Niwa Limbu
Sep. 2, 2026
EXCLUSIVE: Bishop Athanasius Schneider has called for “fatherly charity and magnanimity” towards the SSPX and offered his assessment of the post-conciliar liturgical reform following Pope Leo XIV’s recent General Audience on Sacrosanctum Concilium
Bishop Athanasius Schneider is one of the most respected and outspoken traditionalist prelates in the Church today. The auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan, he serves in a country where Catholics make up less than one per cent of the population. The archdiocese itself was established just 23 years ago, making the bishop’s see an unlikely place from which to emerge as a prominent voice of traditional Catholic thought.
Nonetheless, Bishop Schneider has become a source of inspiration and hope for a generation of young priests devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass who have often found support from the hierarchy lacking. He has also established himself as a clear and uncompromising voice on questions of faith and morals.
With much confronting the Church, His Grace, a friend of AdVaticanum, has given an in-depth interview examining some of its most contested ecclesial questions. The Bishop discusses his statements on the SSPX, the continuing debate over the traditional Roman Rite and Pope Leo XIV’s General Audience catechesis series, including the recent instalment on Sacrosanctum Concilium.
AV: Your Excellency, in the statement published after the 1 July consecrations at Écône, you framed the Society’s act as a “rare dilemma”: either preserve the unambiguous integrity of the Catholic faith as the Magisterium taught it through the ages, or remain canonically recognised by the Pope. You compared that dilemma to St Athanasius under Pope Liberius. How far do you intend that analogy to go? Are you saying the present penalties against the consecrating and consecrated bishops stand in the same moral line as Liberius’s censure of Athanasius, or is the comparison only illustrative?
+AS: Well, no comparison is 100 per cent exact. In difficult historical situations, it is more illustrative. Of course, I did not make the comparison with Athanasius regarding the act of consecration itself. That would be wrong, and some authors wrote that I had. I never said that Athanasius made episcopal consecrations without papal mandate. That would be anachronistic because, at that time, there was no papal mandate for episcopal consecrations. Every metropolitan bishop had the right to choose and consecrate bishops with the help of the other suffragan bishops.
In any case, it was not because of consecrations that Athanasius was excommunicated, but for an even more serious matter. In both cases, the point of comparison was not the consecrations themselves. The comparison was that, in both cases, there was an act of disobedience to a concrete order of a Pope.
In the case of the Society, it is the episcopal consecrations without papal mandate. In the case of Athanasius, it was the order of the Pope that he enter into ecclesiastical communion with heretical or semi-heretical bishops in the East. Athanasius refused to obey. He refused obedience to the Pope on a very important issue because the Pope said, in effect: “I, as Pope, am in communion with these bishops. How can you,
Athanasius, refuse communion with a group of bishops with whom I, as Pope, am in communion?” And this is, I think, ecclesiastically more serious.
The situation of Athanasius at that time was, in that respect, more serious than the material disobedience of the Society of Saint Pius X regarding the consecrations. In any case, he was excommunicated for disobedience and for causing trouble in the Church by refusing communion with bishops recognised by the Pope.
There are other reasons I chose to use Athanasius as a comparison. One is that his actions were an act of disobedience. If Athanasius had obeyed the Pope, he would have compromised his conscience and the integrity of the faith because he would, in some way, have recognised at least semi-heretical bishops. This he could not do. Another is that, having been excommunicated, he disregarded the excommunication of the Pope and continued to govern his diocese. That is more than simply ordaining a bishop. He exercised, as an excommunicated bishop, full jurisdiction over his diocese and even his metropolitan sees — not merely celebrating the sacraments, but exercising full ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He simply disregarded the excommunication of a Pope.
In a similar way, the Society of Saint Pius X is also disregarding the excommunication which was, in July, imposed upon them because they consider it unjust and invalid, since it would impede them from continuing their work out of love for the Church. And it was the same with Athanasius: when he disregarded the excommunication of Pope Liberius, he said, in effect, “I must continue to govern my diocese and my metropolitan structure there in Egypt for the sake — for the love — of the Church.” So, in that respect, this was similar.
