CathInfo.com

Of course ... it's all pre-scripted.

I need to finish writing my article on "Conciliar Kayfabe?  Paradigms for the Revolution"

There are two basic paradigms for the Revolution, with some variation, some nuances, and some people who hold combinations of the two.

1) GRASS ROOTS / ORGANIC development.  people just got graudally more and more infected with Modernism, to the point they started becoming priests, and then bishops, until finally one got elected pope.

2) CONSPIRACY ... this is part of a deliberate attempt to destroy the Church.

I think it's a little bit of a blend, but at the top, it's a deliberate conspiracy to destroy the Church.  Once you understand the Revolution with that paradigm in mind, your perspective on and interpretation of these events changes.

You no longer think it's just a Modernist Sodomite in a white cassock pushing his agenda because he's one of them, and an idealogue who just doesn't like the Latin Mass because it runs counter to his own theology and ideology, where Tridentine Catholicism is inherently inimical to sodomy and some of the other things they stand for.

NOW, whether he's doing it himself or told to be his handlers, there's an agenda afoot, and the intention isn't just that of the idealogue promoting his Modernist beliefs but someone who's deliberately conspirting to DESTROY the Church and Tradition.

That's the TRUE PARADIGM.

Yes, there are different degrees of participation, but at the top you have Satan trying to destroy the Church.  There are some other evil men at the top who are on board with that agenda of hatred for the Church and for Our Lord.  These would be infiltrators, Masons, Jews, whatever.  Then, beneath them you have some who may or may not be aware of the sinister intent, but do happen to be idealogues, and actually BELIEVE in the hallowed principles of Modernism and moral relativism and religious indifferentism.  They're on board because they THINK the agenda it to promote Liberte, Equality, Fraternity, and various Commie ideals, and they sincerely believe in those.  Some MIGHT be in it for themselves, their own power or ... because they're sodomites who are thriving in this Mafia they set up.

Then you have various controlled assets who are blackmailed, extorted, bribed (with honeypots) or otherwise "persuaded" to cooperate and do as they're told.

Finally, you have the useful idiots, who are just morons infected with Modernism or inclined toward sodomy or whatnot and so are just going along.

Then you have those popesplainer types who are aiding and abetting the beast ... often for grift, and these will be judged by God.

You do have some people who have been duped and are confused and sincerely think that they have to belong to this "Catholic Church" ... but God will sort it out.

We don't necessarily know who's who, and which type of role each actor in this conspiracy plays.  Sometimes we can take educated guesses based on their behavior, but for the most part it's speculative.

But we don't NEED to know the motivations of each player to know that there's an orchestrated conspiracy against the Church.

One people snap of this and stop thinking of this as some organic grass roots development in the Church ... it gives you MUCH CLARITY in approaching the crisis.

No, we can't just hope for the election of a slightly less liberal pope to make some gradual course corrections toward the Right in order to "right the ship", and that over time, just like it was a gradual veering off course, there can be a gradual veering back on course.  No, the captain is deliberately attempting to pilot the ship over the falls, and only a mutiny will save the ship and the crew.  We don't care WHY the captain is doing it.  Were they threatening to kill his family?  Did they pay him off?  Or does he hate everyone on the the ship and believe that Satan will give him his 72 boy virgins in the afterlife as a reward.  At the end of the day, that doesn't matter.  But we do know that the ship did not just gradually drift off course and that someone is TRYING to send it over the falls.

TRUST NOBODY

Now, let's say the captain is sincere but was simply given a bad map with fake navigation where he doesn't know it's going over the falls.  So, the conspirators couldn't leave that to chance with the Church, and this is where the metaphor ends, since they know that the Holy Ghost protects the ship.  They know that a SINCERE and WELL MEANING Catholic who just has his brain scrambled, that the Holy Ghost will convert him by the graces of office, as He did with Pope Pius IX, so would not leave this to chance.  They thought they had their man in Pope Pius IX ... but he turned on them, due to the graces of office he received from the Holy Ghost and turned from arguably THE most liberal Cardinal in the curia into one of the most staunchly conservative popes of the past few centuries.

Bototm Line:

Schneider meeting with Leo = Kayfabe, as this entire drama has been pre-planned and pre-orchestrated.

Quote from: Plenus Venter 2/25/2026, 4:44:09 AM
Mea culpa!
I read without seeing! It was only the release of the news that came today.
..."

