In it, he shared his thoughts on the Society of Saint Pius X and the episcopal consecrations it plans to perform on July 1. Here are some excerpts.
Bishop Schneider recalled on Kontrapunkt that he had addressed an appeal to Pope Leo XIV on February 24, asking him to grant the apostolic mandate for the SSPX episcopal consecrations: “We should be broad-minded here, especially since the Society of Saint Pius X shares the same faith.” It hasn't invented a new faith, a new liturgy, or a new form of priestly formation; it has exactly the same faith, the same liturgy, the same catechism, and the same priestly formation that the universal Church, throughout the world, had until the Second Vatican Council, and had even strictly imposed for centuries. This is simply logical, and it also conforms to common sense: it cannot be wrong. The Church could not have, for centuries, maintained such priestly formation, proclaimed such a concrete faith, and celebrated such a liturgy, with such manifest fruits, for it to now be said to be deficient. And when a community simply asks, ‘Let us do what the Church has held holy for centuries,’ and is not granted it, that is precisely the problem.”
The Problem of the New Mass
Having closely studied the life of Archbishop Lefebvre, he explained the reasons given to justify the sanctions imposed on Écône: “When the conflict began, exactly fifty years ago, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was suspended by Paul VI. He simply said to the Vatican: ‘Please, let us make the experiment of tradition.’ Because, at that time, and even today, the message has been constantly: yes, the Church must be open, allow for experimentation. In the 1960s, 1970s, and even now, the Holy See has very generously allowed experimentation in priestly formation, in new communities, and even in the liturgy itself. So why not allow this experiment? And precisely, this experiment was not granted to them.”
“This is why the seminary in Écône was dissolved in 1975, and then the Society, despite initially receiving praise from the Holy See, was suspended. Initially, the issue concerned traditional priestly formation, and naturally also the transmitted Mass. Archbishop Lefebvre, as well as the Vatican, had already stated in the 1970s that this concerned the Mass. This meant that the Society of Saint Pius X was required to at least recognize the new Mass, to refrain from expressing reservations, and a high-ranking representative of the Apostolic See even personally told Archbishop Lefebvre: ‘Celebrate the new Mass just once before your seminarians, before the faithful, and then all the problems between us will be resolved.’ That is a fact.”
Certain Statements of Vatican II
The new Mass was not the only sticking point; the Second Vatican Council and its consequences also quickly became central to the discussions: “Later, of course, other, deeper reasons were added, not just obvious doctrinal shortcomings, which no one can honestly deny, in the new Mass; later still, certain ambiguous statements of the Second Vatican Council were added, which naturally also had consequences. These texts are formally only pastoral in nature: the declaration on religious freedom, and then the so-called collegiality in the structure of the Church, which tends to view the Church in a more collegial way, starting from the primacy of the pope and the episcopate—which, formulated in this way, is something new. Not that collegiality is new, but what is new is this ambiguous formulation of the Second Vatican Council. And then, the ambiguous statements about other religions. These are three important themes. And we have also seen that, from the Council to the present day, this ambiguity has borne fruit: we live in enormous, I would say general, ambiguity, in a relativism concerning the uniqueness of Christ and the Catholic Church; the entire missionary effort has truly weakened, because we now engage in dialogue, etc. And then collegiality has resulted in a devaluation of the episcopal office through the structures of episcopal conferences, which goes against divine law. An episcopal conference is not of divine right; it is simply an invention of canon law, so it can be abolished; I repeat, it is not of divine law. That the episcopate is a unity, a body, a spiritual body, that is of divine law. But the episcopal conference being the means is a human invention and, unfortunately, one with negative consequences. In reality, this so-called collegiality reigns over a country, and the proper episcopate, established by God's law in the diocese, is truly stifled by this collective system. And that is worrying. And then, naturally, concerning the college of bishops and the pope, this is not formulated very clearly either. It must be reformulated clearly.”
