Bishop Schneider: Francis' Pontificate Marked Culmination of Doctrinal Relativism
The life of the Church has been marked for decades by a doctrinal confusion, Bishop Athanasius Schneider told the Spanish Youtube channel ‘El Debate’ on March 18.
As the root, he identifies doctrinal relativism, which he links to the modernist movement. It infiltrated the church in the early 1900s and spread gradually, especially using the Second Vatican Council as a kind of catalyst.
Accordign to Bishop Schneider, this tendency has grown over the past sixty years: “Today, especially with the previous pontificate of Pope Francis, we have the culmination of this movement of doctrinal relativism - that is, the idea that truth is not always the same.”
Two Consequences of Relativism
From relativism follows for Schneider the danger of naturalism. This outlook gives primacy to natural, temporal and social issues and reduces the need for supernatural grace.
Another consequence is religious syncretism. If truth is relative and human beings are already fundamentally good, then it becomes easy …More
Doctrinal confusion for decades? Then why should we ever pay attention to what the Vatican says?
19.03.2026
POPE BENEDICT’S BOOKS USE THE LG 16 FALSE PREMISE WHICH CREATES SCHISM : THE SBC MODEL OF VC2 IS RATIONAL AND TRADITIONAL : POPE LEO MUST ACCEPT IT
A nihil obstat and imprimatur are needed for the books of Pope Benedict and Cardinal Robert Sarah published by Ignatius and other Press. Their books were written with the common and schismatic LG 16 visible, false premise. Their books need the sign saying that they are free from doctrinal error. The books contain doctrinal error when the false premise is used.
Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally is heretical and schismatic. This is obvious for even the liberals, now that we know we can interpret the Council and Catechism, rationally.
It may be asked, how can Pope Benedict make an error on a faith-issue? But it is obvious that anyone who interprets invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 16 (being saved in invincible ignorance) as being physically visible cases in the present times makes an objective error. It is a factual error. It is a fact of life that we cannot see someone saved outside the Catholic Church, with the baptism of desire and without ‘faith and baptism’, in 1965-2026. We cannot see or meet someone saved outside the Church in 1949-2026, in invincible ignorance. These cases do not exist in our human reality.
It is not just the pope. Even the books written by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX priests carry this virus – the LG 16 visible virus.
Thousands of books and articles on Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and not rationally, have spread, like an epidemic.
Karl Rahner, confused what is implicit as being explicit, created exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which Ratzinger then called an aphorism ( CCC 846), - and heralded a New Ecumenism, New Theology, New Evangelization etc.
Now the SSPX is considered schismatic by the Vatican – since the SSPX will not accept the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, with its ‘liberal reforms’, when it is really Pope Benedict who was in schism. He was in schism with his fake LG 16 visible theology and philosophy. There was a break between faith and reason.
So now the Tradition of the Roman Missal and the Latin Mass is at odds with Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake premise, inference and liberal conclusion.
Cardinal Zen and the bishops in China accept Vatican Council II interpreted liberally and so they are allowed to ordain bishops. There is no ‘ecclesial break’. But the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II irrational and goes back to Tradition, which was Feeneyite i.e. what was invisible was seen as being invisible only. The baptism of desire referred to an invisible case. The lex orandi over the centuries was Feeneyite.
But Pope Benedict, Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Burke- to name a only a few - are Cushingite i.e. what is invisible is confused as being visible. LG 16 is a visible case in their reality. This is what they imply when they project exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is not Feeneyite.
So we can also interpret the baptism of desire, with Feeneyism or Cushingism, with reference to the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasius Creed. It is the same with all the Catechisms.
Cardinal Fernandez is Cushingite- but so is the SSPX, on Vatican Council II. The SSPX however, reject the non traditional conclusion and Cardinal Fernandez expect them to accept it, as he does. He wants them to accept a Vatican Council II which is irrational and would not be given a nihil obstat and imprimatur by the Magisterium of the 16th century or even in the 1930’s.
TRADITIONALIST MODEL
We now fortunately have the traditionalist model of the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, USA. This religious community has reconciled Vatican Council II with Tradition, unlike the SSPX. Cardinal Fernandez cannot accuse them of rejecting Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The difference between the St. Benedict Center and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, is that the former interpret Magisterial Documents rationally and the latter, like Pope Benedict, irrationally.
The St. Benedict Center has got Vatican Council II ‘out of the way’ so to speak.There is hope for the Church of the future.We will get past the Rahner-Ratzinger era. We go back to the pre-1965 apologetics.
Vatican Council II rational is aligned with the traditionalists in New Hampshire, USA. They choose the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II and morally this has to be the only choice of Pope Leo, the cardinals and bishops.
Pope Leo agrees with the SBC - LG 16 refers to an invisible case in 2026.
Fr. Joseph Fessio sj, and Ignatius agree with Brother Andre Marie, the Prior at the SBC in NH - LG 16 always refers to an invisible and hypothetical case. – Lionel Andrades
There is no doctrinal confusion here, just a shift toward Protestantism.
The relativism is specific and precise and not vague as Bishop Schneider mentions. It can be corrected, since it has been identified and is concrete. The relativism comes when Bishop Athanasius Schneider confuses implicit cases of the baptism of desire as being explicit exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, of the Council of Florence 1442 which did not mention any exceptions. This was how St. Francis Xavier ( mentioned in the video) interpreted extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So when the Vatican issued a Decree of Prohibitions against the traditionalists at the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, the bishop did not support them doctrinally. For them the baptism of desire is invisible and for the bishop it is visible. So for them the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has not exceptions but for Bishop Schneider and the SSPX the dogma EENS has exceptions. So for the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre, Vatican Council II, with visible cases of LG 14 and 16 are explicit exceptions for the Athanasius Creed. But not for me. So the interpretation of Vatican Council II by Bishop Schneider and the SSPX are modernist. We now have a rational and traditional option.
18. 03.2026
WITH THE LG 16 MISTAKE VATICAN COUNCIL II IS SCHISMATIC FOR FERNANDEZ AND FISICHELLA
WITH THE LG 16 MISTAKE VATICAN COUNCIL II IS …
Salvation through ignorance , no such thing as original sin invented by St Augustan, Evolution not God created man from ape. Moral corrupt people desperately need to tear down moral authority of the church. Homosexual
life style is incapable with traditional faith The Bishop needs to come to conclusion the gay mafia hijacked the church.