In a recent public statement, Bishop Athanasius Schneider claims that the Roman Pontiff lacks the authority to forbid or limit the traditional Latin Mass, and that refusal to comply with papal decrees to that effect would not be schismatic, while compliance with such a papal restriction of the Latin Mass would be “false obedience”.

The “Inside The Vatican” blog offers commentary, along with the full text of this troubling statement from Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the Latin Mass. My refutation of these ideas will begin with the summary of Schneider’s position, as presented by the “Inside The Vatican” blog.

“Inside the Vatican” blog says:

“Schneider is saying, essentially, that the Pope’s authority is limited in regard to certain Church matters, and, in this case, that his authority does not extend to the prohibition of the celebration of a liturgy which previous Popes defended and promoted for centuries. Schneider’s argument is that the Pope’s authority, though absolute in the Church, in nevertheless limited by what previous Popes have said and done over 2,000 years.”

“Schneider’s argument is that the old liturgy in itself is not open to review or repeal by anyone in the Church, even the Pope, because it was used for centuries, by the entire Church, and formed and nourished thousands of saints. Therefore, it would be (to synthesize) a logical contradiction to prohibit or restrict such a liturgy as something negative or wrong. Not even the (admitted) supreme authority of the Pope can order such a logical contradiction, Schneider argues. So Schneider has made an argument that the Pope’s authority has limits, and that one of those limits is in this matter of regulating a liturgy that was regarded as orthodox and holy for centuries.”

If current Popes are limited in their exercise of papal authority by the decisions of previous Popes on discipline or liturgical form, then the more recent Popes would have less authority. This claim implies a continuous rejection of papal authority, in contradiction to the teaching of the Church (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, reviewed later in this article). Instead, each successor of Peter has the same full authority given by Christ to Peter himself, and, while exercised by a man, the authority itself is divine. It cannot diminish over time.

Bishop Schneider does not have the authority to decide, for the Pope and the other Bishops, what is or is not a “logical contradiction” in their exercise of Christ’s authority over the Church, nor what is or is not prohibited to them. Unfortunately, Bishop Schneider has repeatedly behaved as if he had the role to supervise, correct, and teach the Supreme Pontiff as well as the body of Bishops obedient to him. No such role has ever been given to an auxiliary Bishop, to raise himself up above the Roman Pontiff and other Bishops, as if he were the supreme judge over the Church. Only the Roman Pontiff is the supreme Judge over the whole flock of the faithful, just as Vatican I taught.

The traditional Latin Mass has never been used by the whole Church. The Churches in the East have used various liturgies, in Greek and other languages, for at least as long as the Latin Mass in the West. The Saints were not universally nourished by the traditional Latin Mass, as there were Saints in the early Church as well as continuously in the East. Then it must be emphasized that Saints are always nourished spiritually by the grace of God, which certainly is not exclusive to the Latin form of the divine liturgy. Bishop Schneider implies that the Novus Ordo Mass does not nourish the faithful or the Saints, as if the Church had defected and was now feeding Her children serpents instead of fish, stones instead of bread, or scorpions instead of eggs [Lk 11:11-12]. But if the Novus Ordo Mass nourishes the Saints and faithful, just as the Latin form does, then his argument fails in its attempt to remove this particular form of the Mass from papal authority.

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, “61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.”

The “more recent liturgical rites” also owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit. Thus, the ancient rites are not necessarily “more suitable and proper” due to their antiquity. The Holy See has the authority to regulate liturgical rites, and to decide which rites to use in the current age.

More from Pope Pius XII on this topic:

“60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.”

“63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.”

“85. All this has the certitude of faith.”

It is the teaching of the papal Magisterium that the Apostolic See alone has the authority to regulate the sacred liturgy. And there are many other paragraphs from Mediator Dei by Pope Pius XII which reinforce this point. Never has the Church taught that the First See loses its authority due to the passage of time. And it is absurd to claim that the Roman Pontiff and Bishops have lost their authority over the form of the Mass because many Saints have benefited from the Mass in the past.