Thanks for posting PV.
I see and read this today...so, u  r  a " pr0phet"!..? Loong letter.
The unsettling optics here is that +Schneider wants Pope Leo XIV to grant permission to the SSPX for the consecrations. ACT III, scene  1 of the Play '"neoSSPX Shipwrecked Reconciliation...and the listing goes on." written by + F, Edited by satan.
***************************

Excerpts:
https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-bishop-schneider-appeals

[Diane Montagna's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.]


ROME, 24 February 2026 — Bishop Athanasius Schneider today has issued an appeal to Pope Leo XIV following the Society of St. Pius X’s (SSPX) announcement that it will proceed with episcopal consecrations, despite warnings from the Vatican that doing so “would constitute a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism).”

Titled - A Fraternal Appeal to Pope Leo XIV to Build a Bridge with the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, - and published exclusively below, the auxiliary bishop of Astana is calling for pastoral generosity and ecclesial unity at a moment he describes as decisive for the future relationship between the Holy See and the traditional priestly society.


Bishop Schneider has previously served as a Vatican visitator to SSPX seminaries, giving him firsthand insight into the Society’s structures, leadership and faithful. His appeal comes amid intense debate in the Catholic world, with reactions ranging from cautious hope for reconciliation to renewed calls for disciplinary action.

Bishop Schneider cautions Pope Leo XIV not to let this “truly Providential moment” pass without decisive action. He warns that to forgo the opportunity to grant the apostolic mandate would risk cementing what he calls a “truly unnecessary and painful” division with the SSPX—a rupture that history would not easily overlook.

At a time when the Church speaks insistently of synodality, pastoral breadth, and ecclesial inclusivity, His Excellency argues that authentic unity must also extend to those faithful attached to the SSPX. The choice before the Pope, he suggests, is whether this chapter of the Church’s history will be remembered as a moment of bridge-building generosity or of avoidable separation.

Here is the full text of Bishop Schneider’s appeal to Pope Leo XIV.
A Fraternal Appeal to Pope Leo XIV to Build a Bridge with the Priestly Society of St. Pius X
by Bishop Athanasius Schneider

The current situation regarding the episcopal consecrations in the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has suddenly awakened the entire Church. Within an extraordinarily short time following the February 2ndannouncement that the SSPX will proceed with these consecrations, an intense and often emotionally charged debate has arisen throughout wide circles of the Catholic world. The spectrum of voices in this debate ranges 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 could indeed approve the episcopal consecrations, already now proposals for the text of a bull of excommunication of the SSPX are being put forward online.

The negative reactions, though often well-intentioned, reveal that the heart of the problem has not yet been grasped with sufficient honesty and clarity. There is a tendency to remain at the surface. Priorities within the life of the Church are reversed, elevating the canonical and legal dimension—that is, a certain juridical positivism—to the supreme criterion. Moreover, there is at times a lack of historical awareness concerning the Church’s practice with respect to episcopal ordinations. Disobedience is thus too readily equated with schism. The criteria for episcopal communion with the Pope, and consequently the understanding of what truly constitutes schism, are viewed in an overly one-sided manner when compared with the practice and self-understanding of the Church in the Patristic era, the age of the Church Fathers.

In this debate, new quasi-dogmas are being established that do not exist in the Depositum fidei. These quasi-dogmas maintain that the Pope’s consent to a bishop’s consecration is of divine right, and that a consecration carried out without this consent, or even against a papal prohibition, constitutes in itself a schismatic act. However, the Church’s practice and understanding during the time of the Church Fathers, and for a long period thereafter, argue against this view. Furthermore, there is no unanimous opinion on this matter among the recognized theologians of the Church’s two-thousand-year tradition. Centuries of ecclesial practice, as well as traditional canon law, also stand in opposition to such absolutizing assertions. According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, an episcopal consecration carried out against the will of the Pope was punished not with excommunication, but only with suspension. By this, the Church clearly manifested that she did not consider such an act to be schismatic.

The acceptance of papal primacy as a revealed(...) ...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 papal permission, and candidates were not required to be approved by the Pope. The first canonical regulation on episcopal consecrations, issued by an Ecuмenical Council, was that of Nicaea in 325, which required(...) Cardinal Iosif Slipyj secretly consecrated three bishops in Rome without the approval of Pope Paul VI, fully aware that the Pope would not allow it because of the Vatican’s Ostpolitik at the time. When Rome learned of these secret consecrations, however, the penalty of excommunication was not applied.

