Auxiliary Bishop of Astana, Monsignor Athanasius Schneider, has
issued his first public statement since Rome declared that the six
bishops of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX) had incurred
automatic excommunication for the episcopal consecrations celebrated in
Écône on 1 July without papal mandate and against the will of Pope Leo
XIV. In an extensive text published exclusively by journalist Diane Montagna
and which InfoVaticana offers in full in Spanish with Monsignor
Schneider’s authorization, the prelate addresses the conflict from a
historical, doctrinal, and canonical perspective.
The bishop had repeatedly asked Leo XIV to grant the FSSPX the
apostolic mandate necessary to ordain new bishops and thereby avoid a
new rupture. In his appeal of 24 February, he expressly asked the
Pontiff to act as a “bridge-builder” and warned of the danger of
provoking “a truly unnecessary and painful new division within the
Church.”
Now, Schneider maintains that the Fraternity faced a “tragic” and
exceptional choice between obeying Rome’s directives and preserving what
it considers the unequivocal integrity of Catholic doctrine and
liturgy.
The prelate does not issue a definitive juridical judgment on
the Vatican’s actions in the document, but seeks to explain the reasons
that led the FSSPX to proceed with the consecrations.
His intention is
to offer “elements for a deeper reflection on the current situation of
the Church,” together with historical precedents that allow a better
understanding of “the dilemma in which the Priestly Fraternity of Saint
Pius X considers itself to be.”
The dilemma between preserving the unequivocal integrity of the Catholic faith and canonical recognition by the Pope
By Monsignor Athanasius Schneider
It is useful to recall a case in history in which a great saint faced
the following dilemma: choosing between preserving the unequivocal
integrity of the Catholic faith and being canonically recognized by the
Pope. That saint was the fourth-century Father of the Church, Saint
Athanasius of Alexandria. In 357, Pope Liberius, after signing an
ambiguous formula of faith—which omitted the crucial doctrinal term
“consubstantial”—ordered Saint Athanasius to enter into communion with
Arian and semi-Arian bishops, bishops with whom the Pope himself, under
imperial pressure, had unfortunately entered into communion. Saint
Athanasius refused to obey the Pope, after which the latter, according
to the testimony of Saint Hilary of Poitiers and other historical
sources, excommunicated him, accusing him of disturbing the peace of the
Church. Despite having been excommunicated by the Pope, Saint
Athanasius continued to govern his diocese of Alexandria and even showed
understanding for the lamentable conduct of Pope Liberius. However,
Pope Saint Damasus, the successor of Pope Liberius, thanked Saint
Athanasius and consulted him on the affairs of the Eastern bishops. Pope
Liberius was the first Pope not to be canonized, while Athanasius was
not only canonized but declared a Doctor of the Church.
Today, Saint Athanasius would be considered a schismatic according to
the definition of “schism” in the current Code of Canon Law, since he
refused to be in communion with members of the Church—heretical and
semi-heretical bishops—who were canonically recognized and therefore
subject to the Pope.
The episcopal consecrations carried out in Écône by the Priestly
Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX) on 1 July 2026 also constitute an
example of this rare dilemma: having to choose between preserving the
unequivocal integrity of the Catholic faith as taught by the Magisterium
throughout the centuries, or being canonically recognized by the Pope.
This dilemma is evident in the conditions linked to the canonical
recognition of the FSSPX by the Pope: it must accept certain doctrinal
ambiguities recently introduced—reflected in some non-definitive
teachings of the pastoral Second Vatican Council and in certain
statements and acts of the post-conciliar Magisterium—and accept not
only the validity, but also the correctness—legitimacy—of the rite of
the new Mass, despite its doctrinal and ritual vagueness, which marks a
clear break with the traditional Roman rite.
In addressing this complex question, it is essential to maintain a
sober perspective, clarify terminology, and keep in mind the true and
ultimate end of the Church and her great Tradition, for this extends far
beyond the last centuries or decades. In doing so, analogous situations
from the great crises in the history of the Church must also be
considered.
Over the past centuries, two unhealthy developments have occurred
within the Church that have led to a narrow view of reality: the
tendency to treat the juridical aspect as quasi-absolute, that is,
legalism; and the tendency to absolutize the person of the Pope and
obedience to him, that is, papalism. Legalism—the rigid adherence to the
letter of the law—and papalism—undifferentiated and almost absolute
obedience to the Pope—have come to take priority over the need for
unequivocal clarity in faith and liturgy. However, during all the great
doctrinal crises in the history of the Church, the iron rule was to
avoid any kind of doctrinal ambiguity, as occurred with Pope Honorius I,
whose doctrinally ambiguous letters, issued as part of his ordinary
Magisterium, were firmly condemned by subsequent Popes and by three
ecumenical councils, despite the attempts of his second successor, Pope
John IV, to carry out a kind of hermeneutic of continuity.
