Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 03/08/2026 2:07:35 PM PDT by ebb tide
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, the Holy See’s former Apostolic Visitor to the Society of Saint Pius X, has opined that any excommunication which the Society may be handed following the upcoming episcopal consecrations would be invalid.
“There is no intention from the leadership of the SSPX to separate themselves from Rome,” said Bp. Schneider, during a recent private meeting of the Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima, obtained exclusively by this correspondent with the permission of His Excellency. {The Confraternity is an apostolate that works closely with Bp. Schneider “to hasten the Reign of Mary through the Consecration of St. Louis de Montfort”}.
The auxiliary bishop of Astana has a particular expertise regarding the Society, given that he served as the Holy See’s official visitor to the SSPX under Pope Francis. Schneider, one of the most vocal bishops in the Church today, has also issued a public appeal to Pope Leo XIV, asking the Pope to approve the SSPX’s planned episcopal consecrations, and in so doing build bridges for the Church.
So far, the Holy See – via Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández – has warned the Society that should they proceed with the July 1 consecrations without papal mandate, then that would “imply a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism) with grave consequences for the Fraternity as a whole.”
Following the SSPX’s 1988 episcopal consecrations, Pope John Paul II declared that the consecrating bishops, and those receiving the order of bishop, “have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.” Arguments for the validity of such an automatic excommunication have been hotly rejected by the SSPX throughout the decades, and as equally passionately made against the Society by its critics – including recently with the upcoming July 1 consecrations.
But for Bishop Schneider a key element is missing in the SSPX’s proposed actions – one which would thus not qualify them for any declaration of excommunication. He stated:
“Therefore, I think that, if the excommunication would be applied, it would be in some way not valid because there is no intention to do a schismatic act on the side of the Society of Pius X, and you cannot be punished when you have not the intention to do it, according to the canon law.”
As he has done repeatedly in recent years, Schneider noted that the Society’s Masses are a viable option for Catholics to attend, especially given that “during the Mass they pray for the Pope. If they would not pray for the Pope then it should not be attended, but they always pray for the Pope, and even for the local bishop where the Mass is celebrated.”
While prominent cardinals have condemned the Society’s decision to proceed with the episcopal consecrations, Schneider has taken a more nuanced stance, urging the Pope to approve the ceremony and thus allowing the SSPX to contribute more fully to the life of the Church and the necessary theological debate about doctrinal crises of recent years,
Yet the bishop fears that Leo XIV is at risk of being influenced by individuals keen to attack the Society
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
But for Bishop Schneider a key element is missing in the SSPX’s proposed actions – one which would thus not qualify them for any declaration of excommunication. He stated:
“Therefore, I think that, if the excommunication would be applied, it would be in some way not valid because there is no intention to do a schismatic act on the side of the Society of Pius X, and you cannot be punished when you have not the intention to do it, according to the canon law.”
At risk of being influenced by sundry individuals.
Would this apply to sin as well? (Can I commit a sinful act but not be guilty of committing sin, simply because I never intended the "sin" part?)
Because it seems like one can then do anything and simply claim that no schismatic act is intended.
Ignorant and arrogant question; not worth addressing.
China ordaning their own Bishops is not schismatic according to the Vatican.
“[Catholic Caucus] EXCLUSIVE: Bishop Schneider suggests Vatican excommunication of SSPX would not be valid”. With some of the threads you’ve created on this forum Ebb, I think numerous individuals should be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Obedience is highly underrated.
If you are seeking a metaphor - imagine an older brother taking food from his own homeopathy, despite not being given permission by his father to do so. He does this because he believes his younger siblings are starving. He does not dispute who the father is in the household, nor that the father owns the home and pantry. Regardless of whether the children are actually starving or not- he is morally certain they are- they are begging him for food, in fact many other siblings have abandoned the house to scavenge for food in the wild- even at the risk of poisonous berries and mushrooms. The food the father does dole out appears to be only saccharine- sweet tasting but no calories.
Would such a son be guilty of theft and would any punishment be valid? Circumstances and intentions do matter. Both in Canon law and in dealing with sin.
The argument that the Vatican is making is that by consecrating bishops without papal permission the society is INTENDING to start a new Church. If they were intending to give jurisdiction this would be a valid argument. They aren’t. Consecrating bishops without a papal mandate is considered an act of disobedience, not in and of itself a schismatic act. Athanasius did so when the state of necessity existed.