Now let’s consider the Statement by Bishop Athanasius Schneider. The arguments used by Bishop Schneider to remove the traditional Latin Mass from the authority of the Roman Pontiff are faulty, are contrary to the teaching of Vatican I on papal authority, and contrary to the teachings of Pope Pius XII on papal authority over the liturgical rites. See especially the text of Mediator Dei and the text of Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus. The Statement from Bishop Athanasius Schneider has numbered paragraphs, which will be used for citations in this article, for example: “BAS 14”.

In the first paragraph [BAS 1], Bishop Schneider points out that the traditional Latin Mass (TLM) was never the sole form of the Mass used by the Church. His argument is that the TLM was used extensively in the Church for many centuries. But this point is undermined by his own acknowledgement of the many places where the Church in the East has not used the Latin Mass. Never has the universal Church used only the Latin Mass worldwide. The TLM has only ever held a position as one of several forms of the Mass, since the East has multiple forms of the divine service. Thus, the traditional Latin Mass was always limited, to one extent or another, by the Church. The claim that the Pope and Bishops can no longer limit the Latin Mass implies that this one form of the liturgy should be instituted everywhere, even in the East. If not, then it must be admitted that the Church has the authority to limit the Latin Mass.

Now it is well known that the earliest liturgies were not in Latin. The Last Supper, which was the first holy Mass and the only Mass ever celebrated by Christ as the priest-celebrant, used Hebrew, as it took the form of a Passover Supper, and likely also Aramaic for some of the service. Latin liturgical services developed only later, and so it cannot be claimed that the Latin language, nor any particular form of the Mass in Latin, is an unchangeable and essential part of the holy Mass established by Christ the Lord.

Then, in paragraphs 2-5, Bishop Schneider quotes Pope Benedict XVI, mostly quoted as Cardinal Ratzinger, as lending support to the Latin Mass and as offering some criticisms of the Novus Ordo Mass. But these quotes do not work as an appeal to authority, since Schneider subsequently claims that the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops do not have “the authority to forbid or to limit” the Latin Mass. If that were true, then of what use would it be to appeal to the authority of a recent Pope, mostly when he was still a Cardinal? Do Popes and Cardinals only have authority when their decisions are judged and approved by those with lesser authority (or none)? That is not the nature of authority.

Moreover, the quotes from Benedict/Ratzinger do not assert anything like Schneider’s position. To the contrary, Pope Benedict XVI used his papal authority to limit the traditional Latin Mass, to retain the Novus Ordo as the common form, and to allow the TLM only in restricted cases. Since Schneider claims no Pope has the authority to limit the Latin Mass, he cannot then cite Benedict in support of his own position. Pope Benedict XVI in fact did exercise the very authority that Bishop Schneider claims no Pope possesses, as Benedict kept the Latin Mass as an extraordinary form, with the Novus Ordo as the common form for the Latin Rite.

Bishop Schneider: “6. The traditional Roman liturgy of the Mass was the liturgy of all the Latin-rite Saints whom we know at least during the entire last millennium; hence its age is millennial. Although commonly called the “Tridentine” Mass, the exact same form of the Mass was already in use several centuries before the Council of Trent, and that Council asked only to canonize that venerable and doctrinally sure form of the liturgy of the Roman Church.”

The teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei contradicts the claims of Bishop Schneider:

Pope Pius XII: “23. Exterior worship, finally, reveals and emphasizes the unity of the mystical Body, feeds new fuel to its holy zeal, fortifies its energy, intensifies its action day by day: ‘for although the ceremonies themselves can claim no perfection or sanctity in their own right, they are, nevertheless, the outward acts of religion, designed to rouse the heart, like signals of a sort, to veneration of the sacred realities, and to raise the mind to meditation on the supernatural. They serve to foster piety, to kindle the flame of charity, to increase our faith and deepen our devotion.’ ”

“61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.”

Notice that the exterior form of any version of the sacred liturgy are not the source of sanctity, as Schneider claims, for “the ceremonies themselves can claim no perfection or sanctity in their own right”. Also, the “more recent liturgical rites” are “equally the resources” used by the Holy Spirit “to promote and procure the sanctity of man[kind]”. So the argument that the Pope and Bishops cannot limit the Latin Mass, due to its sanctity, or the sanctity of those who attend that form of the Mass, is refuted by the teaching of the Church in Mediator Dei by Pope Pius XII.

