Last week, the blogsites Adelante la Fe and Rorate Caeli posted an interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider that, thanks to the wide coverage it received, is likely already familiar to most of our readers.
Much indeed has been written about the many good things that His Excellency had to say.
In this post, however, I’d like to focus on what Bishop Schneider strongly implied – the way in which churchmen commonly offer public criticism of their confreres.
In the present case, the “target” is no less than His Humbleness, Francis.
Take a look at the following excerpt taken from the interview (~2 minutes in length). It includes part of Bishop Schneider’s response to a question about the proper Catholic approach to Francis. In other words, while he may seem to be speaking in general terms; he is not.
We’ll discuss it below.
It is perfectly clear that in discussing “a dictatorship” that does not allow for “discussion” and “correction,” which creates an “atmosphere of intimidation, of repression, of fear,” Bishop Schneider is speaking very directly to the Bergoglian Reign of Terror.
His Excellency went on to say of the present situation that “this is not the atmosphere of the Holy Spirit, no way.”
One notes as well that he contrasted Rome under Francis with “a true atmosphere of Church, spirituality.”
In this, the word “true” stands out; i.e., Bishop Schneider seems to be telling us that he senses something decidedly false about the status quo.
Did he have in mind false doctrines, false mercy, or perhaps even a false pope?
Bishop Schneider then went on to mention Saint Catherine of Sienna, a Doctor of the Church, and how she approached a wayward pope in her day, recalling that she said:
“When [if] you will not convert, then please step down; renounce the papacy!”
Now, bear well in mind that Bishop Schneider isn’t giving us a history lesson simply because he finds it interesting; he is pointing to the past because it is relevant to the present situation concerning Francis.
When you will not convert…
Bishop Schneider appears to be suggesting that Francis stands in need of conversion; obviously, to the Catholic faith.
But if a man is not Catholic, neither is he pope!
So why would anyone implore him to step down from an office he does not truly occupy?
For the simple reason that doing so would eliminate confusion and more clearly reflect the truth.
In any case, with just this brief video excerpt in mind, one could hardly claim to be surprised if it was discovered that Bishop Schneider privately believes that Jorge Bergoglio is a formal heretic and thus not a true pope; even though he has refrained from saying so publicly.
For how many other Catholics is this the case?
I am reminded of “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” the following brief synopsis of which is taken from Wikipedia:
A short tale … about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, no one dares to say that they don’t see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as “unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent”. Finally, a child cries out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!”
No one actually knows the private convictions of Catholics (the sacred hierarchy included) with respect to Francis, and the degree to which the aforementioned “atmosphere of intimidation, repression, and fear” compels them to refrain from making them known lest they be seen as “unfit for their positions, stupid, incompetent,” or perhaps even less-than-Catholic.
I get it. Wading in those waters comes at a cost. Then again, speaking the truth plainly always does.
I don’t see how anyone can hear his comments and think anything other than what you say, Mr. V. He speaks the truth in more boldness, it seems, with each interview. So how it is that he (and others) can do so and not be exiled or punished in other ways by the current regime? Cdl. Burke was being ill-treated some time before the dubia. What’s the difference?
Possibly because Bishop Schneider is an Auxiliary Bishop from a relative outpost of the CC & not yet a Cardinal (which one day please God he will be) gives him more scope for speaking his mind in this forthright way. It is long past time that ‘niceness’ to this disrespectful occupant of the Papal Office was discarded. PF does not esteem the position he was questionably elevated to & has done untold damage to the historic view that the Vicar of Christ can only be judged by God. This held fast since VI in 1870 but now, given the completely inappropriate &, one might say, anti-Catholic disregard for such reverence given to this Office, PF has driven a great axe into the belief of Papal Infallibility. The disgraceful circus acts played out in front of him on the feast of the Chair of St. Peter is enough to turn anyone’s stomach. His denial to answer the Dubia & silence when Bishops use strong-armed tactics to force seminarians to comply with AL even if in doing so they commit sacrilege, says it all. He is, apparently, quite willing to see them leave the seminaries (worldwide) if they dare to question AL, yet as he signed that document he must own it & therefore must also be able to confirm what exactly he meant to bring about. If not, he displays his inability to uphold the True Faith & must be formally & publicly asked to resign.
