Bishop Athanasius Schneider —auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana (Kazakhstan)— has addressed an appeal to Pope Leo XIV following the announcement by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX) that it will proceed with new episcopal consecrations, despite the Vatican warning that this would constitute a “decisive break in ecclesial communion (schism)”.
In the exclusive by Diane Montagna on Substack, the prelate —who was a Vatican visitor to the Fraternity’s seminaries— asks the Holy Father for a gesture of pastoral breadth and unity. He warns that letting this “truly providential moment” pass could consolidate an “unnecessary and painful” division between Rome and the FSSPX.
Below we provide the full text of Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s appeal to Pope Leo XIV:
A fraternal appeal to Pope Leo XIV to build a bridge with the FSSPX
The current situation surrounding the episcopal consecrations in the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX) has suddenly awakened the entire Church. In an extraordinarily short time following the February 2 announcement that the FSSPX will proceed with these consecrations, an intense and often emotionally charged debate has arisen in wide circles of the Catholic world. The range of voices in this debate spans from understanding, benevolence, neutral observation, and common sense to irrational rejection, peremptory condemnation, and even open hatred. Although there is reason for hope —and it is by no means unrealistic— that Pope Leo XIV may effectively approve the episcopal consecrations, drafts of an excommunication bull against the FSSPX are already being proposed on the internet.
The negative reactions, though often well-intentioned, reveal that the core of the problem has not yet been understood with sufficient honesty and clarity. There is a tendency to remain on the surface. Priorities in the life of the Church are inverted, elevating the canonical and juridical dimension —that is, a certain legal positivism— to the supreme criterion. Moreover, there is sometimes a lack of historical awareness regarding the Church’s practice in relation to episcopal ordinations. Thus, disobedience is all too easily equated with schism. The criteria for episcopal communion with the Pope, and consequently the understanding of what truly constitutes a schism, are considered in an excessively unilateral manner if compared to the practice and self-understanding of the Church in the patristic era, the time of the Church Fathers.
In this debate, new quasi-dogmas are being established that do not exist in the Depositum fidei. These quasi-dogmas hold that the Pope’s consent for the consecration of a bishop is of divine right, and that a consecration performed without this consent, or even against a papal prohibition, constitutes a schismatic act in itself. However, the practice and understanding of the Church in the time of the Fathers, and for a long period thereafter, argue against this view. Moreover, there is no unanimity on this question among the recognized theologians of the Church’s bimillennial tradition. Centuries of ecclesial practice, as well as traditional canon law, also oppose such absolutizing claims. According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, an episcopal consecration performed against the Pope’s will was not punished with excommunication, but only with suspension. Thereby, the Church clearly manifested that it did not consider such an act as schismatic.
The acceptance of the papal primacy as revealed truth is often confused with the concrete forms —forms that have evolved throughout history— by which a bishop expresses his hierarchical unity with the Pope. Believing in the Papal Primacy, recognizing the legitimate Pope, adhering with him to everything the Church has taught infallibly and definitively, and observing the validity of the sacramental liturgy, is of divine right. However, a reductive view that equates disobedience to a papal mandate with schism —even in the case of an episcopal consecration performed against his will— was foreign to the Church Fathers and to traditional canon law. For example, in 357, St. Athanasius disobeyed the order of Pope Liberius, who instructed him to enter into hierarchical communion with the overwhelming majority of the episcopate, which was in reality Arian or semi-Arian. As a result, he was excommunicated. In this case, St. Athanasius disobeyed out of love for the Church and for the honor of the Apostolic See, seeking precisely to safeguard the purity of doctrine from any suspicion of ambiguity.
In the first millennium of the Church’s life, episcopal consecrations were generally performed without formal permission from the Pope, and it was not required that candidates be approved by him. The first canonical regulation on episcopal consecrations, issued by an Ecumenical Council, was that of Nicaea in 325, which required that a new bishop be consecrated with the consent of the majority of the bishops of the province. Shortly before his death, during a period of doctrinal confusion, St. Athanasius personally chose and consecrated his successor —St. Peter of Alexandria— to ensure that no unsuitable or weak candidate would assume the episcopate. Similarly, in 1977, the Servant of God Cardinal Iosif Slipyj secretly consecrated three bishops in Rome without the approval of Pope Paul VI, fully aware that the Pope would not permit it due to the Vatican’s Ostpolitik of that time. However, when Rome became aware of these secret consecrations, the penalty of excommunication was not applied.
To avoid misunderstandings, in normal circumstances —and when there is neither doctrinal confusion nor an extraordinary time of persecution—, of course, everything possible should be done to observe the Church’s canonical norms and obey the Pope in his just dispositions, in order to preserve ecclesial unity in a more effective and visible manner.
But the situation in the life of the Church today can be illustrated with the following parable: A fire breaks out in a large house. The fire chief allows only the use of a new firefighting device, although it has proven less effective than the old and tested tools. A group of firefighters disobeys this order and continues using the experienced and proven equipment —and indeed, the fire is contained in many places—. However, these firefighters are labeled as disobedient and schismatic, and are punished.