The problem, far from being resolved, remains relevant, as evidenced by the repeated attempts, in conservative circles, to explain the council: “Yet these ambiguities continue to be taught as correct. Even so-called conservative communities and theologians try, twisting themselves into all sorts of contortions, to correctly interpret these manifestly ambiguous statements, and sometimes even, I would say, certain erroneous statements. Yet these are only pastoral documents; they can therefore be erroneous. We can correct them. But the attitude of certain conservative communities and certain theologians is, in fact, to treat these pastoral statements, which are not definitive, as if they were infallible. And so they twist everything, trying to force everything into a correct interpretation. I call this squaring the circle. Or sometimes I speak of mental acrobatics. Things must be interpreted in such a way as to somehow manage to fit the curve. On certain points, this is truly unworthy, it is dishonest. And this is where the Society of Saint Pius X says: ‘No, we cannot participate in this.’ It is obvious that some things cannot be interpreted according to the so-called hermeneutic of continuity; some, perhaps, yes, but not these specific points. And the Church must rediscover the courage to say: yes, it was a phenomenon linked to a particular era, sixty years ago, it was not definitive. This can be rectified, it may still be corrected. And the Church will lose nothing by it.”
Dialogue with Rome
In Bishop Schneider’s view, the SSPX could, through its expertise on these subjects, be of great help to the Church. But, according to him, the dialogue must be based on honest principles: “For that, time is needed, perhaps years; why not? But now, the Vatican has, so to speak, put a gun to the head of the Society of Saint Pius X. It has told them that first this doctrinal dialogue must be conducted, precisely on the themes I have just mentioned and on the problems of the new Mass; while immediately telling Fr. Pagliarani, during the February meeting, that the texts of the Council were not open to correction, period. And within this framework, only if this dialogue became positive in some way—but what does positive even mean? From the Vatican's perspective, this means something else entirely. They expect the Society to also perform this impossible feat, this acrobatic maneuver, and say, ‘Well, everything can be interpreted correctly in a certain way,’ and to effectively accept the new Mass, saying, ‘Yes, it is not only valid, it is also legitimate,’ and so on. That, according to them, is what realism would be.”
Bishop Schneider is well acquainted with this dialogue as a former visitor of the Holy See to the SSPX: "Now, over all these years, a dialogue has already taken place, and I've had a glimpse of it; I had access to certain files as early as 2009, and it always revolved around the same things, over and over again. And it will continue like this. And then, only if this dialogue were considered, from the Vatican's point of view, as truly positive, would the Society perhaps then be given a canonical structure, and then perhaps bishops. But that's not realistic. This is a community, an ecclesial reality, that has existed for two generations, with several hundred thousand faithful worldwide, a community of nearly 800 priests and more than 200 sisters. Anyway, it cannot be overturned in a few months. That is completely unrealistic and unpastoral; I would even say not synodal. Meanwhile, the so-called synodal processes are moving forward with maximum breadth and inclusivity, with diverse opinions, while this community is being told: ‘No, you must comply, you must accept the Council, you must change your point of view.’ But this is not the opinion of the Society of Saint Pius X; it truly relies solely on the documents of the popes, not on its own views. Therefore, it is not a private judgment on the Magisterium; it is based on the uninterrupted, continuous Magisterium, spanning centuries, and even dating back to the Church Fathers. All three of these themes have been taught clearly, and especially by the popes of the last three centuries, in a very concrete way. And if the Society says, ‘We take this teaching and we proclaim what the Church has proclaimed for centuries,’ this cannot be wrong. It is therefore not the private opinion of the Society, but the opinion of the Magisterium repeated over such a long time.”
The same applies to the new Mass. Bishop Schneider notes that serious criteria motivate its rejection by the SSPX: “As for the obvious deficiencies of the new Mass, we really cannot reinterpret them. That does not work. These are obvious deficiencies. More than fifty years ago, two cardinals, Cardinal Ottaviani, former Prefect of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, and Bacci, themselves publicly pointed out the concrete deficiencies of the new Ordo. This document still exists. And they never, moreover, publicly retracted this opinion. They were simply reprimanded by Paul VI and intimidated after the publication of their criticism of the new Ordo. These two cardinals then stopped speaking, they fell silent. That's understandable. But the written document still exists.
He highly recommends, on this subject, a book published last fall in the United States by Angelico Press: A Wider View of Vatican II: Memories and Analysis of a Council Consultor, by Archimandrite Boniface Luykx. This work was written by a renowned liturgical scholar, appointed peritus at the Second Vatican Council, who was also a member of the drafting committee for the document Sacrosanctum Concilium, and who also served on Fr. Bugnini's Consilium for the reform of the Mass: "He participated in all the sessions until the very end. Shortly before his death, he wrote all his memoirs on the pre-Conciliar period, the Council itself, and especially on his work in Bugnini's commission, the fruit and product of which is our current new Mass. And there, he mercilessly exposes all the shortcomings, both doctrinal and liturgical, of the new Mass, in a ruthless manner, but with total frankness… So how could the Society accept the Vatican's demand that it declare the new Mass not only valid—which it is prepared to acknowledge, provided it is celebrated according to the rubrics and the original text—but that it is also legitimate, that is to say, in good German, that it is ‘in order’? Yet it is precisely not in order.”