And in both cases there is another element of comparison. The Society of Saint Pius X has not reacted with bitterness over the excommunication, but continues to pray for the Pope and to consider him their father. Even when a father is beating his son, they continue — even while being beaten by the Pope — to love him and to do their work out of love for the Holy See and for the entire Church. This is the intention. Saint Athanasius was also beaten by Pope Liberius, and he did not react with any bitterness. Saint Athanasius, even in one of his writings, mentioned this weakness of Liberius very tactfully. He mentioned it very carefully, without judging him, and even in some way excusing him because, as Saint Athanasius wrote, he acted under pressure. We see a very delicate attitude. These were the elements of comparison — not 100 per cent, but in some respects they can be used. This was, I would say, the nucleus of my text.
AV: You wrote that if the Holy See took the SSPX stance seriously and acknowledged “objective ambiguities” in certain statements of Vatican II and in the rite of the New Mass, it would mark “the beginning of the end for the modernist project within the Church”. What would that acknowledgement have to contain in order to be more than a polite formula? And do you see any sign, under Pope Leo XIV, that Rome is willing to name those ambiguities as ambiguities?
+AS: To the contrary. The statement of Cardinal Fernández in February, after the meeting with F Pagliarani, stressed again that the Second Vatican Council is not to be discussed, and he said the texts of Vatican II cannot be corrected. Even though they are formally not definitive teachings — as Paul VI declared in January 1966 — the texts of Vatican II are not infallible teachings and are not definitive teachings of the Church. I mean the Council’s own teaching. Of course, when the Council quoted dogmas — and it quoted many dogmas of the Church — those remain dogmas. That is not the question. The question is the Council’s own teachings.
So, when these texts are not definitive, not ex cathedra, why can they not be amended or improved, or even corrected? There were cases in Church history. At the Council of Florence, there were doctrinal statements — not strictly disciplinary — that were not meant to be infallible. One was the statement of Florence that the matter (materia) of the sacrament of ordination is the handing over of the chalices, the instruments, and not the laying on of hands, the imposition of hands.
But that was contrary to the long tradition of the Church because, throughout the entire first millennium, in East and West, they did not yet have the handing over of instruments. That came only later, perhaps at the end of the first millennium. For a long time, the Church used only the imposition of hands. And then, at the time of Florence, almost half of the Church — the Eastern Churches — still used only the imposition of hands. And this is the one Church with one sacrament. Therefore, it was strange to some theologians that the Council made this statement. It was not balanced. It was objectively an error. But the Holy See at that time was quite tolerant and did not forbid theologians from discussing it, or even raising objections to this formulation.
Century after century, the majority of theologians held that the matter is only the imposition of hands. It matured, it became ripe, and then Pope Pius XII, in a solemn document, stated definitively that the matter is only — he stressed only — the imposition of hands. So, formally, he corrected an ecumenical council regarding doctrine.
The Holy See was more tolerant in those centuries than today. Today, the Holy See is forbidding discussion and corrections or modifications of some pastoral-doctrinal statements — religious freedom, ecumenism, collegiality: these two or three points which are pertinent to the Society of Saint Pius X. You must simply accept them; make some intellectual efforts, some mental gymnastics, and then it is all okay. It is not
honest.
The next point: the same Council stated that any unbaptised person, infant or adult, who dies still unbaptised goes straightaway to hell. Such a statement is very unbalanced. Later, theologians felt that something was lacking here; it was not so correct. The Church allowed discussion until the nineteenth century. Pius IX issued two documents, encyclicals, in which he treated this question and corrected the doctrinal statement of Florence, saying that when unbaptised people die in so-called invincible ignorance, they could be saved by ways which God alone knows.