In our days it is widely asserted within the Church that no conflict
of conscience can arise between obeying the Pope and preserving the
unequivocal purity of the faith. This means, ultimately, that obedience
to the Pope is granted such a high value that it is considered
preferable to accept ambiguities in matters of faith and in liturgical
rites rather than to act against an order of the Pope, even if that
order is merely human and may be defective. Likewise, a narrow
understanding of communion, both with the Pope and with the Church, has
emerged. Obedience to the Pope is considered indistinguishable from
communion with the Church. This risks elevating obedience to the Pope to
the same level as obedience to God’s divine revelation.
A distinction must also be made between positive law—that is,
disciplinary laws promulgated by the human authority of the Church—and
Divine Law, that is, the truths of faith revealed by God. No one can
contradict Divine Law and remain Catholic. However, in truly
extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, a Catholic may be obliged
in conscience to act against positive law precisely in order to remain
faithful, without compromise, to Divine Law.
The very concepts of “schism” and “submission” have still not been
fully clarified in their concrete and practical application. The Code of
Canon Law (canon 751) defines schism as “the refusal of submission to
the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church
subject to him.” In fact, in the recent history of the Church, a very
narrow understanding of “schism” and “submission” has emerged, in which
material disobedience to the Pope—regardless of intention—is practically
equated with formal schism.
The state of formal schism must also be kept in mind, which means the
principled rejection of papal authority through the establishment of a
separate hierarchy, as occurred with the Greek Orthodox Church in 1054
and, subsequently, with the numerous and diverse sedevacantist groups up
to the present day. However, a state of formal schism cannot be spoken
of as long as supernatural faith in the dogma of papal primacy and
infallibility persists, together with the desire to live in concrete
submission to pontifical authority, even if, due to an extraordinary
crisis in the Church, this cannot be fully realized at the moment. An
extraordinary crisis of the Church may involve an obscuring or temporary
suspension of the principal duty of the papal ministry, namely, to
defend and proclaim unequivocally the integrity of the Catholic faith
and liturgy.
The same applies to the concept of being “in communion” with the
Pope. For a very long period, episcopal ordinations were carried out
without the direct intervention of the Pope, and particular Churches and
individual bishops expressed their communion with him in various ways.
Only later in the history of the Church did the Popes require that every
episcopal ordination take place with a papal mandate. However, even
after that development, canon law did not consider illicit episcopal
ordinations—that is, those carried out against the will of the Pope—as
crimes against the unity of the Church, as inherently schismatic acts,
or as intrinsically evil acts. Even today, the current Code of Canon Law
includes illicit episcopal ordinations among crimes relating to the
celebration of the sacraments or classifies them as acts of usurpation
of office.
Indeed, the norm requiring a papal mandate for episcopal
consecrations is a matter of positive law, not of Divine Law. Otherwise,
this norm would have been observed throughout the entire history of the
Church, always, everywhere, and by all, without exception. Of course, a
papal mandate for episcopal consecrations is ordinarily necessary and
was wisely established to better ensure the hierarchical submission of
the episcopate to the Pope.
The extraordinary character of the current crisis of the Church is
manifested, in the present case, in the fact that a community whose
essential characteristic is the desire to be faithful to the Pope—and
the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X considers itself as such—faces a
tragic choice: to obey the Pope and thereby be forced to accept
uncertain and unclear aspects of doctrine and liturgy, or to disobey the
Pope in a matter of grave importance, such as the consecration of
bishops, with the sole intention of preserving the means to transmit the
faith and the liturgy in all their integrity, as a service to souls
and, therefore, to the entire Church, including the papacy itself.
Nor should the full magnitude of the current crisis of the Church be
ignored, but rather contemplated with honesty, tracing it back to its
roots. These roots are found in certain vague and ambiguous doctrinal
statements of the Second Vatican Council which, over the past sixty
years, have sown confusion, such as doctrinal relativism derived from
the teaching and practice of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue,
which have contributed to undermining the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and
of His Church as the only way of salvation. Likewise, certain doctrinal
and ritual defects of the liturgical reform, with its Protestantizing
tendencies, have obscured the central sacrificial character of the Mass
and its Christocentric orientation.
Saint John Henry Newman made the following remarkable and timely
observation: “The bishops, when not teaching formally [ex cathedra], may
err, as we know they erred in the fourth century. Pope Liberius could
sign a Eusebian [Arian] formula at Sirmium, and the mass of bishops at
Ariminum [Rimini] or elsewhere, and yet, despite this error, they could
be infallible in their ex cathedra decisions” (Arians of the Fourth Century, London, 1876, p. 464).