Obviously none of this applies to an inherently evil act (which consecrating bishops even without papal approval isn’t). There is no excuse for example to deny the existence of the Trinity or say that Jesus didn’t really die for our sins- although even with inherently evil acts extreme circumstances might (MIGHT!) make what would normally be a total sin venial instead (eg severe mental illness leading to suicide). Even in these severe circumstances however- it is for God to decide- not us.
Servility is highly overrated. :).
Your metaphor is incomplete; because it's incomplete, it's incorrect.
The older brother believes his younger brothers are starving. His father assures them they are not, presenting the brothers and their food to the oldest brother.
The oldest brother thinks he has better food for them and, despite his father's command, gives the younger brothers what he thinks is good for them, usurping his father's authority as the head of the household; he does this after being warned that such an act will cost him his place in the house.
In the meantime, he had presented a very credible argument to his father that there was still an appetite for the food the boys had eaten in the past; the father accepts the oldest son's argument and agrees to provide this food as well. However, as the head of the household, he will control the distribution of this food.
This is not good enough for the oldest son, who thinks that he alone should determine the rules for the distribution of the food. The father warns him that he must subject himself to the rule of the father or else face exile from the house. The oldest son chooses exile. Banished from the household, he justifies his actions to his followers by informing them that despite the evidence, the boys were actually starving and that he had no other choice but to act on his own.
Blind obedience is not a virtue.
Well, all metaphors are incomplete, thats why they are metaphors. In your metaphor there is no crisis in the Church, and the father has the authority to change the food (the pope to change the Faith or at least the Mass) from what it was in the past. And yes the Pope can make adjustments to the mass for good reason - for example adding the Last gospel to the end of the mass to combat certain heresies.
Note in my metaphor the older sibling was morally certain his younger siblings were starving, dying, being driven away from the home, not that the food was being seasoned differently. The position of the SSPX is that the loss of the traditional mass is a consequence of and a symptom of the modernist crisis spreading heresy- not the root of the crisis itself. We are not talking about personal preferences, but about an emergency situation.
To the first I would say the facts match my metaphor better than yours, no doubt you would disagree.
To the second I would say the Pope does not have the authority to change the Faith passed down from the Apostles and ultimately Christ himself. You may argue that the Faith hasn’t been changed or contradicted only developed- again I would counter that doesn’t match the facts on the ground. You no doubt would disagree.
The SSPX agrees that if it was merely a matter of personal preference, they could not justify their actions. However they are morally certain that a state of necessity exists due to a crisis in the Church. And even in the revised Canon Law- Salus animarum suprema lex.
Regardless, family duties beckon. Good night. JMJ
Consequently, there is a need “to avoid judgements which do not take into account the complexity of various situations” and “to be attentive, by necessity, to how people experience distress because of their condition.”[327]3
Martin Luther would probably have said the same thing.
In any event, I'm afraid that we will know soon enough how much weight their argument has.
Describing them as "authentic magisterium," Pope Francis ordered the official publication of his letter to a group of Argentine bishops and their guidelines for the interpretation of "Amoris Laetitia," his apostolic exhortation on the family.
According to a brief note by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican secretary of state, Pope Francis wanted his letter and the bishops' document to be published on the Vatican website and in the "Acta Apostolicae Sedis," the official record of Vatican documents and acts.
The papal letter, dated Sept. 5, 2016, was written in response to guidelines published by the bishops in the Catholic Church's Buenos Aires region. Pope Francis said the bishops' document "explains precisely the meaning of Chapter VIII of 'Amoris Laetitia.' There are no other interpretations."
The letter is found on the Vatican website under letters written by the pope in 2016, and was published in the October 2016 edition of the "Acta Apostolicae Sedis," which also is available online: http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/2016/acta-ottobre2016.pdf.
He can describe the document however he wants. He was obliged to address the points raised in the Dubia, and to the best of my knowledge, he never did.
I really don't know what recognition any Catholic owes that document.
(I'm not dodging the question; I'm only pointing out that because the confusion remains, I wouldn't give this too much weight. [You don't have to be an SSPXer to see a problem here. Many of us who attend licit Masses in the Church have similar issues with it.])
Wrong again!
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.