So you see, we already have some examples. Why not be more tolerant and say: “All right, let us discuss; these three points may be more important; let us give freedom to discuss”? Why not propose amendments, even modifications or corrections, so that these texts will no longer be ambiguous?
Another case in history was Pope Honorius I in the seventh century. He wrote two letters, which belong to his authentic pontifical magisterium, to the Patriarch of Constantinople regarding Christology. These letters of the Pope were so unclear, so ambiguous. They were not directly heretical, not directly erroneous, but quite ambiguous. Those two ambiguous letters gave the heretical patriarch in Constantinople and in the East the incentive to continue spreading heresy there. They were citing Pope Honorius and spreading heresy.
The immediate successor of Honorius — because the first successor was there for only a few months — was John IV. He tried to save the situation and defend Honorius, and to do what we today would call the hermeneutic of continuity. But then the following successors of Honorius in the same century, and the Third Council of Constantinople, did not accept the hermeneutic of John IV. They said, “No, your explanation is not acceptable” — not because this was heresy, but because it lacked clarity; it was ambiguous. And because of this, they condemned him solemnly. And the Pope, Saint Leo II, who confirmed the ecumenical council, also condemned his predecessor because of ambiguity.
Therefore, we cannot continue with ambiguous texts of Vatican II. We must correct them so that they will be crystal clear regarding ecumenism and religious liberty, without any incentive for ambiguous interpretations — which have already taken place over these six decades, these sixty years. We now have the fruits of these ambiguous texts in a wrong ecumenism, in a wrong religious-dialogue system, which is basically relativism, undermining the only truth and the only true religion, which is the Catholic Church founded by God. And this is completely undermined.
When you go to the seminaries and theological faculties of these past sixty years, when you speak to them now and ask them, the majority of priests and seminarians in the so-called Novus Ordo, in the current theological faculties in the Catholic Church, will say: “Yes, the different Christian communities are all going the same way to God, to Christ, and we can coexist with each other. It is not strictly necessary to convert.” And this is even extended to non-Christians. This is ever more widespread and taught in the faculties and preached by priests and even bishops.
AV: Your Excellency, you described the Écône consecrations as a choice between keeping the Faith clear and being recognised by the Pope, because Rome would require the SSPX to accept certain new ambiguities and the legitimacy of the New Mass. You yourself are a bishop in full communion, and you have long pointed to those same problems. Have you accepted those conditions? If not, why is it a dilemma only for the Society?
+AS: Well, when I became a bishop, I was not yet fully aware of this. I must be honest. Now I have been a bishop for twenty years. I am a scholar of patristics. I have been studying the situation ever more deeply: the texts of the Council, the history of the Council, the debates. I have been reading the Council carefully. And so I have a greater awareness of the ambiguity of these texts. We cannot accept such ambiguities.
Then also the Novus Ordo: increasingly, by studying the texts and testimonies, I have become aware that it is not correct. We cannot say that the Novus Ordo — its correctness or legitimacy, in other words — need not be corrected. We cannot continue with such an ambiguous liturgical rite, which is undermining the clarity of the sacrificial character of the Mass. Now I am more aware. And therefore I can better understand the Society, which is not able to subscribe to these statements of the Council and to the goodness or correctness of the New Mass.
I was one of the apostolic visitors of the Society ten years ago, and I am aware of this. And one of the last documents, even in 2017, Cardinal Müller presented to them. I have the text, asking them to recognise not only the validity of the New Mass and the new sacraments, which they are ready to recognise. Imagine: already the Holy See must be content with this. I spoke then, in my time, to the Holy See: “Please be content when they are ready to recognise the validity.” But the Holy See was not content with this. They proceeded with a maximalist approach and wanted more from the Society. I said to them, “Please take the minimalist approach, for pastoral and historical reasons.”
The Society did not accept the proposal that they must recognise the goodness, the legitimacy, the correctness of the Mass — not only its validity. And then also that, globally speaking, the teachings of Vatican II are part of the tradition of the Church.