Im under the impression that a True Pope is surely a dictator (one holding complete control) when he promotes universal Catholic teaching.
We may “ask” him to resign, but there is no earthly power/court/council that is capable of demanding his resignation. This concept is not found anywhere in Catholic dogma. Some theologians may have thrown this possibility out there, but it remains an impossibility.
The papacy is charged with the defence and proclamation of the objective, unchangeable Deposit of Faith given us by God’s Revelation and the Tradition of His Holy Church; and the governance of the Church for that purpose. A dictatorship is arbitrary and total control without objective valid authority.
“But if a man is not Catholic, neither is he pope!”
Honestly, how can Louie avoid the conclusion of the mainstream sedevacantists, who hold that none of the putative Popes since 1958 were true Popes, on the same basis that Louie employs to hold Francis is a non-Pope?
I mean, have you not seen the evidence of the heresies and acts of apostasy that John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis have committed? Why do the former two get a pass?
In other words:
Neo-sedevacantists, how do you avoid traditional sedevacantism?
“….or “Renounce the Papacy,”” indicates that Bishop Schneider believes that Francis is the Pope. He isn’t saying that Francis isn’t the Pope.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it has to be a duck; if somebody acts like heretic, speaks like heretic, then you know what he is. Don’t cheat yourself with some sophisticated theories, the horrible TRUTH is much simpler.
“But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: but that which is over and above these, is of evil.”(Mt5:37)
“But if a man is not Catholic, neither is he pope.”
The impression is that Bishop Schneider said this, except that he didn’t actually say it.
He still holds the exterior office of the papacy, even though he may have been a heretic/apostate for a long time (and thus not joined to the soul of the Church). For a visible office, visible action must be taken by visible authority in the Church.
Ana, I used much the same type of language in a post which OnePeterFive removed and then banned me. Apparently, those of us lowly laymen cannot say such things without incurring the wrath of the Neo-Catholics.
I agree with you. I would add that Francis further condemns himself by not only what he says, but what he has written and attempted to pass off as official doctrine/dogma. For those of us who have eyes to see, and a brain that can process thoughts in a critical, analytic manner, we know that Francis is a public, manifest heretic. But, I get it. I am only a mere layman- not a member of the Catholic clergy. As such I cannot make this pronouncement. But I digress…
Yet another churchman who refuses to speak directly, thus forcing us to decode.
I think it’s got more to do with the patience and humility of the website owners, Al. 😉
What visible authority can remove him?
Francis the Hubris could never renounce the papacy. He is having too much fun doing and saying anything he wants without fear of consequences. Actually I think he loves negative attention the best because it empowers him to be a loose cannon. God bless Bishop Schneider, but his words have no impact on this miserable “papacy”. We need an army of Bishop Schneiders to invade the Vatican with an eviction notice.
Those outside of the Faith never speak directly. When we need to “decode” things then we know that the devil is speaking.
An army of Bp. Schneiders would be woefully insufficient. Bp. Schneider refuses to speak directly. He’s milquetoast. We need an army of Abp. Lefebvres.
Good point, Alphonsus, but I think the eviction notice will make up for any insufficiency. Archbishop Lefebvre does have an army. It’s called the Society of St. Pius X. However, it appears to me that at this time in history, this potentially very strong army lacks leadership. Where are the Generals?
“Bishop Schneider appears to be suggesting that Francis stands in need of conversion; obviously, to the Catholic faith.
But if a man is not Catholic, neither is he pope!”
Actually, Louie, you’re conflating the internal & external forums completely. This is a very fundamental and critical error when considering Church membership and ecclesiastical office!
Bishop Schneider is certainly aware that one can be in need of conversion and still be a member of the Church. A person in mortal sin, or even material error, is in need of conversion. A person can even commit the mortal sin of heresy, meaning he knowingly renounces the Church as the rule of Faith, and is thus both in mortal sin and entirely bereft of the theological virtue of Faith, but is, indeed, still a member of the Church.
If this were not the case, the Church would not be visible, for starters. Also, no one would ever know which popes in the history of the Church were really popes, and thus know one would ever know which Catholic truths were really true, since it could not be known if those dogmas were promulgated by a “real” pope.
