Bishop Athanasius Schneider sent a letter to Pope Leo making an appeal to him about the announcement of the SSPX that they will consecrate bishops. It is at Diane Montagna’s Substack.
In my opinion, the letter is a bit too long, at 3200 words. When you write something to someone who is incredibly busy you want to maximize the chance that he will read the whole thing. But, hey. At the end, however, there is a short and direct appeal which is quite compelling.
To help you with the letter, and at least get the main points out there, here is a precis.
Bishop Schneider argues that the intense global reaction to this announcement exposes a long-standing ecclesial wound. The debate often devolves to juridical positivism, treating papal consent for episcopal consecration as if it were a matter of divine law and equating disobedience automatically with schism. In doing so, critics overlook both patristic precedent and the Church’s historical canonical practice.
Schneider challenges what he calls “quasi-dogmas”, namely, the claim that papal authorization for episcopal consecration is required by divine right and that consecration without it constitutes schism per se. In the first millennium bishops were typically elected and consecrated locally, with no formal papal mandate required. Even the 1917 Code of Canon Law punished episcopal consecration against papal will with suspension, not excommunication, indicating that the Church did not consider such acts inherently schismatic.
He distinguishes between the dogma of papal primacy and historically contingent modes of exercising hierarchical communion. Acceptance of the Pope, adherence to definitive magisterial teaching, and sacramental validity pertain to divine law; concrete disciplinary mechanisms do not. He cites St. Athanasius’ resistance to Pope Liberius amid Arian crisis and Cardinal Iosif Slipyj’s unauthorized consecrations during Vatican Ostpolitik as historical precedents demonstrating that extraordinary circumstances may justify irregular actions without constituting schism.
Schneider uses the metaphor of a burning house to describe the current ecclesial crisis. Doctrinal and liturgical ambiguities following Vatican II constitute a smoldering fire. Those who resist certain reforms, particularly in liturgy, are treated as disobedient firefighters even while attempting to preserve the Church’s patrimony. Either the fire chief is denying the seriousness of the fire or the fire chief wants large parts of the house burn so that it can be rebuilt according to a new design.
The crisis surrounding the SSPX reveals deeper tensions tied to ambiguous conciliar formulations (ecclesial cancer) and subsequent theological developments. He cites commentary arguing that Vatican II’s pastoral tone and lack of doctrinal precision generated confusion. The issue, he suggests, is ambiguity rather than formal heresy. The SSPX, in his assessment, seeks clarification and continuity with the Church’s perennial teaching. He portrays the Society as motivated by love for the Church, the papacy, and souls, not by schismatic intent. Quotations from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre are offered to demonstrate fidelity to papal primacy and sorrow over conflict with Rome.
The Holy See has shown generosity toward the Communist Party of China, allowing them to select candidates for bishops, yet the SSPX are treated as second-class citizens.
Schneider questions why the Tridentine and Vatican II Professio fidei, once universally sufficient as a profession of Catholic faith, is no longer accepted as adequate for ecclesial communion in the SSPX’s case. If Vatican II did not issue definitive dogmatic definitions, and if the faith of the Church remains unchanged, he asks why adherence to the prior profession should be considered insufficient. He contrasts Rome’s ecumenical language regarding shared faith with non-Catholic Christians with its stricter stance toward the SSPX.
He urges provisional pastoral measures, including granting the Apostolic Mandate for episcopal consecrations, to stabilize the Society’s sacramental life and facilitate calm doctrinal dialogue. Such measures, he argues, would not compromise doctrine but would reflect pastoral charity. Citing Benedict XVI, he warns that historical failures to pursue reconciliation have hardened divisions.
Schneider concludes by directly imploring Pope Leo XIV to act as a true bridge-builder. Granting the mandate would integrate two generations of faithful attached to the SSPX, prevent unnecessary rupture, and demonstrate magnanimity consistent with the Petrine office. The appeal frames the moment as providential: a decision for generosity and unity could heal a sixty-year wound without loss to the Church’s doctrinal integrity.
