Conservative favourite Bishop Athanasius Schneider launched a barrage of caricatures at ‘sedevacantism’ in a recent Ad Vaticanum interview. Here is the reply Ad Vaticanum declined to run.
(WM Round-Up) – Integrity Magazine has just published my reply to Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s recent comments on ‘sedevacantism’. Here are the introductory comments, along with a link to the article.
Preface for the Integrity version
On October 29, 2026, Bishop Athanasius Schneider – auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakshstan, and favorite of conservatives and would-be traditionalists – gave a wide-ranging interview to Ad Vaticanum’s Niwa Limbu.
In the course of this interview, Limbu asked the bishop to explain why “sedevacantism” is wrong.
“Sedevacantism” is the conclusion that the Holy See has been vacant (or at least only “materially” occupied) since the Second Vatican Council.1 It is, as we all know, a popular topic for conservatives and would-be traditionalists to attack. Such attacks allow such persons to signal that they are not going “too far” in their comments or analysis of the present crisis in the Church.
There is an extent to which this tactic recalls Our Lord’s Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican:
“O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as is this sedevacantist.”
We are all used to this by now. But even if such a tactic were justified, the Eighth Commandment prohibits the bearing of false witness. This means, among other things, that we must be fair and accurate in how we represent others – including our opponents, and even “sedevacantists.”
Unfortunately, Bishop Schneider’s answer was indeed full of caricatures, misconceptions and exaggerations – to the point of objectively containing falsehoods.
Right of reply
In addition, to requiring the just representation of others, the Eighth Commandment also imposes a duty of rectifying mistakes which harm the reputations of others – and even of offering restitution, where loss has been sustained. Even secular outlets recognise these duties. This is why it is standard journalistic practice to offer a “right of reply” to those who are the subject of significant criticism.2
Imputations of doctrinal error certainly constitute significant criticism, for there can be few things more harmful to a man’s reputation than this.
For these reasons, on November 2, 2026, I informed Ad Vaticanum that Bishop Schneider’s comments were inaccurate and unjust, and requested a “right of reply.”
The editor, Mr Thomas Edwards, agreed to consider such a submission, provided that what I wrote was not an “apologetic piece for sedevacantism.”
Striving to respect that condition as much as possible (by focusing on setting the record straight, rather than making a positive case for “sedevacantism”), I submitted my response on November 5, 2026.
Despite a few attempts at further contact, I did not receive any further response from Mr Edwards.
Although Ad Vaticanum did not itself impute doctrinal error to “sedevacantists,” it is regrettable that it has chosen to allow Bishop Schneider to do so without discharging the duties of both justice and charity which I have discussed in this preface.
I am grateful to Integrity Magazine for agreeing to publish the article instead. You will find it at the link below:
Postscript
Mr Alexander Petersen, of both Integrity Magazine and The Journal of American Reform, had the following to say about the article:
“One hopes that Bishop Schneider will consider this respectful reply seriously.”
Indeed, one hopes so. However, The WM Review has a track record of publishing such “respectful replies” which have the effect of silencing our opponents, rather than prompting a response – whether that be agreement, refutation, or acknowledgement that we had a point. Personally, I think that this is a shame.
For more examples of such “respectful replies”, see below:
Archbishop Viganò and the Seat of St. Peter: A respectful reply (30 September 2026)
Setting the record straight with Avoiding Babylon (26 September 2025)
Rex Mottram theology: Andrew Likoudis, anti-intellectualism and Pope Susan (29 July 2025)
Questions about Pope Honorius – a reply to Prof. Edward Feser, Part I of II
Questions about Pope Honorius – a reply to Prof. Edward Feser, Part II of II
Prof. de Mattei’s defence of Francis’ legitimacy fails—here’s why (26 September 2024)
‘A Failure to Achieve the Impossible’: Critiquing Prof. Thomas Pink’s explanation of religious liberty (29 December 2023)
Our most significant reply of this kind has been the engagement with Fr Thomas Crean’s article “A City Set on a Hill Cannot Be Hidden: The Perpetual Visibility of the Catholic Church Under the Pope”, presented by Peter Kwasniewski as a “definitive rebuttal” of “sedevacantism”
‘Radically insufficient’ – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church’s visibility
‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church
‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy
The main “response” to these articles (if one can even call it that) is discussed here:
However, we may have reason to believe that a more substantial reply may be forthcoming. If this is correct, we hope that Fr Crean will engage with the substance of the arguments, rather than seeking to explain the arguments away. We can say, with confidence, that any attempt at the latter will be recognisable as such.
Here, again, is the response to Bishop Schneider:
Appendix: Bishop Schneider’s Comments
For the sake of completeness, here is precisely what Bishop Schneider said in the interview.
In the article published, I chose not to draw attention to Bishop Schneider’s final comments expressing a wish for the “peaceful coexistence” of the traditional Roman liturgy and the Novus Ordo rites. This was in the interests of focusing on the topic at hand, and abiding by the parameters set by Ad Vaticanum.
Nonetheless, they should indicate to readers Bishop Schneider’s own alignment on this important question.