See how these basic errors bring the whole Church crashing down?
Here’s a bit of information:
The theologians teach that what unites a man to the external forum – the Body – are profession of the true faith, reception of the sacraments, and formal union with the supreme pontiff and the hierarchy. Bellarmine:
“This one and true Church is the assembly of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith and the communion of the same sacraments, under the rule of the legitimate pastors, and especially that of the Roman Pontiff, the one Vicar of Christ on earth. From this definition, it is easy to infer which men belong to the Church and which do not belong to it. There are three parts of this definition: the profession of the true faith, the communion of the sacraments, and the subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the legitimate pastor.”
Now, exactly what is meant by “profession of the true faith” becomes pertinent. Regarding that, I will quote from a TOFP article online (emphasis are mine):
Regarding the condition for membership, Fr. Berry wrote:
“…three conditions are absolutely necessary and of themselves sufficient for membership; viz.:
(a) Initiation by baptism;
(b) External profession of the true Faith **which is had by submission to the teaching authority of the Church**.
(c) Submission to the ruling authority of the Church.”
The external profession of the true Faith means submitting to the teaching authority of the Church, that is, acknowledging that the Church is the infallible rule of Faith.
Fr. Berry goes on to explain that perfect observance of the conditions (or “unities”) is not absolutely necessary for a person to retain membership in the Church. He wrote:
“These conditions may be briefly summarized in one phrase:
The reception of Baptism, and the preservation of the unities – unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government; or in other words, reception of Baptism and submission to the teaching and ruling authority of the Church. It should be noted, however, that perfect observance of the unities is not required for mere membership in the Church; a person need not make an explicit profession of faith at all times; nor conform all his actions to it. He need not make a diligent use of the Sacraments at all times, neither must he be free from all infractions of Church laws and precepts.”
The Cardinal [Billot] goes on to explain that “**the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium**” (which severs the formal aspect of the external bond), and not simply the profession of a heretical doctrine (the material aspect of the bond). What this also means is that even if Sedevacantists want to claim that the public “sin” of heresy causes loss of membership in the Church (without the need of the Church rendering a judgment), it would only apply in the case of those who publicly severed their submission to the Church as the rule of faith – in other words, those who publicly defected from the Faith by leaving the Church of their own will. The public “sin” of heresy would not be manifest by a person who merely professed a heretical doctrine, since, as Cardinal Billot explained, the nature of heresy does not consist of the professing a materially heretical doctrine, but in the “withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium.”
See the full article:
Pope Francis could be in material error or even in the mortal sin of heresy, but this is completely independent of his membership in the Church. He has never publicly renounced the Church as the rule of faith – declared himself to be *leaving the Church*, that is.
Unless he explicitly renounces that membership, OR is judged pertinacious in heresy by the Church, which disposes him toward deposition, he is the pope.
This is not just a fact, but a dogmatic one. Without such assurances in Church membership, the Church is reduced to nothing.
“Honestly, how can Louie avoid the conclusion of the mainstream sedevacantists, who hold that none of the putative Popes since 1958 were true Popes, on the same basis that Louie employs to hold Francis is a non-Pope?”
A very good question, that.
I agree that Bishop Schneider has said and done some great things and imo he’s far above any of the other bishops and I’d love nothing more than for someone to prove me 100% wrong but after reading this article I’ve posted (if it’s true) OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING isn’t his soul in a state of mortal sin just like OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING PJPII’s soul was in a state of mortal sin when he died. The grave sin of “ecumenism” against the 1st commandment which neither of them have ever rejected can’t be overlooked and the fact that they don’t seem to even realize it has always been strongly condemned by the Church, the Bible and as recently as “Mortalium Animos” by Pope Pius XI makes me think that PJPII WAS and Bishop Schneider IS in a state of obstinacy which is also the reason they both became blinded to some very obvious and logical Church teachings against the First Commandment. Just think if Bishop Schneider is the best of the lot how sad the condition of the rest of the Church is.