Then, too, it is absolutely FALSE to claim that the traditional Latin Mass has had “the exact same form” as time passed. Changes to the form of the TLM have occurred many times, each time due to the exercise of papal authority over the form of the Latin Mass. These changes, accepted universally by proponents of the Latin Mass — who often refer to that form of the Mass by the latest changes in 1962, are proof that the Popes have authority over that form of the Mass.

Then the Council of Trent did in fact exercise the authority of the Pope and the Bishops over the form of the Mass, which Schneider states is the very same form of the Mass he is excluding from the authority of the Pope and the Bishops. There is a long “Decree On The Things To Be Observed And To Be Avoided In The Celebration Of Mass”, which concerns the particulars of the form of the Latin Mass. And then there are Canons which teach infallibly on holy Mass in any form, including the Latin form.

But it cannot be said that the Council set the form of the Latin Mass in stone, since the Fathers themselves considered changing the Mass to use the vernacular (common) languages. And while the Council of Trent did not decide to institute a form of the Mass in the vernacular, the Council Fathers merely stated that they did not think it expedient at the time. So the Fathers of Trent did not agree with Bishop Schneider’s position, that the use of the vernacular would be a grave error.

Trent: “And though the Mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, even so, it did not seem expedient to the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the common tongue. For this reason, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved by the holy Roman Church, the mother and teacher of all churches, should be retained in each place.”

The above text proves that the Pope and the Bishops have authority over the form of the Mass. They also have authority to teach what is and is not changeable within the Mass. Some things in the Mass are unchangeable doctrine (e.g. the matter for the Eucharist being bread and wine), and other things are changeable discipline, such as the language used or the particulars of form. That the Council of Trent Fathers considered changing the language to the common tongue, but decided this was not expedient, proves that it is not beyond the authority of the Pope and Bishops to make such a change. The Council did not issue a Canon requiring the Mass in Latin, nor requiring a form that supposedly cannot be changed even by Popes, Bishops, or Ecumenical Councils.

I must also point out that the traditional Latin Mass was approved, promulgated, and supported, along with changes from time to time, by the authority of the Pope and the Bishops. So the claim that, due to the passage of a certain length of time, the Pope and the Bishops next lose this very same authority, by which the form of the Latin Mass was established and developed, is absurd.

Bishop Schneider: “7. The traditional Roman liturgy of the Mass has the closest affinity with the Eastern rites in bearing witness to the universal and uninterrupted liturgical law of the Church: “In the Roman Missal of Saint Pius V, as in several Eastern liturgies, there are very beautiful prayers through which the priest expresses the most profound sense of humility and reverence before the Sacred Mysteries: they reveal the very substance of the Liturgy” (Pope John Paul II).”

The above argument contradicts itself. Schneider points out that the Mass in the Eastern rites is not the same as the Latin form of the Mass. This proves that there is no universal and uninterrupted “liturgical law”. Then Schneider quotes Pope Saint John Paul II, as an authority on the Mass, in support of Schneider’s claim that Popes do not have authority over the Latin Mass. As for the similarities of prayers in the East and West, this does not establish the Latin Mass as beyond the authority of the Pope and Bishops. In fact, Pope Saint John Paul II continued the work of his predecessors in supporting the vernacular Novus Ordo rites as the ordinary form, and in keeping the Latin form limited.

Bishop Schneider: “8. The Pope and the bishops do not have, therefore, the authority to forbid or to limit such a venerable form of the Holy Mass, which was offered by the Saints for over a thousand years, in the same way as the Pope or the Bishops would not have the authority to forbid or significantly reform the venerable form of the Apostolic or Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, precisely because of their venerable, continuous, and millennium-old use.”

The assertions in BAS 1-7 in no way support the conclusion of BAS 8 above that the Supreme Pontiff, successor to the Apostle Peter, and the body of Bishops, successors to the other Apostles, have no authority to forbid or limit the Latin form of the Mass. In fact, the establishment of the Novus Ordo vernacular Mass by Pope Saint Paul VI as the ordinary form limits the Latin form of the Mass as an extraordinary form only. So Schneider is rejecting the authority of all the post Vatican II Popes over both forms of the Mass. For the establishment of any other form of the Mass beside the Latin Mass has the effect of limiting the Latin Mass. Such a rejection of Papal authority over the Latin Mass, and by implication the other rites in their Vetus Ordo form, is heretical. It is a rejection of the dogmatic teaching of the First Vatican Council on papal supreme authority, a dogma which is also the ancient and constant teaching of the Church from Her earliest years.

