Posted on 10/16/2026 9:23:58 AM PDT by ebb tide
Bishop Athanasius Schneider called out the “doctrinal and liturgical defects” of the Novus Ordo Mass.
In an exclusive interview with journalist Michael Haynes published Tuesday, Schneider praised the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) as a “work of Divine Providence.” The bishop, one of the clerics best acquainted with the SSPX in the world, defended the Society’s criticisms of the Second Vatican Council and of the Novus Ordo Missae.
Schneider highlighted the fact that the traditional Latin Mass (TLM) continues to be met with a “kind of persecution” under the pontificate of Leo XIV because Traditionis Custodes has been permitted to remain in place and bishops around the world have accordingly continued to cancel TLMs.
The traditional Mass, he said, “continues to be treated – by those responsible in the Vatican – as something dangerous or with a kind of discrimination.”
Schneider maintained that the Vatican is excluding the SSPX from canonical recognition – such as through the declared excommunications of its bishops this past summer – not due to errors of the SSPX but due to its criticism of defects in the new Mass and Vatican II.
He pointed out that the Vatican has demanded that the SSPX accept the Novus Ordo and recognize the Second Vatican Council as “conformed to tradition.”
“But this the Society cannot do because there are evident ambiguities in affirmations of some texts in Vatican II,” Schneider said. There are also “evident doctrinal and liturgical defects in the Novus Ordo, which contains very clear Protestant tendencies and a diminution of the sacrificial character of the Mass, even if celebrated according to the rules.”
“Even in Latin, the text of the Novus Ordo contains serious doctrinal defects, especially the new offertory prayers and the second Eucharistic prayer,” he added.
In the midst of the new Mass’ “serious rupture” with Tradition, “the presence and activity of the SSPX or the work of Archbishop (Marcel) Lefebvre is ever more becoming providential,” Schneider said. He also described it as “a work of Divine Providence” to remind the Holy See that it is necessary to clarify statements of Vatican II “which are objectively doubtful and ambiguous, and to reform the Novus Ordo according to tradition.”
Instead of recognizing the importance and necessity of these corrections, the Vatican has required “from all, including the SSPX,” the recognition of a “so-called hermeneutic of continuity,” which Schneider refers to as “mental acrobatics, or the squaring of a circle.”
“We cannot continue with the Novus Ordo – we cannot. We cannot continue with evident doctrinal ambiguities with some affirmations of the II Vatican Council. We must resolve them,” Schneider said.
This is the basic assertion of the SSPX, the bishop continued. The Society is asking only for the ability to offer Mass and to preach doctrine as was done before the Second Vatican Council.
“Here I think the Holy See must be more open, flexible and give this freedom of discussion,” Schneider said.
He stressed that while the Vatican is punishing the SSPX and depriving communities of the traditional Latin Mass, it is letting heresy run rampant across the world.
As an example, Schneider pointed to the fact that the pope has not corrected or punished a bishop of Antwerp, Belgium, who recently reaffirmed that he will ignore the Church’s law of celibacy for priests and ordain married men.
Schneider also highlighted the “generosity” of the Vatican toward Communist China via the Sino-Vatican deal, toward the heterodox clergy in Germany promoting their own “Synodal Way,” and toward other Catholics “practicing a de facto denial” of the faith.
“There is such a glaring contradiction in the behavior of the Holy See towards the SSPX and other objective, evident, heretical movements in the Church and individuals,” Bishop Schneider said.
The punishment of tradition and orthodoxy and permissiveness toward and even promotion of heterodoxy shows the true intentions of the Vatican, according to Schneider.
“Therefore, it is clear that the Holy See is partially, to some extent, in the hands of a hostile takeover by people and by powers who want to change the Catholic faith completely into not only a Protestant religion but into a religion which is completely adapted to the current fashions of the world,” he said.
The bishop believes that only “divine intervention” can put a stop to this situation in the Vatican, “bring us healing and to bring again the Holy See to be the shining cathedral of Truth – the Mother and Teacher of the entire world in the purity of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.”
Schneider believes that while the authentic mission of the papacy will return, that it is “currently in a kind of spiritual exile as it was comparatively in the material exile of the Avignon Papacy.” He specified that this entails the exile of “integral doctrine and liturgy” from the Holy See.
Just as during the Avignon exile, “the little ones in the church,” like St. Catherine of Siena, “brought back the popes from Avignon,” today the “little ones” including Catholic families, youth, religious and other devoted Catholics “are contributing to the end of the doctrinal and liturgical exile,” Schneider said.
It is these faithful who “are preparing the soil and the end of the spiritual exile in the Holy See,” after which “God will grant to his Church again 100 percent traditional popes.”
If the traditional Latin Mass was good enough for the apostles, it’s good enough for me.
Oystir, before you again spam this thread with your juvenile keywords, all should know that three times now you have proudly boasted that you have purchased a book authored by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
How soon before Bishop Schneider is deemed by the Vatican to be “in schizm” and excommunicated?
I see what you did there.
I saw him frequently on a recent Alaska cruise (although I didn't know who he was), the flowing robes were very noticeable among the cruise crowd.
Perhaps someone can be specific as to the identity of these "doctrinal defects".
The article revives old talking points that the new offertory prayers or Eucharistic Prayer II mirror Protestant worship.
Pope St. Paul VI and subsequent popes explicitly refuted this, pointing out that the new offertory prayers are largely drawn from ancient Jewish table blessings (*Berakhot*) found in early Christian patristic traditions (such as the *Apostolic Tradition* of Hippolytus), predating Protestantism by centuries. Furthermore, Eucharistic Prayer II is directly based on the ancient Eucharistic prayer of Hippolytus of Rome from the 3rd century.
Which is true.
Jean Guitton, an intimate friend of Paul VI wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.” And we know that the Calvinists - and any protestants for that matter - do not have a valid rite of Mass and do not confect the Holy Eucharist.
As far as the rest of you post: it's horse-hockey only a fool like you would fall for.
I've noticed you only source post-conciliar documents.
Here's some pre-conciliar, Catholic, documents why may hurt your modernist feelings:
The synodal "church" is, in one way or the other, in direct contradiction to every one of the above documents.
And then there's:
Which you, Cronos, noticeably have not, cannot, and never will reconcile with Tucho and Bergoglio's heretical "Amoris Laetitia".
No, why would you think that?
Did St. Paul reject St. Peter or did he just resist him?
Wow! You two are really "anchored"! You even speak for each other. Very weird.
Thank you for the invite, ebby. A quote from this thread bears repeating:
We (Catholics) accept the Council of Trent, Vatican I, AND Vatican II under the authority of Peter. Why do you accept only the pre-conciliar documents that suit your personal opinion?”
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.