Unequaled Freedom to Serve the Church
The SSPX’s unique position within the Church grants it considerable freedom of speech, and Bishop Schneider is grateful for its use of this freedom to combat the errors that are ravaging the barque of Our Lord from within: “There is no other ecclesiastical entity that recognizes the pope, and is in a sense only partially recognized, since it still officially possesses the faculty to hear confessions granted by the Holy See, and also, in part, the faculty to assist at weddings, and that is at the same time the only one to openly and publicly denounce these abuses and errors, without fear of consequences. This is, however, a service rendered to the entire Church. It is not a matter of criticizing for the sake of criticizing; it is a matter of concern for the good of the whole Church. On the other hand, the Fraternity of Saint Peter and other communities called Ecclesia Dei cannot do this. They cannot allow themselves to. They are immediately reprimanded by the relevant bishop or the ordinariate, with this threat: ‘If you repeat this, you will be expelled from the diocese.’ And this has happened in the last two years in three dioceses in France, where the Fraternity of Saint Peter had been carrying out a flourishing apostolate for years. It is likely that one of their priests said something in a sermon that perhaps hinted at a slight question or criticism of certain things in the Church. That was enough: without warning, without any explanation, the entire apostolate was brutally suppressed. And the appeal to the Holy See was useless: the Holy See did not defend the Fraternity of Saint Peter. So they had to leave three dioceses. In the United States, too, there was a case, and I know of another one involving a different Ecclesia Dei community; I learned of it recently from a reliable and direct source. In one country, a community of the Old Rite, though of pontifical right, had been present for years. It simply wanted to ask the diocese to canonically erect its house. The bishop then wrote to Rome, to the Vatican, to ask if he could do so—even though he didn't need to write to Rome, since it was within his jurisdiction according to canon law; but he simply wanted to cover his bases. And Rome replied: ‘No, do not grant any recognition, do not canonically erect this institute of the Old Rite,’ even though it was an institute recognized by Rome and of pontifical right. These are just a few examples.”
With charity and clear-sightedness, Bishop Schneider observes that other traditional institutes do not enjoy such an advantage, however necessary it may be for the Church: “We can clearly see that these so-called regular communities live under constant surveillance; they tremble. And naturally, we rejoice in their existence, we esteem them, we are grateful to them, and we greatly appreciate their apostolate. Under these circumstances, it is truly heroic. This is not a criticism, but simply an observation of fact, of reality as it is. Yes, it is good that they exist, so that at least the transmitted Mass may continue to spread more widely, and also, let us say, the traditional catechism. But these problems that concern the whole Church—these concrete ambiguities, and even sometimes errors in certain statements of the Council, as well as in the new Mass itself—all of this must be discussed.” It must be possible, within the Church, to speak openly about this, without polemics but with honesty, without fear of being punished for it. And the only entity that can currently do so without being immediately punished is the Society of Saint Pius X.”
Being Realistic
Bishop Schneider thus calls on the Holy See to take a generous and pragmatic first step toward the SSPX, not necessarily through immediate canonical agreement, but at least by granting permission to act: “In any case, the entire ecclesial question cannot be resolved immediately; it takes time. And as a first step—which is why I am appealing to the Holy Father—authorize episcopal consecrations, grant the mandatum apostolicum. This would be the first small step toward a certain integration of the Society, without immediately resolving the entire canonical structure. Canon law is not divine law. It can admit exceptions, intermediate solutions, solutions that are still incomplete. That is precisely its purpose. That, in reality, is the motivation for my appeal. And it should be considered within an even broader framework: I think it would be a gain for the entire Church. And also, that the bishops, the Fraternity of Saint Peter, and others, after these episcopal consecrations—if the pope would authorize them—could then deal a little more normally with the Society of Saint Pius X, and no longer as with outcasts, or as with lepers, or as with schismatics.”