Q. Your Excellency, this might sound like a basic question. But why is sedevacantism wrong? And more broadly, when does disobeying any legitimate ecclesiastical figure go too far? And when is it not only permissible but necessary to refuse obedience?
A. Well, sedevacantism is in itself something completely wrong, because the deepest theological error of sedevacantism is that they absolutise the papal authority – in the sense that the pope is always infallible, almost twenty-four hours [a day], and every word of the Holy See must be infallible. And therefore the approval by the pope of some ambiguous statements of Vatican II, and later, is, for the sedevacantist, a proof that this cannot be a pope, and therefore the Holy See is vacant. But it is a wrong theological starting point, because infallibility is very rare, and [requires] a very close, very limited, narrow interpretation – not a broad interpretation of infallibility. This is Catholic doctrine; this is Catholic tradition. This is the basic error.
The second: to assume that the Church has had no visible head for already sixty or seventy years is also an error. It is close to the Protestants, who say that the Church has no visible head but Christ only, the invisible head. And so it is coming close to the Protestant understanding of only the invisible head of the Church only.
And then there is a lack of church history. They do not study honestly church history. There were cases of popes who were condemned because of errors – not heresies, but errors or ambiguities in doctrine – like Honorius, Liberius, John XXII, and so on. And this happens: rarely, but this happens. And then also to believe that the Church is guided by Christ, even through unworthy popes, as has happened in church history, and in some ambiguous situations – which in our time is only a temporal situation. And Christ will, again, resolve it.
We also have to have a correct understanding of what is obedience. Absolute obedience is only possible towards God. It would be an error – even a heresy – to proclaim absolute obedience towards a human being. And the pope is human; he is not God. And therefore St Paul disobeyed Peter in some way – even publicly resisted him – when the first pope started to do ambiguity in Antioch regarding the Jewish Christians and the Christians who came from the pagans, causing confusion in the Church at that time. Peter, the rock – and Paul opposed him and said: “I cannot obey you, Peter, here. I must disobey you. I must resist you.” And he resisted him publicly, not privately. It was a public and bold correction – fraternal, but bold – to Peter. And Peter was so humble that he accepted this correction. This is beautiful.
And St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas explained why the Holy Spirit permitted this incident in Antioch to be written down in the Epistle to the Galatians. It is inspired by God, these words, by the Holy Spirit. These saints – Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas – said it was permitted by the Holy Spirit for all generations: that there can be occasions when the clarity of faith is in danger; that those who are subject in the Church have the right, and even the duty, to admonish the superiors in the Church – even the highest superior in the Church, in this case Peter and all his successors. Out of love for the Church, out of love for the dignity of the papal ministry. And the dignity of the papal ministry does not allow ambiguity – never.
And then, therefore, when some bishops are faithful, reverently of course, say some admonitions to the pope, the pope should accept them with humility and as a help. This is what I mean. But usually we have to obey, of course, those commands which are promoting the faith, or in simply disciplinary matters – even when they are unjust, we must accept this. When the pope will depose me, I will accept it without any problems, because it’s not my… I am not important in the Church at all. But when the faith is undermined, when the sacredness of the liturgy, then I must speak – with love and reverence, and love for the pope. And if he will punish me for this, I will accept it and be happy to be punished also, for the sake of love for the Church.
I think this should be the true attitude of true obedience. And may the Lord help the Church in our day, through the prayers of the little ones, of the youth – and may the Holy Father be strengthened himself, and may he recognise and have the light of God to see the true state of the Church, the necessity, the emergency of the state of the Church, and to strengthen again the entire Church with a bold, solemn, crystal-clear profession of faith, and grant to the Church the liturgical peace – the peaceful coexistence of the old form and the new form. This will bring a great benefit for all in the Church.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Read Next:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)
Author’s Note: For reasons discussed elsewhere, the terms “sedevacantism” and “sedevacantist” are not universally accepted by those who hold the See to be vacant.
Cf., for example, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on the matter here: https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/right-of-reply
AdVaticanum is explicitly a ‘recognize-and-resist' pro-SSPX publication which has publicly strawmanned and derided the sedevacantist position (which is typical and par-for-the-course for many of such inclination).
I’ve unfollowed/unsubscribed from after the July 1 consecrations.
At what point must we begin to ask whether Bishop Schneider knows perfectly well that what he is saying is untrue, yet persists in saying it anyway?
Schneider is no uninstructed layman. He is a bishop, a published theologian, and a man thoroughly acquainted with the controversies surrounding Vatican II. Yet he repeatedly attributes to sedevacantists positions they explicitly reject, substitutes caricatures for their actual theological arguments, and then has the audacity to accuse them of dishonesty in their study of Church history.
What makes this particularly damning is that Schneider himself has acknowledged doctrinal errors in Vatican II, only to reduce the sedevacantist objection to a dispute over mere ambiguities when it suits his polemical purposes.
There comes a point when persistent misrepresentation by a man of such learning and ecclesiastical standing can no longer be comfortably excused as innocent ignorance. Whether Schneider knowingly asserts what he understands to be false is ultimately a question of conscience. But his repeated failure to represent his opponents accurately raises that question with increasing urgency.
A bishop who publicly lectures others on intellectual honesty ought first to demonstrate some of his own.