In February of this year, Cardinal Fernández again made the requirements clear. When you want to have bishops, you must accept these conditions. We must have theological debates, but already the Society knows the result of the debate, and the Holy See does also: to accept these ambiguous statements, to accept the goodness of the New Mass.
AV: The last question concerning the Society: if you had the chance to meet with His Holiness again and to meet with Cardinal Fernández in the Holy Office, what would you say to them? How would you present the Society’s case to them?
+AS: I would say to them: “Do not commit a great historical error, so that the Church will not have to repent after your death — so that the next pontiffs will not have to repent.” Why? Because at this time, in 2026, the Church was so rigid and not capable of resolving a pastoral problem — of course, with some doctrinal elements, but it is not a question of discussing a dogma of faith directly. It is more about the pastoral explanations of the Council.
We need to have a very magnanimous, a truly pastoral, even synodal approach and solution to this: a little more openness and synodal spirit. We should say: “Yes, we grant them this now,” and then allow the bishops to be ordained — or recognise the bishops after they have been ordained — for the sake of creating a climate of mutual trust.
Since the Holy See is stronger, those who are stronger must have more openness than those who are weaker, who do not have so much power. So, the powerful facing the powerless. The Society is, canonically speaking, powerless. The Holy See is powerful. All the power is there. Now, why not, you who are powerful, incline yourself a little, make a pastoral concession, and then create this climate of mutual trust, a psychological climate? Integrate them a little into the normal life of the Church, and then we will have more positive and fruitful elements and a framework in which to conduct the discussions which are necessary.
But that can take time. It can take a long time. The Church has always given time and shown tolerance in discussing certain issues for many, many years. First, integrate them a little.
I would say to the Holy Father: “You are the only one who can resolve this, with great fatherly charity and magnanimity.”
AV: On 26 August, Pope Leo XIV closed his Wednesday series on Sacrosanctum Concilium. He presented the post-conciliar reform as rooted in living tradition and aimed at conscious, active participation rather than “silent spectators”. You have spoken of “doctrinal and ritual vagueness” in the New Mass and a rupture with the traditional Roman Rite. What did you hear in that final catechesis? Can the Novus Ordo, as commonly celebrated, be reconciled with what the Council actually asked, or only with a later spirit of reform that went beyond the text?
+AS: It did not grasp the true reality of what the Novus Ordo is and how it is overwhelmingly celebrated all over the world. It is simply not stating, not accepting, not seeing the reality. It is more a theoretical speech which does not correspond with the praxis as it actually is.
The Novus Ordo as it is does not correspond to the intention of the Church Fathers, of the Council Fathers. This the Pope must recognise, because we have so many witnesses from those days. First, Cardinal Ratzinger, Professor Ratzinger. He wrote a famous letter to Professor Waldstein in ’76 and stated that — because Ratzinger participated in all the discussions in the Council as a so-called peritus; he was present — “From my participation and presence in the debates on liturgy during the Council, I can say with certainty that the Novus Ordo as we have it is not what the Council Fathers meant.” This is a very important testimony, with weight.
Then we have the testimony of Cardinal Antonelli, who participated in the Council and then in the so-called Bugnini Commission. And in his memoirs, Cardinal Antonelli criticises the work of Bugnini on the Novus Ordo, which went beyond what the Council wanted.
Then, the famous liturgist and theologian Louis Bouyer. He was also a member of the Council as a peritus and then of the Bugnini Commission. And in his memoirs he criticises very much the ideological work of Bugnini with the Novus Ordo. Then there is the recent book by Archimandrite Boniface Luykx, A Wider View of Vatican II, where he very substantially demonstrated, from his own participation in the Council and in the committee, that the Mass of Paul VI really does not correspond to the intentions of the Council Fathers.
