Bishop Schneider says Pope Leo XIV misunderstands how the Novus Ordo is celebrated today
In an interview published September 2, Bishop Athanasius Schneider disputed remarks Pope Leo XIV made at his August 26 general audience about participation in the traditional Latin Mass, and pointed to the 1965 Roman Missal
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has responded publicly to remarks by Pope Leo XIV at a general audience on August 26, in which the pope suggested that the faithful took part less "consciously" in the Latin Mass before the post-conciliar liturgical reforms. In an interview published September 2 by AdVaticanum, Schneider said the pope's comments do not reflect the "true reality" of how most Novus Ordo Masses are celebrated today.
Schneider was asked directly about the pope's comments, which suggested that those who attend the traditional Latin Mass (TLM) were "strangers and silent spectators," and that this was mainly because of the use of Latin and the silent parts of the liturgy. The bishop said the pope had not properly understood how most Novus Ordo Masses are celebrated now, which he said depart significantly from what the Second Vatican Council intended for the liturgical reform.
The 1965 Missal as an authentic expression of the Council
Schneider cited at length the 1965 Roman Missal, the first published after the Council ended, to argue that the Council Fathers never intended the Mass to be celebrated entirely in the vernacular, as happens in most Novus Ordo Masses today. He also said the Council Fathers would not have expected or approved the loss of sacred silence during Mass, which he said makes it much harder for the faithful to enter into deep contemplative and interior prayer.
"Today, more than 90 percent of Novus Ordo Masses are celebrated in the vernacular. And there are even dioceses where, when priests want to celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin, they are punished and forbidden to do so. This is an absurdity," Schneider said. He said some people genuinely want to stay silent during Mass so they can contemplate interiorly, and that contemplation is an essential part of valid liturgical participation.
Active participation and interior participation
Schneider said that while the whole congregation is not expected to remain silent during the liturgy, it is important to recognize that some of the faithful may legitimately prefer contemplation to constant speaking. "There can be active participation, which is fruitless if there is no interior participation," he said.
On the 1965 Missal, Schneider said the Council Fathers were generally satisfied with this "careful organic reform," which largely kept the structure and solemnity of the traditional Mass. It removed only Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel, he said, while allowing broader but measured use of the vernacular. That gradual reform was what the Council actually intended for liturgical development, according to Schneider.
The structure of the 1965 Missal: Latin and vernacular in balance
"So the first part of the Mass, up to the Preface, was celebrated in the vernacular. And after the Canon, again in the vernacular. Therefore, from the Preface to the end of the Canon, everything was in Latin. It was obligatory that these parts be celebrated in Latin," Schneider said. "In the Mass of 1965, the Canon was said in silence. It was a very careful reform, and the Council Fathers were happy with this," he added.
That arrangement allowed for balanced participation, Schneider said: vernacular prayer in the introductory and post-Communion parts, with Latin and silence kept in the Canon, preserving both intelligibility and contemplative solemnity.
The 1967 synod's rejection of the 1969 Mass
Schneider recalled a historical episode he considers decisive. In 1967, at the first Synod of Bishops, Cardinal Bugnini presented the draft of the new Mass that would be introduced in 1969, and most of the synod fathers rejected it. "So you can see that a majority of the Synod Fathers in 1967, who were still Council Fathers two years before, did not approve the Mass of 1969," Schneider said, citing the rejection as evidence that the Council Fathers themselves turned down the more radical reform that was later put in place.
"I would have liked Pope Leo to have studied this before making his speech: to study all these elements of history and the facts, to read the debates and to listen to the witnesses," Schneider said.