Here’s some quotes from a link found on johnjobilbee’s post:
“I can hear them say: “You exaggerate! There are many good bishops who pray, who have the Faith, who are edifying, etc”. Were they saints, as soon as they accept the false Religious Liberty, hence the secular State; false ecumenism, and hence the admission of many ways of salvation; of liturgical reform, and hence of the practical negation of the Sacrifice of the Mass; of the new catechisms with all their errors and heresies, they officially contribute to the revolution within the Church and to its destruction.”
“It is the Vatican II Council that gave a wider understanding of the Mystery of the Church according to the Teaching of the Fathers of the Church […]. Thus, the Church has been seen as “a people made one with the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Lumen Gentium 4) 2”
“There is a new ecclesiology, that is clear.[…] In my opinion, this is exceptionally grave: it is absolutely impossible to say that there could be a new ecclesiology. We do not make the Church nor have we made the Church, and neither the pope, the bishops, history nor councils make the Church. She was made by Our Lord. […] This does not depend on us. Now, how can they say, all of a sudden: “Now because of Vatican II, there is a new ecclesiology”? It’s incredible.”
Yep, and this top quote of Arch. LeFebvre pretty much sums up all the “dubia” Cardinals too. Great at defending the 6th commandment but fail miserably when it comes to defending the 1st commandment so ultimately they all “officially contribute to the revolution within the Church and to it’s destruction”, regardless of how “boldly” they speak out against the errors of A.L.
Dennis is correct, Al. One must consider the source form which the rejection comes.
As soon as one takes up the opinion that it is simply impossible that Bergoglio could be the pope, there are two options.
1. The Ann Barnhardt option. He is not the pope because Benedict still is.
2. He is not the pope because he’s a flaming, stinking, dangerous heretic whom we are duty bound to avoid and reject by Divine command.
The Ann Barnhardt opinion will run into enormous trouble if Benedict dies. They will have to say that the Chair is vacant, but still be against the “traditional” sede’s. If on the other hand, by some strange turn of events, Bishop Fellay becomes a Cardinal and is elected in a conclave after the death of Francis, but while Benedict lives on, the Benedict/Barnhardt opinionists will still have to reject him as an antipope.
In option 2, you will soon become a sede all the way back to John XXIII or Paul VI, simply by applying the same principles that lead you to conclude, as a private layman, that Francis was not the pope because he was a stinking, dangerous heretic.
What a time of history we live in.
By what authority would you be able to determine exactly which group of people constitute the “visible authority” required to depose Francis?
Eventually it will come down to you making a decision, on your own, based upon the best information you have available – but heavens-to-betsy, don’t you DARE decide someone’s a heretic on your own!
My question exactly Tom. They say we have to wait for the authoritative declaration from the proper authority, but the individual needs to infallibly determine for his or her self just which group of men are that authority.
They’re just adding one more link in an impossible chain, trying to stall the inevitable.
If we can know based our own use of reason that a certain group of men has the authority to declare the pope not to be the pope, then why can one not say that such and such is a heretic? It does not add up.
I think thats the key in this issue. We cannot decide who is interiorly a heretic. We can only listen and observe the exterior actions and that verdict is crytal clear. The v2 NO sect has taught heresy. We have only one option, follow divine law and have nothing further to do with modernist heretics. The SSPX is between a rock and hard place right now because they kept up the charade that objective modernists can be objective Catholics
What is the point of the Papacy?
Ok for all the Sedevacantist, maybe you are right. So how are we going to elect the next Pope if all the Cardinals are fake?
How did they elect the second Pope? Or the third? The point is that the election process is a man made law and thus subject to changes. The office is divinely instituted not the election process. They could draw straws, it doesnt matter.
“For it was not God’s will that the Church be hidden, SO THAT NO ONE might plead this excuse. It was foretold that the Church would be established throughout the entire earth. And it HAS BEEN MADE VISIBLE to the whole world. Hence, it is true that the Church IS HIDDEN FROM NOBODY. IT IS NOT ALLOWED FOR ANYONE NOT TO KNOW THIS CHURCH; for which reason, according to the word of Jesus Christ, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT IT BE HIDDEN.” ~ St. Augustine
And ST Athanasius said something to the effect that if the whole world became Arian (including the visible church), then it would be Athanasius against the world.
And St. Jerome did say that the whole world woke up and found itself Arian but he never said anything about the VISIBLE Church no longer existing because of that.