia, the lavender mob, Rhineland sewage, and modernistic fibrosis of the intellect and will.
I think that Pope Leo is, as you say, surrounded by all those groups (St Gallen and Lavender Mafias, the Rhineland and Synodal cohorts) and must be finding his situation most disagreeable….unless of course he is in sympathy.
We don’t really know at the moment but if he is not in sympathy then life will be made very hard for him.
Correct as Pope Benedict XVI verbally stated concerning himself. However, 'take up your cross daily, deny yourself, and follow me...loses his life for my sake and the gospel he shall save it' is the mandate for each of us as the martyrs honored !! . Several decisions and policy gymnastics put forth by him so far with words flowing from a Hegelian phenomenological perspective suggests a woke mindset and ongoing "updating' (Aggiornamento) to doctrine can never never be! He has played his hand and now, will he reverse it or continue the "Disastrous Pontificate" (Dominic Grigio) of Francis.
Bishop Athanasius states the case most eloquently. I pray that this will be read and heeded.
You are a peacemaker, Bishop Schneider!
Bravo!!! Winderful assessment by Bishop Schneider. May God bless him for his courage!
I have been a practicing Catholic for 78yrs. If I had an FSSP or SSPX Mass in my area, I would be there in a heartbeat. Few and far between are the shepherds who now speak homilies of God’s unchanging truths, His Mercy, needing repentance, and how to give us strength and courage to get through each day. The offenses, by too many religious ,from priests up to the Vatican ,that are clearly deviating from the Words of Christ, without any admonishment, is truly inconceivable. Too many are either silent, lukewarm, or afraid of being cancelled, leaving the ‘wolves’ to cause confusion and despair. Synodality, same sex blessings with mercy but no repentance, meetings with most anyone who needs validation of sin with no pastoral guidance, German Bishops in direct contradiction of Christ, look within for ‘excommunication’ if you must. Thanks be to God for giving us His Body And Blood to sustain us. I pray for Pope Leo and all those who are causing a deep divide in the Church to be convicted by the One and Only Holy Spirit given to us from Christ, our Lord and our God.
Blessed are the peacemakers ❤️🙏
The truth is 1500+ year of Latin and many many Saints to back it
Vs.
60 years of a rewrite
What a shame to lose our Catholic faith.
God please help us. Please. 😞
It’s an absolutely shameful irony that the overblown legalism and Papal loyalty of the day is never applied to the Apostolic Constitution governing Papal elections, which no Cardinal nor group of Cardinals has authority to disregard.