Here is the last part of the letter to Pope Leo:
With sincere concern for the unity of the Church and the spiritual good of so many souls, I appeal with reverent and fraternal charity to our Holy Father Pope Leo XIV:
Most Holy Father, grant the Apostolic Mandate for the episcopal consecrations of the SSPX. You are also the father of your numerous sons and daughters—two generations of the faithful who have, for now, been cared for by the SSPX, who love the Pope, and who wish to be true sons and daughters of the Roman Church. Therefore, stand aside from the partisanship of others and, with a great paternal and truly Augustinian spirit, demonstrate that you are building bridges, as you promised to do before the whole world when you gave your first blessing after your election. Do not go down in the history of the Church as one who failed to build this bridge—a bridge that could be constructed at this truly Providential moment with generous will—and who instead allowed a truly unnecessary and painful further division within the Church, while at the same time synodal processes that boast of the greatest possible pastoral breadth and ecclesial inclusivity were taking place. As your Holiness recently stressed: “Let us commit ourselves to further developing ecumenical synodal practices and to sharing with one another who we are, what we do and what we teach (cf. Francis, For a Synodal Church, 24 November 2024)” (Homily of Pope Leo XIV, Ecumenical Vespers for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, January 25, 2026).
Most Holy Father, if you grant the Apostolic Mandate for the episcopal consecrations of the SSPX, the Church in our day will lose nothing. You will be a true bridge-builder, and even more, an exemplary bridge-builder, for you are the Supreme Pontiff, Summus Pontifex.
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
24 February 2026
Loading ...
The doctrinal offer that ought to be made to the SSPX: “on any point of doctrine found in the documents of Vatican 2, from which false interpretations have arisen, the true interpretation is to be found in conformity with the footnotes, and the Society can preach against any doctrines contrary to what is taught in the footnotes.”
If both sides are coming to the table in good faith I don’t see how there would be an issue that warrants canonical irregularity.
Among all the commentary and communiques out there, Bishop Schneider nailed it! Boom!
I read Fr. Raymond de Souza’s piece at the NC Register, which he ends thus:
“The more traditional approach would be to declare the excommunications and make clear that the SSPX is in schism, given that is what is wrought by repeated schismatic acts. Further, in the traditional course of things, the Holy See would clarify that the SSPX’s sacramental acts are illegitimate and therefore should be avoided by the faithful. Perhaps canonical penalties might achieve what pastoral concessions did not. The Holy See has not chosen that path, with eminent goodwill, for decades. The SSPX, in choosing the path of excommunication again, may be inviting the Holy See to try the traditional path with them now.”
I won’t comment on the article in its entirety, or his logic about the SSPX and whether they are in schism. But I am intrigued by his suggestion that the Vatican and recent popes have been pursuing a “have-it-both-ways” approach with the SSPX that doesn’t really benefit anyone.
If the Vatican is not willing to formally excommunicate the SSPX (or at least certain bishops, etc.), then why not simply grant their request to consecrate the bishops and move on? Or if they are adamant against the consecrations and at an impasse, excommunicate them and declare them to be in schism? What is the point of the current situation in which the status of the society is simply left muddled and unclear?
Thank you for this summary. Regarding Chinese bishops, was it you Fr. Z who pointed out a while ago that the harsher assessment of “schism” for unapproved consecrations was in fact a novelty of Pope St. John XXIII’s, specifically leveled for good reasons against the Chinese Patriotic church in the ’60s?
Bishop Schneider it the fusion of supernatural and common sense.
Last night we watched Bishop Sheen talk called DEVIL.
I would encourage everyone to watch. It was after Vatican II.
It clearly shows what is happening with SSPX and Rome.
Bishop Schneider has nailed it again. He has true understanding of the Faith, logic and knowledge of the situation, and charity. God bless him for speaking clarity and truth.
I agree with Luke Welborn. Archbishop Lefebvre signed up to all the documents of VII, but not of course to all the subsequent interpretations.
He was very enthusiastic about the 1965 Missal, but eventually failed to persuade the General Chapter. If the General Chapter would not accept what Luke Welborn proposes then I think ‘case closed’ SSPX as a body would have shown themselves clearly to be schismatic.