To avoid misunderstanding, under normal circuмstances—and when there is neither doctrinal confusion nor a time of extraordinary persecution—one must, of course, do everything possible to observe the canonical norms of the Church and to obey the Pope in his just injunctions, in order to preserve ecclesiastical unity both more effectively and visibly.

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 new firefighting equipment, even though it has been shown to be less effective than the old, proven tools. A group of firefighters defies this order and continues to use the tried-and-tested equipment—and indeed, the fire is contained in many places. Yet these firefighters are labelled disobedient and schismatic, and they are punished.

To extend the metaphor further: the fire chief permits only those firefighters who acknowledge the new equipment, follow the new firefighting rules, and obey the new firehouse regulations. But given the obvious scale of the fire, the desperate struggle against it, and the insufficiency of the official firefighting team, other helpers—despite the fire chief’s prohibition—selflessly intervene with skill, knowledge, and good intentions, ultimately contributing to the success of the fire chief’s efforts.

Faced with such rigid and incomprehensible behavior, two possible explanations present themselves: either the fire chief is denying the seriousness of the fire, much like in the French comedy Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise!; or, in fact, the fire chief desires that large parts of the house burn, so that it may later be rebuilt according to a new design.

The current crisis surrounding the announced—but as yet unapproved—episcopal consecrations in the SSPX exposes, before the eyes of the whole Church, a wound that has been smouldering for over sixty years. This wound can be figuratively described as ecclesial cancer—specifically, the ecclesial cancer of doctrinal and liturgical ambiguities.

Recently, an excellent article appeared on the Rorate Caeli blogspot, 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 with some ambiguous statements of 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 says:

    “The problem isn’t that Vatican II was heretical. The problem is that it was ambiguous. And in that ambiguity, we’ve seen the seeds of confusion that have flowered into some of the most troubling theological developments in modern Church history. When the Church speaks in vague terms, even if unintentionally, then souls are at stake.”

The author continues:

    “When a doctrinal ‘development’ seems to contradict what came before, or when it requires decades of theological gymnastics to reconcile with previous magisterial teaching, we have to ask: Is this development, or is it rupture disguised as development?” (Canon of Shaftesbury: Rorate Caeli, February 10, 2026).

One may reasonably assume that the SSPX desires nothing more than to help the Church emerge from this ambiguity in doctrine and liturgy and to rediscover her saving perennial clarity—just as the Church’s Magisterium, under the guidance of the Popes, has done unequivocally throughout history after every crisis marked by doctrinal confusion and ambiguity.

In fact, the Holy See should be grateful to the SSPX, because it is currently almost the only major ecclesiastical reality that forthrightly and publicly points out the existence of ambiguous and misleading elements in certain statements of the Council and the Novus Ordo Missae. In this endeavor, the SSPX 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 engage with the 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 most members of the SSPX:

    “We believe in Peter, we believe in the successor of Peter! But as Pope Pius IX says well in his dogmatic constitution, the pope has received the Holy Ghost not to make new truths, but to maintain 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 persuaded that in maintaining these traditions we are manifesting our love, our docility, our obedience to the Successor of Peter. We cannot remain indifferent before the degradation of faith, morals, and the liturgy. That is out of the question! We do not want to separate ourselves from the Church; on the contrary, we want the Church to continue!”

If someone considers having difficulties with the Pope to be among his greatest spiritual sufferings, that in itself is a telling proof that there is no schismatic intent. True schismatics even boast of their separation from the Apostolic See. True schismatics would never humbly implore the Pope to recognize their bishops.

How truly Catholic, then, are the following words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

    “We regret infinitely, 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 exceeds the imagination, that we should never have been able to imagine, that we should never have been able to believe, especially in our childhood–then when all was uniform, when the whole Church believed in her 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 regarding religious freedom, ecuмenism, and collegiality, as well as the doctrinal imprecisions of the Novus Ordo Missae. In this regard, one should read the recently published book by Archimandrite Boniface Luykx, a Council peritus and renowned liturgical scholar, with its eloquent title A Wider View of Vatican II. Memories and Analysis of a Council Consultor.