To extend the metaphor further: the fire chief only allows those who recognize the new equipment, follow the new firefighting rules, and obey the new station regulations to act. But, given the evident magnitude of the fire, the desperate struggle against it, and the inadequacy of the official equipment, other helpers —despite the chief’s prohibition— intervene selflessly with skill, knowledge, and good intention, ultimately contributing to the success of the fire chief’s own efforts.
In the face of such rigid and incomprehensible behavior, two possible explanations present themselves: either the fire chief is denying the gravity of the fire, as in the French comedy Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise!; or, in reality, he wants large parts of the house to burn, in order to rebuild it according to a new design.
The current crisis surrounding the announced —but not yet approved— episcopal consecrations in the FSSPX lays bare, before the eyes of the entire Church, a wound that has been latent for more than sixty years. This wound can be figuratively described as an ecclesial cancer —specifically, the ecclesial cancer of doctrinal and liturgical ambiguities—.
Recently, an excellent article appeared on the Rorate Caeli blog, written with rare theological clarity and intellectual honesty, under the title: “The Long Shadow of Vatican II: Ambiguity as Ecclesial Cancer” (Canon of Shaftesbury: Rorate Caeli, February 10, 2026). The fundamental problem of some ambiguous statements from the Second Vatican Council is that the Council chose to prioritize a pastoral tone over doctrinal precision. One can agree with the author when he states:
“The problem is not that Vatican II was heretical. The problem is that it was ambiguous. And in that ambiguity we have seen the seeds of confusion that have blossomed into some of the most troubling theological developments in the modern history of the Church. When the Church speaks in vague terms, even unintentionally, souls are at stake.”
The author continues:
“When a ‘development’ of doctrine seems to contradict what came before, or when it requires decades of theological gymnastics to reconcile with prior magisterial teaching, we must ask: is this development, or is it rupture disguised as development?” (Canon of Shaftesbury: Rorate Caeli, February 10, 2026).
It can reasonably be assumed that the FSSPX desires nothing more than to help the Church emerge from this ambiguity in doctrine and liturgy and rediscover its perennial salvific clarity —as the Church’s Magisterium, under the guidance of the Popes, has unequivocally done throughout history after every crisis marked by confusion and doctrinal ambiguity—.
In fact, the Holy See should be grateful to the FSSPX, because it is currently almost the only major ecclesial reality that frankly and publicly points out the existence of ambiguous and misleading elements in certain statements of the Council and of the Novus Ordo Missae. In this endeavor, the FSSPX is guided by a sincere love for the Church: if they did not love the Church, the Pope, and souls, they would not undertake this work, nor would they dialogue with Roman authorities —and they would undoubtedly have an easier life—.
The following words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre are deeply moving and reflect the attitude of the current leadership and the majority of the FSSPX members:
“We believe in Peter, we believe in the successor of Peter! But as Pope Pius IX well says in his dogmatic constitution, the Pope has received the Holy Spirit not to make new truths, but to keep us in the faith of all time. This is the definition of the Pope made at the time of the First Vatican Council by Pope Pius IX. And that is why we are convinced that, by maintaining these traditions, we manifest our love, our docility, our obedience to the Successor of Peter. We cannot remain indifferent to the degradation of the faith, of morals, and of the liturgy. That is out of the question! We do not want to separate from the Church; on the contrary, we want the Church to continue!”
If someone considers having difficulties with the Pope to be one of their greatest spiritual sufferings, that in itself is eloquent proof that there is no schismatic intention. True schismatics even boast of their separation from the Apostolic See. True schismatics would never humbly implore the Pope to recognize their bishops.
How profoundly Catholic, then, are the following words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
“We infinitely regret it, it is an immense pain for us, to think that we are in difficulty with Rome because of our faith. How is this possible? It is something that surpasses the imagination, something we could never have imagined or believed, especially in our childhood —when everything was uniform, when the whole Church believed in its general unity and held the same Faith, the same Sacraments, the same sacrifice of the Mass, the same catechism—.”
We must honestly examine the evident ambiguities in matters of religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality, as well as the doctrinal imprecisions of the Novus Ordo Missae. In this regard, it is worthwhile to read the recently published book by Archimandrite Boniface Luykx, a conciliar peritus and recognized liturgical scholar, with its eloquent title A Broader View of Vatican II. Memoirs and Analysis of a Council Consultant.
As G. K. Chesterton once said: “When entering the church, we are asked to take off our hat, not our head.” It would be a tragedy if the FSSPX were completely isolated, and the responsibility for such a division would primarily fall on the Holy See. The Holy See should welcome the FSSPX, offering at least a minimum degree of ecclesial integration, and then continue the doctrinal dialogue. The Holy See has shown remarkable generosity toward the Chinese Communist Party, allowing it to select episcopal candidates; however, its own children, the thousands and thousands of FSSPX faithful, are treated as second-class citizens.
