"Even Funnier is what Cionci said about Schneider implying that Francis isn't Catholic: 'You are right, but by recognizing Francis... [you] presuppose the Existence of a Non-Catholic as a Pope'"?
Schneider and all Francis traditionalists don't agree with Francis on
pachamama idolatry, diversity of religions, Communion for adulterers and
the betrayal of the Chinese underground Church, but he and they enable
Francis to keep doing these blasphemies against God and battering
Moreover, Schneider and all the Francis traditionalists apparently will
never stop defending Francis's "papal right" to keep committing
blasphemies against God and battering faithful Catholics black and blue
such as in China because "he's our pope" and "we must keep the peace and
not have schism" despite the blasphemies and batterings. - The Catholic Monitor [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/02/is-bp-schneider-flying-monkey-or.html]
The very existence of a response from Bishop Athanasius Schneider
confirms in a spectacular fashion what The Catholic Monitor has been
saying lately that the Benedict-is-Pope movement and the Bishop Rene
Gracida movement are growing! They can't be ignore forever.
I would point out two basic things about Bishop Schneider's opinions in favor of the Francis validity:
1. The first section of the argument appears to presumes what it sets out to
prove--here is how we have to treat Francis because that is how you
have to treat a pope. But what if he isn't the pope?
2. Apparently Bishop Schneider is
arguing that subjective affirmations of Benedict make Francis the pope,
without any reference to UD Gregis or Canon Law at all. Is Bishop
Schneider the Pelagian?
If he were to say others are Pelagians--in other words, we are using our own
strength and trying to have our own way by saying Francis may not be a valid pope. In
truth it would be exactly the other way around because why is he saying "in this case" (BiP) "one absolutizes the aspect of legality"
What the heck? Isn't this an admission, by Bishop Schneider, that "Francis" isn't--legally--the pope?
So does Bishop Schneider think "Francis" is the pope because he (Schneider) agrees with Amoris laetitia Chapter 8, in which it is contented that "law"--namely, God's--shouldn't be "absolutized," either?
As Bishop Schneider has just demonstrated, it is the champion of Francis validity who seemingly superimposes his own thoughts and preferences seemingly on Divine Revelation and Canon Law, who tries through brute force of prestige or numbers to induce others to look on a man as the Successor of Peter in the absence of objective evidence--more precisely, flying in the face of both facts and reason.
Bishop Schneider apparently said (here) that there have never been any antipope:
"The hypothesis that says that... Pope Francis would be an invalid pope, contradicts not
only the proven and reasonable practice of the great tradition of the
Why is Bishop Schneider seemingly saying there can't be any such thing as an antipope because God wouldn't allow it?
It's seems funny to asked him, doesn't he know God has allowed more than 40 antipopes in Church history?
Even funnier is what journalist Andrea Cionci said about Schneider implying that Francis isn't Catholic and needing to "convert" with the statement and question "You are right, but by recognizing Francis as the legitimate pope, in fact presuppose the existence of a non-Catholic as a pope and how could this ever constitute the greater good of the Church?":
Excuse me, but you yourself have courageously declared some time ago that Pope Francis “ought to convert” (here). You are right, but by recognizing Francis as the legitimate pope, in fact presuppose the existence of a non-Catholic as a pope and how could this ever constitute the greater good of the Church? The fact that Bergoglio is not Catholic, as measured by the Faith, is derived from his not being the pope, from his not having the munus, the divine investiture (retained by Benedict XVI) which guarantees infallibility ex cathedra and the ordinary assistance of the Holy Spirit (CCC 892).If the legitimate head of the Church “has to convert” to Catholicism, something which is at conflict with his very role as pope, this is an atrocious misfortune and hence, consequently, all of his un-catholic acts as pope and his nominations do not in fact suit the supreme good of the Church, but are indeed spirituallyl noxious and lethal to Her. [https://www.fromrome.info/2022/06/15/andrea-cionci-responds-to-msgr-athanasius-schneiders-appeal-to-accept-bergoglio-as-pope/]