He argues that the pope holds the key to avoiding a de facto exclusion that would deprive the Church of the influence of the SSPX: “If the pope authorizes the bishops, we will never again be able to speak of schism: they will be bishops approved, recognized by the pope. And, it seems to me, this would be a pastoral solution, even a brilliant one, including from the perspective of Church history. The pope would then truly enter history as a genuine bridge-builder. But it is clear that we must also consider another side of the story: there are, of course, influential, high-ranking ecclesiastical dignitaries, perhaps even within the Vatican, perhaps even in the pope's inner circle, who simply do not want the Society of Saint Pius X. They want it kept out. And they would even rejoice if it were excommunicated. This is why they are now pushing the pope not to grant the mandate, to resolve everything first on a doctrinal level. But it is clear that this is a dead end, that it is neither practical nor feasible. Perhaps these high-ranking prelates are even knowingly putting in place these conditions so that the Society remains outside and is not integrated. Because if it were integrated, it would then also, in a way, have more influence in the service of tradition, beyond its own structures.”
“Today, it only acts within its own structures; but if it were somewhat integrated, then a bishop could say, for example: ‘Why not invite a priest from the Society to come and give a talk to my seminarians at the diocesan seminary?’ Or: ‘Give a retreat.’ Or even: ‘We are organizing a colloquium and we are inviting a representative of the Society of Saint Pius X, or other theologians.’ That would be wonderful. We are a family. And that would, I think, even be in line with that famous synodal method—regardless of the fact that it is highly suspect, but I only say that here as an argumentum ad hominem.”
The State of Necessity Remains
Bishop Schneider’s desire to see the pope allow the SSPX to exercise its ministry more broadly is explained by the state of necessity in which the Church finds herself: “It is not just about the Mass, the Holy Mass. There are deeper issues: the ambiguities that have persisted since the Council, the problem of the new Mass itself, which is celebrated—I don't know the exact percentage—perhaps in over 90%, or even more, of the world's churches, and which is itself problematic, truly theologically questionable. We cannot simply say, ‘Well, we have our Mass, thank God, the traditional Mass, and we should be happy about that.’ But what about the rest of the Church? What about the rest of the Church? We must be concerned about them too. There are also these problems of relativism stemming from the decree on religious freedom, and the obvious interpretation that has been given, almost naturally, to this ambiguous text. That alone is already a sign that this text on religious freedom cannot remain as it is; it must be changed. For example, if this is not a manifest necessity in the Church, then what is? If almost 95% of the world celebrates a rite that is at least doctrinally problematic, and increasingly so, and if such relativism of truth persists—not to mention other things the Vatican has approved without removing them: communion for divorced people through Amoris Laetitia, the blessing of same-sex couples, and these ambiguous interreligious acts, etc.—if all this continues, it is obviously worrying. It is indeed a necessity. If it is not a necessity, what is a necessity?”
Consecrations That Will Not Be Schismatic
Faced with the often-repeated accusations, Bishop Schneider wishes to highlight the particular situation of the SSPX consecrations: “I think that, in this case, episcopal consecrations without the pope’s permission would not be schismatic. Not at all.” For even in the new Code of Canon Law, episcopal consecrations without papal permission are not listed under the category of offenses against the unity of the Church, but under the heading of usurpation of office. And Pope Francis further modified this, placing them under the heading of the celebration of the sacraments. This alone already reveals something. And all of traditional canon law, up until the 1983 Code, did not punish illicit episcopal consecrations with excommunication, but with suspension. Now, suspension is not an expression of schism. We can therefore see that the Church has not understood it, in itself, as such. Of course, everything also depends on intention. And the Society has now made this very clear: it absolutely does not want a parallel Church. However, when truly schismatic consecrations have taken place in history, either a parallel Church was built, using titles like ‘Bishop of Munich’ or others, or there was absolutely no concern for Rome and they consecrated without even asking what Rome thought.
“That's the attitude of sedevacantists; and even Bishop Williamson proceeded with consecrations without consulting Rome at all. This is an essential difference from the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre who, until his very last day—I have read all the documents—filially begged John Paul II to grant permission for the consecrations. And the current leadership has also already asked the pope, in its November letter, for his permission regarding the consecrations.”