What the Bishop of Regensburg, Monsignor Rudolf Graber, stated more
than fifty years ago further characterizes the current situation of the
Church: “What happened more than 1,600 years ago is being repeated
today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria is today the entire
universal Church, whose stability is being shaken, and what was then
carried out by physical force and cruelty has now moved to another
level. Exile is replaced by banishment to the silence of being ignored,
and murder by the murder of reputation” (Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, Edinburgh, 1974, p. 23; original: Athanasius und die Kirche unserer Zeit, Abensberg, 1973).
The FSSPX is practically the only community in the Church today that
openly draws attention to the evident doctrinal ambiguities of certain
conciliar statements and of the rite of the new Mass, demanding their
unequivocal clarification and, if necessary, even their modification, in
accordance with the constant Magisterium of the Church. The
“hermeneutic of continuity” or of “reform in continuity”—a valid and
useful approach in itself—can also become a kind of “straitjacket” that
merely cosmetically covers the wounds caused by doctrinal and liturgical
ambiguities and confusions. In practice, the Holy See demands a form of
circular reasoning: that everything is in order as long as sufficiently
arduous intellectual efforts are made.
In reality, through its tireless insistence on doctrinal and
liturgical clarity, the FSSPX renders a great service to the entire
Church, a service of historical value. If the Holy See were to take this
position of the FSSPX seriously and, moreover, recognize the objective
ambiguities existing in certain statements of the Second Vatican Council
and in the rite of the new Mass, this would mark the beginning of the
end of the modernist project within the Church, which in fact began more
than a hundred years ago.
The current crisis between the Holy See and the FSSPX can also be
illustrated by the following parable: a fire is declared in a large
house. The fire chief allows only the new extinguishing methods to be
used, although these have proven less effective than the old,
tried-and-tested methods and tools. A group of firefighters disobeys
this order, continues to use the proven methods, and even recruits new
firefighters, all despite the chief’s prohibition, and, in fact, the
fire is contained in many places. However, these firefighters are
labeled disobedient and schismatic and are punished for it.
Taking the parable further: the fire chief now admits only those
firefighters who recognize the new methods and obey the new rules of the
fire station. But, given the enormous magnitude of the fire, the
desperate struggle to contain it, and the inadequacy of the official
methods, other helpers intervene selflessly—despite the fire chief’s
prohibition—bringing skill, knowledge, and good intentions and, in the
end, help to save the very house that the fire chief was trying to
protect.
Over time, historical circumstances change and a new fire chief
appears who recognizes the unfortunate effects of the new extinguishing
methods. He not only allows the use of the old, proven methods again,
but himself becomes their fervent defender. He also recognizes the
contribution of those firefighters who were once misunderstood, harshly
punished, treated as outcasts, and expelled as rebels, and welcomes them
back into the ranks. Finally, once that great upheaval has been
overcome, what was once condemned as disobedience and rebellion is
revealed as an act of selfless dedication.
History will one day reveal whether the following words of Saint Augustine are applicable to the current situation of the FSSPX:
“Often divine Providence permits even good men to be expelled from
the congregation of Christ by the turbulent seditions of carnal men.
When, for the sake of the peace of the Church, they patiently endure
that outrage or injury and do not attempt any novelty in the form of
heresy or schism, they will teach men how God must be served with a true
disposition and with a great and sincere charity. The intention of such
men is to return when the tumult has ceased. But if this is not
permitted because the storm continues or because their return might
arouse another even fiercer one, they maintain their firm purpose of
seeking the good even of those responsible for the tumults and
commotions that expelled them. They do not form separate conventicles of
their own, but defend to the death and uphold with their testimony the
faith that they know is preached in the Catholic Church. These, the
Father who sees in secret crowns secretly. This seems to be a rare type
of Christian, but examples are not lacking. Thus, divine Providence uses
all kinds of men as examples for the care of souls and for the
edification of His spiritual people” (De vera religione, 6, 11).
What Saint Athanasius wrote to his brother bishops throughout the
world in the midst of an extraordinary crisis of faith is also
applicable to our time:
“The canons and decrees of the Church were not given in the present,
but were transmitted to us rightly and firmly by our ancestors. Nor did
the faith have its beginning in this time, but came to us from the Lord
through His disciples. Therefore, so that the dispositions that have
been preserved in the churches from ancient times until now may not be
lost in our days, and so that the deposit entrusted to us may not be
demanded of us, awake, brothers, as stewards of the mysteries of God,
seeing that they are now being snatched away by strangers” (Ep. encyclica, 1).
God, in His Providence, writes straight even with lines that, from a
merely juridical perspective, appear crooked. May He grant that that day
come soon. Let us rejoice in the midst of tribulation and say: I
believe in the invincibility of the Church and of the Papacy, and I
believe that the Holy See will one day return to shine before the whole
world as the Chair of truth.
.jpg)
