Skip to main content

Deposing Heretical Popes: Bp. Schneider's Opinion vs. Doctors of the Church, St. Francis de Sales & St. Athanasius

Turning the table on Bishop Athanasius Schneider's opinion that a heretical pope can't be deposed is easy.

Schneider said: "[N]o... universal... or... Papal Magisterium... would support the theories of the deposition of a heretical pope," but the exact same thing can be said of the bishop's opinion:

"[N]o... universal... or... Papal Magisterium... would support the theories of" not being able to depose "a heretical pope."

Schneider's opinion has next to zero authority or merit when standing next to the teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales:

[T]he Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Schneider, also, apparently is implying sit on you hands and do nothing when he says:

"There is no historical case of a pope losing the papacy during his term of office due to heresy."

So is the bishop saying during the time of the Arian heresy because there was no historical case of the Catholic Church by universal and Papal Magisterium teaching explicitly the dogma that Jesus is God that the last faithful Catholics should have sat on their hands and done nothing.

Sorry, but St. Athanasius and mostly the laity didn't follow your advise. In fact, this historical case goes against your do nothing policy.

They demanded that the Church correct the Arian heretics, universally and papally proclaimed the new explicit dogma that Jesus is God and depose those bishops who refused to recant the Arian heresy.

In the past, when popes were in error it was a one time and minor hersey. Today as never before in the history of the papacy we have repeated errors and heresies from a pope.

The situation today between Francis and the heretical popes of the past is a difference between kind not degree.

In the past, the heretical popes were a matter of degree like minors degrees of burns that don't cause death.

Today, with Francis as compared to the past heretical popes there is a difference of kind such as the minor ailment of a common cold versus a ailment like deadly cancer.

We have Pope Francis by means of Apostolic Exhortations, Encyclicals, AAS, the Catechism and papal statements teaching errors and heresies such as God wills "a diversity of religions," adulterers can receive Communion, the death penalty is "inadmissible" and the error list goes on.

Sorry, but like St. Athanasius we demand that the Church correct the Francis heretics, universally and papally proclaimed the new explicit dogma of deposing a heretical pope and depose those bishops who refuse to recant the Francis heresies.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.












Comments

Constantine said…
What is frightening about Francis us that he wants to do what he does. Pope Liberius did not want to make concessions to the Aryans.The Emperor Honorius exiled the Pope to a cold, damp Greek island. Pope Liberius was under duress. Pope Francis is not. He, Francis is putting duress on the governments such as Italy to accept uncontrolled immigration, climate change legislation, and to create a social and political climate discouraging pro-family, antiabortion and anti-LGBT efforts. Francis is not just a heretic, but an exporter of revolution and disorder into the political and natural order.
Justina said…
There is something unnervingly simplistic about the way Bishop Schneider explains his view that the pope gets his power "directly from God." Well, yes; but Our Lord said something comparable about Pontius Pilate, once. The pope gets his power directly from God BY MEANS OF valid papal elections, the terms of which must be scrupulously observed for any power to be conferred at all. Otherwise, not only could popes not be deposed--presidents couldn't be impeached, dog-catchers couldn't be fired, and Tribunals couldn't declare unions null, either. Bishop Schneider's defemders like to accuse (quite unjustly) those of us who question Bergoglio's validity of harboring sede tendencies in our hearts. It seems to me that the good bishop and his sympathizers are harboring rank, irrational superstition in their minds.
MEwbank said…
I would only like to add to what Justina has posted.

One PROPERLY elected to the papal office actually receives his power, his right to speak ('jurisdictio') about the universal administration of power in the Church, proximately from the Church and her designated ministers permitted to choose a successor to the Vicar of Peter according to stipulated actions.

To say that a pope gets power 'directly from God' is utterly simplistic. The Most Holy Creator, the Eternal Trinity, does not and did not nullify the causality (and responsibility) of created agents to fulfill what was intended.

