The Schneider contradiction: Kazakhstan, liturgical relativism, and the unresolved fracture in modern Catholicism
The testimony offered by Bishop Athanasius Schneider regarding the liturgical life of the Church in Kazakhstan has been widely circulated as a model of what the Novus Ordo can be when celebrated reverently. Yet his remarks reveal a deeper and unaddressed tension. A bishop internationally known for defending the Traditional Latin Mass simultaneously declares it “unnecessary” in his own country because the reformed liturgy is celebrated worthily. This peculiar juxtaposition is not merely personal inconsistency; it manifests a structural contradiction at the very heart of postconciliar Catholic conservatism.¹
The Kazakhstan model and its limits
Kazakhstan enjoys a rare liturgical environment. Communion in the hand is formally prohibited by the Bishops’ Conference; Holy Communion is universally received kneeling and on the tongue; altar girls are forbidden; and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are absent altogether. These restored disciplines—entirely legitimate under preconciliar norms—foster a sense of the sacred that much of the Catholic world has lost.² Bishop Schneider himself affirms that the majority of Masses are “very worthy.”³ In such circumstances, he argues, the faithful “do not feel the necessity” of the Traditional Latin Mass.
This argument, however, raises a theological difficulty. If the TLM is objectively the Church’s inherited Roman Rite—formed organically over centuries, embodying the perennial lex orandi, and safeguarding doctrinal clarity—its necessity cannot be suspended by local custom or pastoral satisfaction.⁴ The goodness of Eucharistic reverence in Kazakhstan is beyond doubt, but reverence alone does not remove the ecclesiological and theological questions raised by the postconciliar reform. The issue is not whether the faithful feel deprivation, but whether the Rite they lack is in fact the normative expression of the Roman liturgical tradition.⁵
The bishop’s dilemma: defending two liturgical theologies at once
Bishop Schneider occupies a complex position. On the international stage, he has consistently defended the Traditional Latin Mass, criticised the rupture introduced by the postconciliar reform, and warned of the doctrinal consequences of desacralised worship.⁶ Yet as a diocesan bishop within the postconciliar episcopate, he must also defend the Novus Ordo as legitimate, sufficient, and pastorally complete.⁷ These two roles—traditionalist advocate and conciliar bishop—cannot coexist without tension.
Were he to assert plainly that the Novus Ordo is inherently deficient as a rite, he would place himself in open conflict with the episcopal consensus that treats the post-1970 Missal as the sole normative expression of the Roman Rite.⁸ The result is a mediating formula: the TLM is ideal, but the Novus Ordo can be enough if celebrated reverently. This formula preserves ecclesial standing, but it does so at the cost of theological coherence.
Liturgical relativism: a systemic postconciliar problem
The deeper issue is not personal but structural. Since the Council, the Church has increasingly treated liturgy as a pastoral instrument adaptable to context rather than as a received form of divine worship.⁹ If the Novus Ordo can substitute fully for the Traditional Roman Rite merely by improved execution, then liturgy is judged by aesthetic quality rather than by theological identity. This constitutes a form of liturgical relativism: the objective necessity of the rite is replaced by local sufficiency.
Yet this contradicts the Church’s perennial teaching. The liturgy is not created by bishops or commissions, but received and handed on.¹⁰ Pope Benedict XVI explicitly rejected the idea of liturgical fabrication, warning that the postconciliar reform gave rise to the impression that “liturgy is something we can make.”¹¹ He insisted instead that continuity—not pastoral effectiveness—defines authenticity: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too.”¹²
The consequences of this contradiction
The faithful who look to Bishop Schneider for clarity encounter an unresolved duality:
• the TLM is presented as the Church’s liturgical treasure, yet not universally necessary;
• the Novus Ordo is acknowledged as problematic, yet sufficient when reverent;
• tradition is said to safeguard doctrine, yet its absence is pastorally inconsequential;
• rupture is recognised historically, yet denied locally.