These are facts. We cannot deny them. It seemed to me simply to close one’s eyes and continue to repeat rhetorical phrases, which in themselves can be true, I mean, but which do not correspond to reality and to history.
Then another aspect: I would very much recommend even to the Holy Father and to his counsellors that they carefully read the entire debates of the Council regarding the liturgy. There is a book published many years ago in Rome with all the debates of the Council Fathers regarding the liturgy. I read it twice, but it is in Latin. And it is revealing. When you read this, you say, “Oh, the Council Fathers were so hesitant, so careful regarding any drastic changes.” The entire debate was basically around the language, the vernacular or Latin.
But even in Sacrosanctum Concilium — and I am surprised that Pope Leo did not realise it — there are two numbers which say that the Latin language must be conserved: not only could be, but must be conserved in the Latin rite. It is a “must be”. Another number says the bishops must ensure that the faithful are able to know the Ordinarium of the Mass in Latin. That means Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Agnus Dei, Sanctus.
And this is basically, in more than 90 per cent of the Novus Ordo reality, not applied at all. So this is contrary to an explicit mandate of the Council, which the Holy Father should also consider when speaking of this.
And then we have, for example, during the Council, during the debate on the liturgy, one bishop who stood up and said, “I am not proposing this; I am against these proposals to widen the vernacular language, because if we widen them,” this Council Father said, “then, in time, the Mass will be celebrated entirely in the vernacular language.” And then almost the entire Council started to laugh, because this was not possible.
And then the committee president stood up and said, “Your Excellency, we assure you this is not possible. It will never happen that the entire Mass will be celebrated in the vernacular.” You see the psychological atmosphere during the Council: the majority of the Council Fathers did not imagine that the Mass could be entirely in the vernacular.
But today, more than 90 per cent of Novus Ordo Masses are in the vernacular. And there are even dioceses where, when priests want to celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin, they are punished and forbidden. This is an absurdity.
There are people who really want to be silent during Mass, to contemplate interiorly. Contemplation is also possible during Mass. Of course, it is not that the entire community is mute and not speaking. This is not the ideal. The ideal is that they answer the priest. But we also have to be open to the possibility of people who prefer to contemplate.
There can also be active participation which is fruitless because there is no interior participation at all.
And then another aspect: the first Missal, according to the norms of Sacrosanctum Concilium, was published by the Holy See in ’65. We should not forget the ’65 Missal, which was already the first liturgical reform of Vatican II. It was not ’69. It was at the beginning of ’65.
And then, when the Council Fathers came back for their last session in September ’65, they already celebrated the reformed Mass. And they were all happy and said, “Oh, this is what we meant, really.” And what was the ’65? It was basically a very careful, organic reform, as the Council demanded, so that the entire traditional Mass was kept, with only two modifications: Psalm 42 was removed and the Last Gospel was removed. But, for example, in the old rite, Psalm 42 was also omitted in every Requiem Mass for the deceased. And in the last two weeks before Easter, in Passiontide, Psalm 42 was also omitted. So it was not a novelty.
And what was the huge visible reform in ’65? It was, as the Council Fathers proposed, a larger, wider use of the vernacular. So the first part of the Mass, until the Preface, was in the vernacular. And after the Canon, again in the vernacular. So from the Preface until the end of the Canon, it was all in Latin. It was obligatory that these parts were in Latin.
In the Mass of ’65, the Canon was in silence. It was a very careful reform, and the Council Fathers were happy with this. And then, in ’67, at the first Synod of Bishops, Bugnini presented the draft of the new Mass which would come in ’69. He already had it in ’67, but the majority of the Synod Fathers in ’67 rejected this draft.
So you see: a majority of the Synod Fathers in ’67, who had still been Council Fathers two years before, did not approve the ’69 Mass.
I would have desired that Pope Leo had studied this before he made his speech on this: to study all these elements of history and facts, to read the debates and to listen to the witnesses.
EXCLUSIVE: Bishop Schneider calls for ‘fatherly …