Praypraypray said…
I found this in the comments section of a Catholic website, news site, or blog. Unfortunately, I cannot remember where it’s from... Anyway, it’s good...
“Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, former rector of the Gregorian University, studied the past millennia of canonical tradition concerning the loss of papal office. Such an extensive study by a canonist of his caliber is quite rare, and hence his findings should carry great weight. This is what he wrote about the topic in an article published in 2013 by Civiltà Cattolica:

Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlanda: “The vacancy of the Roman See occurs in case of the cessation of the office on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which happens for four reasons: 1) Death, 2) Sure and perpetual insanity or complete mental infirmity; 3) Notorious apostasy, heresy, schism; 4) Resignation. In the first case, the Apostolic See is vacant from the moment of death of the Roman Pontiff; IN THE SECOND AND IN THE THIRD FROM THE MOMENT OF THE DECLARATION ON THE PART OF THE CARDINALS; in the fourth from the moment of the renunciation.”

He went on to explain that the Cardinals do not depose the pope, but only declared the fact of his heresy. It is “from the moment of the declaration on the part of the Cardinals” that the see becomes vacant, NOT BEFORE.

In the case of Francis, there have been no solemn warnings and no declaration from the Cardinals. Hence, he remains pope...”
Ana Milan said…
By not publicly correcting PF the present Hierarchy are unanimously agreeing with his statement that ALL religions are the same, i.e. that the OHC&A Church founded by Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, is on a par with schismatics, infidels, communists, atheists, satanists. What a shock!

By their neglect of shepherding His flock they show solidarity with PF in his opinion that Jesus was not Divine but just another prophet of his day & his teaching only pertained to the time in which he lived. If there is no Hell as PF tells us emphatically there isn’t, then there is no Sin & no need for Redemption. So why was it necessary for Jesus to undergo His Passion & Crucifixion? No other ‘religious’ leader ever did so, nor did they refer to the Divine Triune Godhead but hold to various ‘gods’ that Jesus warned us against.

This Marxist/Modernist/NWO Regime we have in the Vatican was brought about by the St. Gallen Mafia & not in accordance with the rules laid down by PJPII, yet the majority of the prelature seem pretty pleased about that & are not willing to budge. This is an atrocity, a public denunciation of the Ten Commandments & the Creed. They are obedient to a false god in PF who wants to do away with anything pertaining to the OHC&A faith to suit their own pleasure, most being sodomites or enablers & protected by PF who says that sins of the flesh are of the lowest grade as we are made vulnerable in that compartment. He never attempts to raise our spirits to higher standards & even betrays those who carry the cross of Christ daily.

If +Schneider believes that Christ wants this infiltrator in the PO & recognizes his appointees, then I am really amazed & view his opinion as another betrayal. We were promised by ++Burke a public correction that would require an answer &, if not, followed by a warning that we should not follow PF. Nothing has happened & the crisis gets worse by the hour. How can we ever again trust in the supreme office of the Papacy? This bunch of heretics have been successful in their primary mission to completely hide from public view the OHC&A Church under a colossal dung heap of sodomy, freemasonry, abortion, euthanasia, molestation of the vulnerable, desecration of the sacraments, church sacrilege & scandals of every kind. And +Schneider believes we should just pray & do nothing?
God is love said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
God is love said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Popular posts from this blog

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 | cocatholicconference.org   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious

Does Francis's "Right-hand Man" Parra have a "Sexual Predation against Seminarians, Adultery, and even a Deadly Sex Game...[that] 'might even be a Scandal Surpassing that of McCarrick'"?

  Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra with Francis Today, the Call Me Jorge website asked "What could be so important that Francis interrupted his weekly adulation [Audience] session?": Pope gets a phone call during the Audience. Haven’t seen this before. Then he quickly leaves and says he will be back. pic.twitter.com/npCuPzdnxP — The Catholic Traveler (@MountainButorac) August 11, 2021 It was Abp. Mons. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Substitute for the Secretariat of State, who was involved in the recent scandal of mismanagement during the acquisition of a € 300 million building in London. Still no word on what the phone call was about . [http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2021/08/what-could-be-so-important-that-francis.html] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[https://catholicherald.co.uk/roman-curia-the-popes-new-right-hand-man/] In 2019, Life Site News reported that Parra alleged

Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the "Gruesome Death of Arius"?

  I have read the letters of your piety , in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians , in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius . With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy . But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy , has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church ; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question woul