The FSSPX should be allowed to offer a theological contribution aimed at clarifying, complementing, and, if necessary, correcting those statements in the texts of the Second Vatican Council that raise doctrinal doubts and difficulties. It must also be taken into account that, in those texts, the Church’s Magisterium did not intend to pronounce dogmatic definitions endowed with the note of infallibility (cf. Paul VI, General Audience, January 12, 1966).
The FSSPX makes exactly the same Professio fidei that the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council made, known as the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei. If, according to the explicit words of Pope Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council did not present any definitive doctrine, nor did it intend to do so, and if the Church’s faith remains the same before, during, and after the Council, why should the profession of faith that was valid in the Church until 1967 suddenly cease to be considered valid as a sign of authentic Catholic faith?
However, the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei is considered by the Holy See as insufficient for the FSSPX. Would not the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei actually constitute “the minimum” for ecclesial communion? If that is not a minimum, then what, honestly, would qualify as “minimum”? The FSSPX is required, as a conditio sine qua non, to make a Professio fidei by which they must accept the teachings of a pastoral —and not definitive— character from the last Council and the subsequent Magisterium. If this is truly the so-called “minimum requirement,” then Cardinal Víctor Fernández seems to be playing with words.
Pope Leo XIV stated in the ecumenical Vespers of January 25, 2026, concluding the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, that there is already unity between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians because they share the minimum of the Christian faith: “We share the same faith in the one true God, Father of all; we confess together the one Lord and true Son of God, Jesus Christ, and the one Holy Spirit, who inspires us and impels us toward full unity and common witness to the Gospel” (Apostolic Letter In Unitate Fidei, November 23, 2025, 12). He further declared: “We are one! We already are! Let us recognize it, experience it, and make it visible!”
How can this statement be reconciled with the declaration made by representatives of the Holy See and some high prelates that the FSSPX is not doctrinally united to the Church, given that the FSSPX professes the Professio fidei of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council —the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei—?
Further provisional pastoral measures granted to the FSSPX for the spiritual good of so many exemplary Catholic faithful would constitute a profound testimony to the pastoral charity of the Successor of Peter. In this way, Pope Leo XIV would open his paternal heart to those Catholics who, in a certain sense, live on an ecclesial periphery, allowing them to experience that the Apostolic See is truly Mother also for the FSSPX.
The words of Pope Benedict XVI should awaken the conscience of those in the Vatican who will decide on permission for the FSSPX’s episcopal consecrations. He reminds us:
“Looking back to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have torn the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments of its divisions, not enough was done by those responsible for the Church to keep or to gain reconciliation and unity; one has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to consolidate themselves. This gaze to the past imposes upon us an obligation today: to make every effort so that all those who truly desire unity can remain in it or find it again” (Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter motu proprio data Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, July 7, 2007).
“Can we be totally indifferent to a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 institutes of higher education, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters, and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift away from the Church? And should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous, aware of her breadth, aware of the promise made to her?” (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009).[1]
Provisional and minimal pastoral measures for the FSSPX, adopted for the spiritual good of the thousands and thousands of its faithful worldwide —including a pontifical mandate for the episcopal consecrations— would create the necessary conditions to serenely clarify the misunderstandings, questions, and doctrinal doubts arising from certain statements in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent pontifical Magisterium. At the same time, such measures would offer the FSSPX the opportunity to provide a constructive contribution for the good of the entire Church, maintaining a clear distinction between what belongs to divinely revealed faith and doctrine definitively proposed by the Magisterium, and what has a primarily pastoral character in concrete historical circumstances and is therefore open to careful theological study, as has always been the practice throughout the life of the Church.
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 FSSPX. You are also the father of their numerous sons and daughters —two generations of faithful who, for now, have been cared for by the FSSPX, who love the Pope and desire to be true sons and daughters of the Roman Church—. Therefore, set aside the biases of others and, with a great paternal and truly Augustinian spirit, demonstrate that you are building bridges, as you promised to do before the entire world when you gave your first blessing after your election. Do not go down in the history of the Church as the one who failed to build this bridge —a bridge that could be raised in this truly providential moment with generous will— and who instead allowed a truly unnecessary and painful new division within the Church, while at the same time synodal processes were developing that presume the greatest pastoral breadth and maximum ecclesial inclusion. As Your Holiness recently emphasized: “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, November 24, 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 FSSPX, the Church in our time will lose nothing. You will be a true builder of bridges, and even more, an exemplary builder of bridges, for you are the Supreme Pontiff, Summus Pontifex.
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
February 24, 2026
______________
[1] Annual statistics 2026 of the FSSPX: Total members: 1,482; Bishops: 2; Priests (excluding bishops): 733; Seminarians (including those who have not yet made a definitive commitment): 264; Religious brothers: 145; Oblates: 88; Religious sisters: 250; Average age of members: 47 years; Countries served: 77; Districts and Autonomous Houses: 17; Seminaries: 5; Schools: 94 (of which 54 in France).