Then, too, the claim is heretical that the Pope and the Bishops do not have the authority to “significantly reform … the Apostolic or Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed”. Such a claim takes away from the successor of Peter and the successors of the other Apostles the authority given to them by Christ, and taught clearly by the Church in every age, authority over faith and morals, authority to teach the universal Church definitively. If they wish to reform any Creed, significantly, they have that authority. And the claim that the mere passage of time removes or diminishes that authority is a refusal to believe the teaching and power of Christ within His own Church. And example of a reform to the Creed is the addition of “and the Son” in the part of the Creed on the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Bishop Schneider is in effect rejecting the teaching of Christ, that Peter and his successors have the authority to bind in heaven and on earth. And the claim that the post-Vatican II Popes are exercising an authority not given to them is a rejection of the teaching of Christ that the gates of Hell will never prevail over the Church founded on Peter, as on a Rock (Mt 16:18-19). This denial of proper full authority to the Pope and the body of Bishops is a heresy.

Pope Pius IX: “13. But the neo-schismatics have gone further, since “every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.” Indeed they have even accused this Apostolic See as well, as if We had exceeded the limits of Our power in commanding that certain points of discipline were to be observed in the Patriarchate of Armenia. Nor can the Eastern Churches preserve communion and unity of faith with Us without being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline. Teaching of this kind is heretical, and not just since the definition of the power and nature of the papal primacy was determined by the ecumenical Vatican Council: the Catholic Church has always considered it such and abhorred it. Thus the bishops at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon clearly declared the supreme authority of the Apostolic See in their proceedings; then they humbly requested from Our predecessor St. Leo confirmation and support for their decrees, even those which concerned discipline.” [Quartus Supra]

See how Pius IX above condemns the error of claiming that the Roman Pontiff has exceeded the limits of his power by his decision on certain points of discipline. This is exactly the error of Bishop Schneider. Then Pius IX states that such an error is schism and heresy, as the supreme authority of the Pope has been taught by Vatican I.

First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus:
“3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.”

“6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.”

“1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

“2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].

“3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

“4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].”

Since the successors of Peter have the very same full authority as Peter, it can never be the case that subsequent Popes have less authority than any prior Pope, nor less authority than Peter himself. Neither can the passage of time diminish or subtract from papal authority. So when past Popes instituted the Latin form of the Mass, and contributed to its development in form over the centuries, their decisions certainly can be changed by the same authority, the Roman Pontiffs. The form of the Mass is not a dogma; it is a matter of discipline, which is changeable. This is established irrefutably by the change that brought the Latin Mass into common use, and by the subsequent many changes that developed over the centuries into the 1962 Latin Mass (as it is popularly called).

If instead current Popes were unable to change the form of the Latin Mass, then they would have less authority than the past Popes who made the aforementioned changes. Neither can the mere passage of time, as Bishop Schneider claims, exempt from papal authority that which once was under papal authority. For the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches that the authority of the Popes “must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority”. Schneider’s view implies that the authority of Christ has diminished, since the Vicar of Christ exercises the authority of Christ himself.

Is the Latin Mass no longer under the authority of Christ, due to the passage of time? Certainly not. Then this venerable holy form of the Mass also remains under the authority of the Popes and Bishops, who exercise the authority of Christ. Is the Latin Mass no longer under the authority of the Popes and Bishops due to the holiness of the Mass and the holiness of the Saints? The claim is laughable, as it implies that things which are holy are not under the authority of the holy Roman Pontiff in the holy Catholic Church.

In summary, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, an auxiliary Bishop, has published a “Statement” in which he asserts that the Pope and the Bishops have no authority to limit the Latin Mass. By what authority, then, does Bishop Schneider make such a statement? He is not above the Pope, nor above the body of Bishops, to decree any limit to their authority. Nor has any Pope or Ecumenical Council taught this alleged limit on the authority of the Pope and Bishops. Such a statement usurps an authority that Schneider does not possess, the authority to tell the Pope and the other Bishops what they can and cannot do. Only God is above the Pope and the body of Bishops led by him. A Bishop who breaks away from the Pope, treating the Pope as if he were beneath that Bishop, is schismatic.