As G. K. Chesterton once said: “Upon entering the church, we are asked to take off our hat, not our head.” It would be a tragedy if the SSPX were completely cut off(...)      ...See. The Holy See should bring the SSPX in, offering at least a minimum degree of Church integration, and then continue the doctrinal dialogue. The Holy See has shown remarkable generosity toward the Communist Party of China, allowing them to select candidates for bishops—yet her own children, the thousands upon thousands of faithful of the SSPX, are treated as second-class citizens.

The SSPX should be allowed to make a theological contribution with a view to clarifying, supplementing, and, if necessary, amending those statements in the texts of the Second Vatican Council that raise doctrinal doubts and difficulties. This must also take into account that, in these texts, the Magisterium of the Church did not intend to pronounce itself with dogmatic definitions endowed with the note of infallibility (cf. Paul VI, General Audience, January 12, 1966).

The SSPX makes exactly the same Professio fidei as that made by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, 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 doctrines, nor (...) mark of true Catholic belief?

Yet the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei is considered by the Holy See to be insufficient for the SSPX. Would not the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei in fact constitute “the minimum” for ecclesial communion? If that is not a minimum, then what, honestly, would qualify as a “minimum”? The SSPX is required, as a conditio sine qua non, to make a Professio fidei by which the teachings of a pastoral,(...) Victor Fernández appears to be playing games with words!

Pope Leo XIV said at the ecuмenical Vespers on January 25, 2026, at the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, that there is already unity between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians because they share the minimum of Christian faith: “We share the same faith in the one and only God, the Father of all people; we confess together the one Lord and true Son of God, Jesus Christ, and the one Holy Spirit, who inspires us and impels us towards full unity and the common witness to the Gospel” (Apostolic Letter In Unitate Fidei, 23 November 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 claim made (...) that the SSPX professes the Professio fidei of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council—the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei?

Further provisional pastoral measures granted to the SSPX for the spiritual good of so many exemplary Catholic faithful would stand as a profound testimony to the pastoral charity of the Successor of Peter. In doing so, Pope Leo XIV would open his paternal heart to those Catholics who, in a certain way, live on an ecclesiastical periphery, allowing them to experience that the Apostolic See is truly a Mother also for the SSPX.

The words of Pope Benedict XVI should awaken the conscience of those in the Vatican who will decide on the permission of episcopal consecrations for the SSPX. He reminds us:

    “Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain 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 harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew” (Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificuм on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform carried out in 1970, 7 July 2007).

    “Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? And should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge 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 SSPX, undertaken for the spiritual good of the thousands upon thousands of its faithful around the world—including a pontifical mandate for episcopal consecrations—would create the conditions necessary to calmly clarify misunderstandings, questions, and doubts of a doctrinal nature arising from certain statements in the docuмents of the Second (...)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 SSPX. You are also the father of your numerous sons and daughters—two generations of the faithful who have, for now, been cared for by the SSPX, who love the Pope, and who wish(...) after your election. Do not go down in the history of the Church as one who failed to build this bridge—a bridge that could be constructed at this truly Providential moment with generous will—and who instead allowed a truly unnecessary and painful further division within the Church,(...)

Most Holy Father, if you grant the Apostolic Mandate for the episcopal consecrations of the SSPX, the Church in our day will lose nothing. You will be a true bridge-builder, and even more, an exemplary bridge-builder, for you are the Supreme Pontiff, Summus Pontifex.

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

24 February 2026

Thanks for posting PV.
I see and read this today...so, u  r  a " pr0phet"!..? Loong letter.
The unsettling optics here is that +Schneider wants Pope Leo XIV to grant permission to the SSPX for the consecrations. ACT III, scene  1 of the Play '"neoSSPX Shipwrecked Reconciliation...and the listing goes on." written by + F, Edited by satan.
***************************

Haha! Thank you TD, I am indeed a prophet. It just gets better and better. Or worse and worse. This is truly concerning for the future of the SSPX. Kyrie eleison.

Now the SSPX and the Vatican would surely have known about this before releasing the news that I posted in the original post. It is obviously a carefully constructed narrative, the whole thing. Bishop Stobnicki is the true prophet here. But most of us suspected this would happen based on what the Society has done for the past 15 years.

Whatever happens, let us pray that God protects the Society and brings good out of any evil.