This ambiguity weakens the traditional argument by allowing liturgical identity to become contingent. It also ignores historical evidence: where the traditional rite was replaced, reverence declined, doctrinal confusion increased, and Eucharistic belief collapsed.¹³ Kazakhstan is an exception produced by unusual episcopal discipline, not a stable model likely to endure once those disciplines weaken—as they have almost everywhere else.¹⁴
The unspoken issue: tradition cannot be optional
A genuinely traditional position—rooted in patristic theology, the medieval synthesis, the Council of Trent, and the preconciliar papal magisterium—holds that the Roman Rite is not defined by pastoral adequacy but by objective inheritance.¹⁵ The TLM cannot be necessary in one culture and unnecessary in another, any more than dogma can be regionally suspended. The lex orandi is universal or it is not. To relativise it is to relativise doctrine itself.¹⁶
Schneider’s position therefore reveals more than personal inconsistency. It exposes the fundamental instability of postconciliar conservatism, which attempts to affirm the immutability of tradition while defending a liturgical reform that presupposes adaptability and replacement. Kazakhstan’s reverent Novus Ordo does not resolve the rupture; it merely conceals it. Until this contradiction is addressed honestly, the Church will continue to oscillate between two incompatible liturgical theologies—unable fully to inhabit either.
- Athanasius Schneider, interview with Adrian Milag, widely circulated video excerpts, 2024–2025.
- Council of Trent, Session XIII, Decretum de Eucharistia, esp. chs. 1–8.
- Schneider–Milag interview, op. cit.
- Prosper of Aquitaine, De vocatione omnium gentium; cf. lex orandi, lex credendi.
- Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2000).
- Athanasius Schneider, The Catholic Mass: Steps to Restore the Centrality of God in the Liturgy (Sophia Institute Press, 2022).
- Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium §22, §36.
- Francis, Traditionis Custodes (2021), art. 1.
- Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (Una Voce Press).
- Pius XII, Mediator Dei (1947), §§20–23.
- Benedict XVI, The Spirit of the Liturgy, ch. 1.
- Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on Summorum Pontificum (7 July 2007).
- Pew Research Center, “Just one-third of U.S. Catholics agree with their Church that Eucharist is body of Christ” (2019).
- Alcuin Reid, The Organic Development of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2005).
- Council of Trent, Session XXII, Decretum de Missa.
- Pius XI, Quas Primas (1925), on the objective Kingship of Christ expressed in public worship.
Latest
- Today’s homily: Feast of the Holy RelicsThe Feast of the Holy Relics affirms the dignity of the human body and Christ’s promise of resurrection. Drawing upon Scripture, the early martyrs and England’s Catholic inheritance, this homily considers the communion of saints, our duty towards the departed and the holiness demanded of our own earthly lives.
- Today’s Mass: November 5 Feast of the Holy RelicsSt. Charles Borromeo (1538–1584) reformed the Church through holiness amid the corruption of his age—guiding Trent, renewing Milan, and serving heroically during plague. With Ss. Vitalis and Agricola and in the Octave of All Saints, he calls today’s Church to fidelity, reverence, and courageous sanctity amid confusion and decline.
- Sermon for Holy RelicsThe feast of the Holy Relics recalls the early Christian veneration of martyrs, exemplified by St Polycarp, whose remains were honoured without confusing reverence for saints with worship of Christ. Rooted in belief that matter can convey divine grace through the Incarnation, relic veneration affirms the sanctification of body and creation, while acknowledging that individual relics may be questionable.
- Today’s Mass: November 4 St Charles BorromeoSt. Charles Borromeo (1538–1584) reformed the Church through holiness amid the corruption of his age—guiding Trent, renewing Milan, and serving heroically during plague. With Ss. Vitalis and Agricola and in the Octave of All Saints, he calls today’s Church to fidelity, reverence, and courageous sanctity amid confusion and decline.
- Sermon for St Charles BorromeoThe post commemorates St Charles Borromeo, a nobleman who became a determined reforming bishop after helping advance the Council of Trent. As Archbishop of Milan, he promoted catechesis, reverent worship, clerical renewal and practical care during famine and plague. His example presents radical reform as addressing root causes while preserving and deepening tradition.
Leave a Reply