Bishop Schneider: “9. Complying with the abusive prohibition of that venerable form of the Mass of the Saints, issued unfortunately by current churchmen in a time of unprecedented ecclesial crisis, would constitute a false obedience.”

The Saints have never taught that only one form of the Mass is theirs, as if the rest of what the Church approves in liturgical matters is rejected by them. Every form of the Mass offers sanctity and is a way to worship God. It is also reprehensible for the holy Father, Pope Francis, and the many Bishops who support and cooperate with him, successors to the Apostles, to be termed “current churchmen” and to be accused of an “unprecedented ecclesial crisis”, as if the indefectible Church had defected, contrary to the teaching and promise of Christ. Then calling obedience to the Roman Pontiff in liturgical matters “false obedience” and “abusive” is schismatic. It is a fundamental attack on the authority of the Pope and Bishops in itself, and not merely a mild disagreement on particular non-infallible decisions of discipline.

Schneider has no authority to judge the Apostolic See to have abused its authority, nor to judge the First See or the whole Church to be in an alleged “crisis” for behaving contrary to his own judgment and understanding. Schneider has no authority to determine that obedience to certain decrees of the Apostolic See would be “false obedience”. The ancient teaching of the Church, which is also Canon Law, is that the First See is judged by no one but God.

Schneider’s call to disobey the Roman Pontiff is schismatic. His claim that the Roman Pontiff is abusing his authority is also schismatic. Both of these errors show public obstinate refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Then the rejection of the Novus Ordo Mass, which very many Bishops support along with the Pope, is a refusal of communion with his brother Bishops. For they use the Novus Ordo as the ordinary form, but Schneider rejects that form. And the Mass is one of the primary signs and causes of ecclesial unity — which is why every Mass invokes the name of the current Pope and the local ordinary.

Bishop Schneider: “10. Noncompliance with the prohibitions of the traditional Mass does not make one, by that fact, schismatic, provided one continues to recognize the Pope and the bishops and continues to respect them, and pray for them.”

Schism is refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff and/or refusal of communion with the Bishops (and the rest of the Church which is submissive to the Pope). Merely recognizing that Pope Francis is the true Pope is not sufficient to avoid schism, as even Protestants and Orthodox Christians admit that Francis is the Pope. Neither are respect and prayer sufficient to avoid schism, as a non-Catholic Christian or even a non-Christian believer might respect and pray for the Pope.

Bishop Schneider has repeatedly refused submission to Pope Francis, as when Schneider accused Pope Francis of grave error on the diversity and plurality of religions. Schneider has repeatedly behaved as if he were the judge and teacher over Pope Francis, as if Schneider were the Supreme Judge of all the faithful and Supreme Teacher (over even the Pope and the entire body of Bishops!). Refusing to acknowledge the authority of the Pope and Bishops over the form of the Mass is schismatic, and teaching others the same is a more grave form of schism.

However, some of the faithful might avoid schism and heresy, while declining to comply with the limits placed by the Pope on the traditional Latin Mass. I suggest that the faithful who prefer the Latin Mass should nevertheless attend a Novus Ordo Mass, from time to time, so as to show that they are in communion with the whole Church, and are obedient to the Pope and Bishops. Then, if an approved Latin Mass is not available, a priest and a number of faithful traditional Catholics might hold a Latin Mass, even contrary to local liturgical regulations, without being schismatics and without grave error. Schism is not necessarily incurred merely by a disobedience regarding liturgical regulation. Many Catholics unfortunately fail to attend Mass on holy days of obligation, and yet they are not schismatics.

But the claim that the Pope and Bishops do not have authority over the Latin Mass is heretical and schismatic. The Pope and Bishops retain the same authority as Christ gave to the first Apostles, and this authority is the same full and supreme authority taught by the First Vatican Council.

Edited to add: See this link on a sedevacantist website, which (as Dr. Fastiggi says in his comment at the end of this other post of mine) is actually a good response to the errors of Bishop Schneider. Be advised, though, that the linked article contains the usual errors of sedevacantists, claiming that the Popes since Vatican II are not valid.

Ronald L Conte Jr