[Catholic Caucus] Bishop Schneider Severely Criticizes Cardinal Roche's Report

Interviewed by Diane Montagna, Bishop Schneider challenges the historical assumptions and theological premises underlying Cardinal Arthur Roche's document. He maintains that the report does not reflect an impartial and thorough analysis, but rather an ideological approach marked by what he calls "rigid clericalism."

Bishop Schneider argues that the Mass most faithful to the Council was the Ordo Missae of 1965, and that the form later promulgated by Pope Paul VI—the Novus Ordo Missae—was substantially rejected by the first Synod of Bishops after the Council in 1967.

He disputes the interpretation of the bull Quo primum of St. Pius V, challenging its assertion that the restoration of the traditional Roman liturgy was merely a "concession," and disputes the idea that liturgical pluralism "freezes division" within the Church.

For Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Roche's report is “reminiscent of the desperate struggle of a gerontocracy confronted with serious and increasingly vocal criticism – arising primarily from a younger generation, whose voice this gerontocracy attempts to stifle through manipulative arguments and, ultimately, by weaponizing power and authority."

The auxiliary bishop of Astana first notes that Cardinal Roche's document is marked by "a clear prejudice against the traditional Roman Rite and its present use." He adds that “it appears driven by an agenda aimed at denigrating this liturgical form and ultimately eliminating it from ecclesial life.. . . the document employs manipulative reasoning and even distorts historical evidence.”

Diane Montagna points out that the cardinal prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship seems to be confusing "reform" and "development" of a rite. Bishop Schneider recalls that the history of the liturgy shows that, “from the time of Pope Gregory VII in the eleventh century,. . . the Rite of the Roman Church underwent no significant reforms. The Novus Ordo of 1970, by contrast, presents itself to any honest and objective observer as a rupture with the millennial tradition of the Roman Rite."

He quotes Archimandrite Boniface Luykx († 2004), a liturgy specialist, a peritus (expert) at the Second Vatican Council, and member of the Vatican liturgical commission (the so-called Consilium) commissioned by Paul VI to develop the new Mass. Luykx describes the erroneous theological foundations underlying the work of this commission:

“Behind these revolutionary exaggerations were hidden three typically Western but false principles: (1) the concept (à la Bugnini) of the superiority and normative value of modern Western man and his culture for all other cultures; (2) the inevitable and tyrannical law of constant change that some theologians applied to the liturgy, Church teaching, exegesis, and theology; and (3) the primacy of the horizontal” (A Wider View of Vatican II, Angelico Press, 2025, p. 131).”

Bishop Schneider also criticizes the false interpretation of St. Pius V's bull Quo primum. Cardinal Roche describes it as an attempt to unify the Roman Rite. But in fact, it “explicitly permits all variants of the Roman Rite that had been in continuous use for at least two hundred years to continue lawfully. Unity does not mean uniformity, as the history of the Church attests.”

St. Pius V thus allowed “rites with a continuous history of at least two centuries to endure, including well-established usages such as the Ambrosian and Dominican rites, which were not only preserved but continued to flourish within the unity of the Roman Church.”

Cardinal Roche also claims the continuity of the new Mass with tradition, but Bishop Schneider challenges this assertion, accusing it of being a circular argument (the conclusion proving the principles and the principles proving the conclusion). He quotes Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger writing:

“The problem of the new Missal lies in the fact that it breaks away from this continuous history—one that progressed uninterrupted both before and after Pius V—and creates an entirely new book, whose appearance is accompanied by a type of prohibition of what previously existed that is wholly foreign to the history of Church law and liturgy. From my knowledge of the conciliar debates and from a renewed reading of the speeches delivered at that time by the Council Fathers, I can state with certainty that this was not intended.”

Bishop Schneider then defends the plurality of rites, such as the traditional rite and the Eastern rites, which cannot be described as a "concession," to use Cardinal Roche's term. The recognition and restoration of the ancient liturgical books should be considered the expression of a legitimate plurality within the liturgical life of the Church.

