Posted on 08/17/2026 10:35:16 AM PDT by ebb tide
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has offered a forceful defence of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) following its recent episcopal consecrations by arguing that disobedience to the Pope does not in itself constitute schism and that Catholics may, in exceptional circumstances, act against ecclesiastical law to preserve the faith. The statement was published on the substack of the veteran Catholic journalist, Diane Montagna.
The bishop identified “two unhealthy developments” within the Church in recent centuries which have “led to a narrowed view of reality”. The first he named was “legalism”, described as “the tendency to treat the legal aspect as quasi-absolute”. The second is “papalism”, which he said is the “tendency to absolutize the person of the Pope and obedience to him”.
He pointed to the seventh-century Pope Honorius I, who appeared to sympathise with the heretical Monothelite position, which held that Christ had only one will. Bishop Schneider said that his theologically questionable teachings were issued as part of his ordinary Magisterium but were later condemned by Popes and three ecumenical councils. Using this as an example of erroneous teaching coming from the papacy, the bishop stated that a blind acceptance of papal teaching had arisen in which it is believed that “no conflict of conscience can arise between obeying the Pope and preserving the unambiguous purity of the faith”.
He made the point that within the Church there are “disciplinary laws enacted by human Church authority” and the “Divine Law, i.e. the truths of faith revealed by God”. He said that while “no one may contradict Divine Law and remain a Catholic”, there may be “truly extraordinary and rare circumstances” in which a Catholic “may be required in conscience to act contrary to positive law, precisely in order to remain uncompromisingly faithful to Divine Law”. He further explained that papalism had led to a “very narrow understanding of ‘schism’ and ‘submission’”, in which “material disobedience to the Pope — regardless of intention — is virtually equated with formal schism”.
In what can be understood as a clear defence of the SSPX’s episcopal consecrations and a repudiation of the Vatican’s declaration that they were a schismatic act, the bishop said that “the state of formal schism” exists only when there is a “rejection, in principle, of papal authority through the establishment of a separate hierarchy”.
He further argued that for much of Church history “episcopal ordinations were carried out without the direct involvement of the Pope” and that even after the development in canon law requiring papal approval, illicit episcopal ordinations were not viewed “as inherently schismatic acts, or as intrinsically evil”.
He said that the SSPX dilemma reveals the “extraordinary nature of the current crisis in the Church”, in which the Society is faced with a decision either to obey the Pope, which would mean accepting “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 pass on the faith and the liturgy in their full integrity”.
The bishop said that the essence of the Church’s crisis lies in “certain vague and ambiguous doctrinal statements of the Second Vatican Council” which have “sown confusion”. He highlighted a “doctrinal relativism” stemming from the Council’s teaching on ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, which he said has undermined “the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and His Church as the only way to salvation”.
The final paragraphs constitute one of the bishop’s more forceful defences of the Society of Saint Pius X. He stated that the SSPX is of “great service to the entire Church” through “its tireless insistence on clarity in doctrine and liturgy”. He called on the Holy See to “take this stance of the SSPX seriously” and to acknowledge “the objective ambiguities in certain statements of the Second Vatican Council and in the rite of the New Mass”. He said this would “mark the beginning of the end for the modernist project within the Church”.
The arguments made by the bishop are remarkably similar to those in a previous statement from June of this year, also originally published by Montagna. In the statement, entitled The Core Question Regarding the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, the bishop also pointed to legalism and “papal-centrism”. He likewise used the example of Pope Honorius I to illustrate papal error and cited “religious liberty” and “ecumenism” as problematic aspects of the Second Vatican Council. The bishop also presented the Society as facing a “dilemma” between papal authority and the Church’s teaching.
The substantive difference lies in the conclusions reached, since in June the Society had yet to consecrate bishops. Bishop Schneider concluded his June statement by urging the Pope to allow episcopal consecrations, whereas his most recent piece concludes with an exhortation that the Holy See will “shine forth again as the Cathedra of truth before the entire world”, presumably by acknowledging its errors and embracing the Society’s assessment of the modern Church. Thomas Edwards
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
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,
Jim
Ping
The Bishop breaks his silence in first public statement following the episcopal consecrations of July 1.
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.