It is clear, in Bishop Schneider's view, that the SSPX has no ambition to be a parallel Church: “The Society has made this clear: it wants, through these bishops, to render a service to the pope and the Holy See. That these bishops, who merely confer the sacraments and nothing more, render a service so that Tradition, traditional priestly formation, and the administration of the sacraments, with their own distinct identity and their freedom to point out the errors or ambiguities of the Council and the problems of the new Mass, may thus serve the Church. This is not simply polemic. And it expresses this very clearly. Moreover, it mentions the pope in the Mass, as well as the local bishop, which the schismatics do not do. And I think that, if one is truly honest, one should not even consider this act schismatic. Formally, according to the letter, perhaps; but even canonists say that, to incur a penalty, one must also examine the intention of the offender. And sometimes, good intention, or sincere conviction, in good faith, in a given situation, can excuse the fault or the penalty. There are several principles to consider here. And above all, I think the Society has no intention of creating a schism; that would be the worst thing for them, because it would go against the Catholic spirit.”
Lack of Necessary Guarantees
According to Schneider, the heart of the problem does not lie in the consecrations themselves, but in the SSPX’s inability to obtain from the Roman authorities the guarantees necessary for the full maintenance of Tradition in the current circumstances: “They are simply saying: in the current circumstances, the Vatican wants to force us to interpret the ambiguities of the Council correctly, one way or another, and to say nothing more about the problems of the new Mass; thus, we would place ourselves entirely under their control, so that they could intervene at any time, as they do with the other Ecclesia Dei communities, and close us down, or close the seminary. I understand why they say, ‘Under these conditions, we cannot do it.’ And I understand why, under these conditions, they do not want to submit completely to the administrative power of the Holy See, even though, in principle, they are not against submission to the Holy See. They want to be subject if the Holy See truly guarantees them the entire tradition of the faith and the liturgy, without restriction, by telling them, ‘You can continue to teach exactly as you do now—this is what the Church has always taught—and we cannot forbid you; we guarantee that you can continue in this way,’ while remaining canonically subject to the Holy See. Then, I think that, from their perspective, this would be acceptable. But for the moment, that is not the case.”
Crises Do Not Last Forever
In light of Church history, Bishop Schneider maintains a firm hope: the SSPX will undoubtedly one day be perceived quite differently than through its current labels: “I think we must look further, beyond this crisis. It may be a sixty-year crisis. In the history of the Church, crises have often lasted seventy years: the Avignon exile, seventy years; the Arian crisis, between sixty and seventy years. Then God intervened, and Rome once again became the light of clarity and unambiguity. Rome has always been that. But today, there is a darkening. And we must also acknowledge that. This is not against Rome; it is out of love for Rome. Archbishop Lefebvre also said it when he consecrated the bishops: it is only for a time, for a short period. Perhaps he imagined things differently; perhaps he thought that after a few years a new pope would come, who would once again proclaim all the traditional doctrine, and then you, the new bishops, would go to him and say: ‘Most Holy Father, we place our episcopate at your disposal; dispose of our episcopal office, depose us if you wish, do as you please, for now you are the guardian and guarantor of the clear and unequivocal profession of faith, as the Holy See has always been, the rock that the popes have always been, with only rare exceptions in history.’ And this will undoubtedly happen, because the Holy See is instituted by God, the pontificate is instituted by God. But God, incomprehensibly, allows this momentary crisis of the Holy See and even of the pontificate. We must continue to look further. I think we need to be more thoughtful and not immediately jump on the Society of Saint Pius X, beating them up with arguments like, ‘You are schismatic, you are this or that.’ I think that’s not right. It’s too simplistic, too inadequate in light of the entire history of the Church and what is really at stake.”
Correcting The Texts of the Second Vatican Council
The need to correct what is unclear or erroneous in Vatican II is imperative, according to Bishop Schneider: “I’m thinking first of all of the whole question of the collegiality of the episcopal college. It’s not clear enough. Certainly, there is an explanatory note, the Nota explicativa praevia, given by Paul VI in Lumen Gentium; it’s helpful, undoubtedly. But even that isn’t completely clear. Then this was passed into canon law and other post-conciliar documents, where it is stated that the Church is governed in some way by the pope and the College of Bishops, or: ‘I promise fidelity to the pope and to the College of Bishops united with him.’ This remains rather ambiguous. The Church is monarchical. God established Peter over the whole flock; he did not say to the entire apostolic college, ‘All of you, feed my sheep.’ He said only to Peter, ‘Feed my sheep, feed my lambs.’ That is the monarchical structure. Of course, Peter and the popes always knew that they formed a spiritual body with the bishops, like the Church herself, and so they also acted collegially. But the pope was not bound, by strict divine right, to collegially integrate the bishops into the ordinary governance of the Church. No. And it is precisely this ambiguity that is still expressed in the new canon law: that the college of bishops, with and under the pope, ordinarily participates in the governance of the entire Church. No, this only happens exceptionally, during an ecumenical council, and if the pope invites them and allows them to participate. This has always been the constant practice of the Church.”
