I wrote HERE that the major reason this year’s Summorum Pontificum Pilgrimage was sidelined by the Vatican, i.e. Pope Leo, was because of Bishop Schneider who has aligned himself too closely with the schismatic FSSPX.
He seems to like those who tend towards schism. Unfortunately, Bishop Schneider has personally touched my former parish in the Diocese of Savannah, as well as my diocese there and also a diocese in Florida. Bishop Schneider added fuel to the small, very small fire of schism tending ideologies.
If a Vatican department, like Ecclesia Dei, were in charge of TLMer’s as they once were, this debacle would not have happened. A Cardinal in good standing would have been chosen by that department to be the celebrant and leader of events that traditionalists might have in Rome and at Saint Peters!
Press title for Rorate Caeli commentary:
Considerations on the Traditional Pilgrimage to Rome -- by Roberto de Mattei
Roberto de Mattei
Now that the polemics that arose in the heat of the moment have settled, let us attempt to offer some dispassionate considerations, sine ira et studio, as the Romans used to say, on the fifteenth Peregrinatio ad Petri Sedem, held in Rome from October 23 to 25, 2026.
Read more »
Money byte from commentary:
On the other hand, the centrality which the Coetus Internationalis attributed to Bishop Athanasius Schneider, confirmed as the principal celebrant of the pilgrimage, surely offered the Secretariat of State an argument for stiffening its position. The public statements of the Auxiliary Bishop of Astana in favor of the Society of Saint Pius X in fact gave his presence a prominence that went beyond the liturgical function. Bishop Schneider spoke out on the Écône consecrations on March 9 and June 4, 2026 and, after the event, again on August 17. In the three interventions he maintained a consistent position, always supporting the reasons of the Society and the wrongs of the Vatican. On March 9, he asked the Pope to authorize the consecrations even before the resolution of the doctrinal controversies, asserting that the lack of a mandate would not make them schismatic. On June 4, he presented the Society as a providential help for the Church and a possible excommunication as a grave pastoral error. On August 17, he sought to offer a theological and moral justification for the act performed, appealing to the primacy of divine law over ecclesiastical norms. In a subsequent interview on October 13, ten days before the pilgrimage, the bishop reiterated that "with the passing of history, the contribution of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X will later be regarded as beneficial for the whole Church." His position leaves no room for misunderstanding.
The organizers were careful to specify that the faithful gathered in Rome are not "Lefebvrians." But the episcopal face of the pilgrimage was that of a bishop favorable to the Society of Saint Pius X in its conflict with Rome.
It is true that Bishop Schneider had been designated as celebrant many months before the episcopal consecrations of 2026. His subsequent statements should, however, have prompted the organizers to reflect on whether it was advisable to confirm that assignment. Bishop Schneider himself could have considered stepping back, leaving to another bishop the leadership of the pilgrimage, rather than playing the role of guide of the Populus Summorum Pontificum during the three Roman days.
The prevailing chaos does not annul the principle of causality, according to which every act has consequences. Bishop Schneider certainly has the right to set forth his own judgments. The organizers, however, bear in turn the responsibility to ask themselves whether those judgments are compatible with the representative function he is called to fulfill.




