The bishop from Kazakhstan then defends his thesis: according to him, “the true reform of the Mass according to the Council had already been promulgated in 1965, namely the Ordo Missae of 1965, which the Holy See at the time explicitly described as the implementation of the provisions of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.” He adds that “at the first Synod of Bishops after the Council, held in 1967, Fr. Annibale Bugnini presented the Synod Fathers with the text and celebration of a radically reformed Ordo Missae,” (the future new Mass).

“However, the majority of the Synod Fathers of 1967. . . rejected this Ordo Missae, i.e., our current Novus Ordo. Consequently, what we celebrate today is not the Mass of the Second Vatican Council, which is in fact the Ordo Missae of 1965, but rather the form of the Mass that was rejected by the Synod Fathers in 1967 as being too revolutionary.”

In conclusion, to illustrate the current liturgical crisis, Bishop Schneider again quotes Archimandrite Boniface Luykx: “When reverence is gone, all worship becomes only horizontal entertainment, a social party. Here again the poor, the little ones, are victims, since the obvious reality of life as flowing out of God in worship is taken away from them by ‘experts’ and dissenters.”

“No hierarch, from a simple bishop to the pope, may invent anything. Every hierarch is a successor of the apostles, which means that he is first of all a keeper and servant of Holy Tradition – a guarantor of continuity in teaching, worship, sacraments, and prayer.”

He reserves scathing criticism for the author of this unfortunate report: “Cardinal Roche’s document is reminiscent of a desperate struggle of a gerontocracy confronted with serious and increasingly vocal criticism — arising primarily from a younger generation, whose voice this gerontocracy attempts to stifle through manipulative arguments and, ultimately, by weaponizing power and authority.”

“Yet the timeless freshness and beauty of the liturgy, together with the faith of the saints and of our own ancestors, will nevertheless prevail. The sensus fidei instinctively perceives this reality, especially among the “little ones” in the Church: innocent children, heroic youth, and young families.”

Even if some points are debatable, this criticism is nonetheless well-founded and welcome. Let us hope that Cardinal Roche will heed the warning that serves as the conclusion to the interview: “I would strongly advise Cardinal Roche and many other older and somewhat rigid members of the clergy to recognize the signs of the times – or, to put it figuratively, to jump on the bandwagon so as not to be left behind.”

a gerontocracy confronted with serious and increasingly vocal criticism – arising primarily from a younger generation

Latin masses are famous for the number of large young families attending. But walk into a random Novus Ordo mass and chances are the worshipers are mainly cotton-topped elderly. They remind one of those "No Kings" protesters.

ABp Schneider calls out “Cardinal Roche and many other older and somewhat rigid members of the clergy” and urges them to get with the times.

Ironic since the called-out prelates were the ones saying that in the late 60s and early 70s.

ABp Schneider instead seems to be saying that, in the current times, we clearly see the errors of the “reformers” and the ruinously bad fruit their changes clearly yielded.

So “getting with the times” now means, undoing the reform, returning to tradition, and accepting change only if it is gradual, develops organically, and is clearly necessary.

Pope after pope for centuries would fear implementing any changes at all to the traditional liturgy, even under the circumstances just described, thinking, understandably, and more or less accurately, that the traditional liturgy was essentially handed down through the ages by the Holy Spirit, and as such was well-nigh untouchable, unalterable.

Those same cotton-toppers seem also to be eager to elbow each other out to serve as one of seemingly six or eight “extraordinary” ministers of the Eucharist, inexplicably deemed necessary on any given Sunday, regardless of how many people are in the pews, with other parish priests there but visibly “hanging back”, not participating in distribution of the Eucharist.

The non-participating priests look on, standing there, doing nothing, like Yoda, Ben Kenobi and Luke’s father, on screen and vaguely glowing, at the end of Return of the Jedi.

It’s so knuckle-headed how the “Extraordinary Ministers” have taken over.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.