Next comes what, according to him, most opposes the social kingship of Our Lord: “Then, of course, the text on religious freedom. It mixes many things together; truth and error are almost intimately intertwined in the same sentence, and this continues to be transmitted in this way. The Church has always taught religious freedom in a certain sense, and it is a divine right: what does it mean? That every person is free in their soul with regard to faith. God does not force us to believe in Him; God does not force us to love Him. He even goes so far as to let people want to go to hell if they do not want to believe; God leaves them free. And the act of faith is free. That is religious freedom in its deepest sense. This is what the Council says. But then it mixes this with a new assertion that the Church has never made: namely, that, as a result, every person would have the freedom, not only inwardly, but also outwardly, and even in conscience, to choose a religion. Now, their conscience can be mistaken, even in good faith; they can choose idolatry. But that is still not God's will. One cannot equate the choice of the true religion with that of a false one. Then the text adds that this person has the right not to be hindered by anyone, not even by civil authorities, in the choice of their religion—I repeat: even if that includes idolatry—and in its practice, whether private or communal, and even in its dissemination. Disseminating idolatry as well? And it says that this right not to be hindered, even by civil authorities, rests on the dignity of the human person, on the natural dignity of the person, therefore on natural law. Well, that is false. “
Bishop Schneider makes some distinctions intended to shed light on this thorny problem: “Natural law only gives us what is inherently good. Natural law cannot give me the right to sin against the first commandment: ‘You shall have no other gods before me.’ And then to spread this false religion, even if chosen in good faith, is certainly not a natural right; it is not based on a right of my person. It is simply an abuse of religious freedom. Such a statement would only be true for the one true religion, the Catholic religion. Therefore, it should be said: only Catholics have the right to be unhindered by anyone, not even the State, in the choice, practice, and dissemination, even collectively, of the Catholic religion, because it is the only religion that God willed and that the first commandment imposes upon us. Period. As for those who choose another religion—and I would add: natural law consists precisely in choosing and spreading the Catholic religion—well, that should be the end of it. For those who choose an erroneous religion, whether in good faith or not, and spread it, they cannot rely on natural law, since it is an error. One cannot spread error based on natural law. It can only be a matter of civil law, purely civil law, which the State can protect according to specific historical circumstances, that is, within the framework of tolerance. Tolerance is sufficient. Moreover, it has often been practiced. That is the difference. And this has always been the traditional teaching of the Church, even since the Church Fathers. If we read Augustine, Ambrose, and others, they said exactly that.”
It is also the conciliar conception of false religions themselves that must be revised: “And Justin also spoke of the ‘seeds of the Logos,’ that is, the seeds of truth present in human beings; but he did not relate them to religions as such, he related them to the natural knowledge of God, to natural law, to the natural light of understanding, to true philosophy; St. Justin never related this to false religions. Here is an example. Here, we should honestly open a debate and say: no, this text is too ambiguous, it has engendered false conclusions, the Church must therefore correct and reformulate it with perfect clarity. Then there is also the phrase in Lumen Gentium 16 according to which we Catholics, together with Muslims, cum musulmanis, in Latin, adoramus - we worship - the one God. We cannot leave it as it is. It is so ambiguous, full of ambiguities, and it certainly must be corrected. This is just one of the most important examples.”
Finally, there is the need to address the liturgical subject: “And then, of course, the new Mass must be clearly examined and corrected; we cannot leave it as it is. The new offertory prayers are very clearly Judeo-Protestant prayers, which in reality orient the whole event of the Mass more towards a meal. And the second Eucharistic Prayer is completely inappropriate; it is almost on the borderline of orthodoxy. We cannot leave it as it is; it must be changed. And here again - I repeat myself - the Society of Saint Pius X can make a contribution, and I think it already is.”
A Call for Unity and Prayer
In his conclusion, Bishop Schneider expressed his hope for a union of traditional Catholic currents in the struggle for the Tradition of the Church.
He said he was convinced that God would surely grant the wishes of so many Catholics united in peace and prayer to obtain a strong pope: “Please, let us not do that, let us not continue to tear each other apart; let us become humble, let us look at things supernaturally, let us pray together, let us beseech Heaven to finally give our General in this naval battle - the pope - the light and the courage to strengthen the faith once again with complete clarity and to restore Tradition.”