Bishop Schneider on SSPX regularization

“The traditional liturgy is the liturgy of Vatican II, perhaps with small changes.”  -Bishop Anthanasius Schneider

See more at:

Get AQ Email Updates

18 comments on “Bishop Schneider on SSPX regularization

  1. I couldn’t read it after the quote of Schneider. If this is what the bishops believe and what the Society’s Bishops are coming to believe….. Well, any conclusions I might draw are irrelevant.

  2. …. rubble ….

    …… bounce ……

  3. Oh, and the Edsel is a Ferrari, perhaps with small changes….

  4. Just from an overview perspective: Why would a Council document on the liturgy be necessary if only minor changes were envisioned for the traditional liturgy?

    But from Bishop Fellay’s perspective: Why should he trust Bishop Schneider’s recommendation to accept regularization, when Bishop Schneider’s judgment is clearly compromised in order to defend the documents of Vatican II? Indeed, Sancrosanctum Concilium (being the first major document approved by the Council) seems to have paved the way for documents like Amoris Laetitia, in which contrary opinions are entertained under the cloud of ambiguity. How does Bishop Schneider not recognize this?

  5. Some years back, the SSPX requested the declaration that the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated. I did not then, nor do not think now that this was the precondition that should have been requested. The correct thing was to request Pope Benedict XVI to declare that the Traditional Teaching of Quas Primas/ the Social Reign of Christ the King was never abrogated and that the nonbinding nature of Dignitatis Humani be universally understood. This would have prevented the progressivists to ever have any basis to their arguments. It is only by not accepting Christ as King in both temporal/ and spiritual matters that would have effectively prevented Pope Francis from putting human weakness and humanistic values over doctrinal concerns. The Tridentine Mass is only an outward expression of the Catholic Teaching

    • Very good post, Ghebreyesus. I am always puzzled when traditionalists give worship such elevated importance that it seems to come at the expense of key doctrinal matters. It seems to be an example of putting the cart at least a mile in front of the horses.

      I also am not clear why traditionalists want to stress that the 1962 mass was never abrogated. Not being abrogated does not establish that is was not officially derogated into limited, restricted use in the 1970-2007 period.

      Great point about Quas Primas. But you would never have gotten even Pope Benedict XVI, let alone Pope Francis, to agree to this. Benedict has been a lifelong opponent of the Social Reign of Christ temporal doctrine, and has supported its full deconstruction, as even his relatively recent remarks on the subject in 2012 make plainly clear.

  6. Ghebreyesus,
    Vital though a proper liturgy is, and I am one who believes that as we worship so do we believe, I think you are on the right path by reminding us that there are some fundamental doctrinal issues that must be clarified or, perhaps simply re-stated, to curtail this modernist train wreck.

  7. I might add, having read Bishop Schneider’s comments, that he is in no way defending the Novus Ordo. That quote of his “The traditional liturgy is the liturgy of Vatican II, perhaps with small changes” needs to be understood in context and taken with all his other statements. I would understand him to mean that in fact, the Extraordinary Form is actually the liturgy of Vatican II and that the Novus Ordo is an aberration that came in after Vac II. In other words, he may be saying that Vac II did not directly bring in a new liturgy.

    I am no authority on the actual pronouncements of Vac II, in fact I try to avoid them as much as possible; however did Vac II actually institute or even officially recommend the Novus Ordo, or was that liturgy simply shoved upon us at the same time as the Council?

    • I think you are right, the damage was post VII. Though that is not to deny the two-faced nature of the VII documents.

    • Commendable as Bishop Schneider’s sentiments and remarks are overall, I think he is on shaky ground with this subject.

      The traditional liturgy of 1962 was already in place when the VII liturgical document was issued calling for reform. So it is perfectly rational that that intent of the Pope and council was to depart from the 1962 worship in some meaningful way.

      Further, Pope Pope VI promulgated the Novus Ordo to fulfill the council’s wishes and he, along with JPII, were explicitly clear that the VII liturgical reform was properly fulfilled by the Novus Ordo. To claim that a pope who promulgated a document abysmally failed to properly interpret it and fulfill it would be a very tough mountain to climb. Better, I believe, to keep the focus on the questionable content of the document and general principles of the mass, rather than dwell upon how well the document’s intent was or was not fulfilled.

  8. The new concoction was in the works, going back as far as the 1920s, fidei.

    Most of the offenders were German bishops (BIG surprise, right?)

    Like a flood held back by a dam, only drops of it eeked through fissures in the edifice (Tradition) until the deluge began in earnest prior to the un-council of 62.

    Resistance faded and the worst of all possible worlds took shape during and after the un-council.

    For a deeply detailed analysis by a supremely Thomistic scholar, you will have to wade through the following (in long hand) from the diaries of Msgr. Joseph Cliffor Fenton, STD, the peritus for Cd. Ottaviani prior to and during the early years of the un-council:

  9. Another (lengthy) discussion, in which the radical destruction unleashed against the Liturgy is explained by the shocking toleration for novelty exhibited by Pius XII, through his protégé, Bugnini.

    As Canon Hesse, STD, STL put it, “Pius XII created a shipwreck. Paul VI sank it.”

  10. I sincerely doubt that Cd Burke or Bp Schneider are intimately familiar with any of these scholarly explanations. Were they, their constant references to the un-council and its superstars would not be part of their arguments. From which, I expect, only marginal, temporary results will ensue.

  11. Fr. Hesse’s commentary on Paragraph 1 of Sacrosanctum Concilium:
    “In paragraph 1 it states ‘It is the goal of this most sacred Council…to make more responsive the requirements of our times those Church observances which are open to adaptation; to nurture whatever can contribute to the unity of all who believe in Christ’. This notion is erroneous and has been condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (On Ecumenism). He condemns the false ‘opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not today exist…’ ‘Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love…altogether forbade any discourse with those who profess a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching’; ‘for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one, true Church of Christ’. When we make a profession of faith we say ‘una, sancta, Catolica, Apostolica Ecclesia’ (one, holy Catholic & Apostolic Church). The Church is always in union with itself. Protestants are outside the Church. The Russian Orthodox Church is heretical and schismatic and are outside the Church, and is not our sister church as John Paul II says. We must not change liturgy to achieve union…we have this union!”

  12. The SSPX is all too familiar with the problematic texts of Vatican II, including those found in Sacrosanctum Concilium. For Bishop Schneider to merely dismiss these concerns as insignificant seems to be disingenuous and condescending. It is certainly not a line of reasoning that would seem to engender trust among the members of the SSPX. My opinion is that Bishop Schneider’s flawed reasoning regarding Vatican II flows from his premise that the Novus Ordo is legitimate, albeit fraught with problems.

  13. It is somewhat depressing to realise that the movement to modernism and heresy predates Vac II, and actually by quite a time. We are dealing with a long planned, deeply ingrained attack on the Faith. Let’s pray that the Cardinals and others who are now speaking out will have the strength to see the battle through.

Leave a Reply