"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'"?
Bishop Schneider calls faithful to pray for Pope Francis to 'convert' - PRO MEMORIApro-memoria.info
Bishop Schneider calls faithful to pray for Pope Francis to 'convert ... lifesitenews.com
Bishop Schneider: "Convert" or "renounce the papacy"
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
faithful Catholics.
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
Church" [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-schneider-theory-that-benedict-xvi-is-pope-and-not-francis-defies-tradition-of-the-church/]
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/] Bishop Schneider's other strange opinion is:
"Even if — according to the opinion of the automatic loss of the papacy
for heresy — the judgment of the loss of the papal office is pronounced
by the heretical pope upon himself, and he automatically falls from
office without any judgment by the Church, such an opinion contains a
contradiction and reveals a hint of crypto-conciliarism."
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bishop-schneider-releases-essay-on-the-question-of-the-true-pope]
Cardinal Raymond Burke in an 2016 interview with the Catholic World
Report website in responding to questions said exactly the opposite:
"CWR: Can the pope legitimately be declared in schism or heresy?"
"Cardinal Burke: 'If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would
cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It's automatic. And so, that could
happen... '"
"... CWR: Who is competent to declare him to be in heresy?"
"Cardinal Burke: 'It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals.'"
(Catholic World Report, "No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy," December 19, 2016)
As the Catholic World Report interview shows, he knows the teachings of
the Doctors of the Church and some of the greatest theologians of the
Church summed up by Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales:
"The Pope.. when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must 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)
Moreover, as the Mother of God website stated for Francis advocates like Schneider "Hopefully
this will finally lay to rest the false notions that 1) a pope cannot
be a heretic, 2) a layperson commits sin in calling a pope a heretic, 3)
popes are always owed obedience and cannot ever be criticized, and 4)
anyone critical of a pope is guilty of "attack," "hatred," etc., or is
liable to damnation":
More official Church teaching:
It shall be lawful for each and all of the cardinals,...as well as
for all the clergy and the Roman people,... to withdraw without penalty
and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even
if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this,
remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience
towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the
canons) and to avoid him as a magician, a heathen, a publican and a
heresiarch."
Pope Julius II, Council of Lateran V. 1513
"Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from
his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive
him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
St. Francis de Sales, "The Catholic Controversy"
"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope
and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member
of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by
the Church. This is the judgment of all the early fathers, who teach
that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
St. Robert Bellarmine, "On the Roman Pontiff"
"If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and
contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic Chair
would be vacant."
St. Alphonsus de Liguori, "The Truths of the Faith"
"An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for
by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his
still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called
because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition,
since by his own act he is no longer pope."
A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition
"The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold
that a council may depose a pope...(2) /ob fidem/ (on account of his
faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however,
heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to
be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head."
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils
In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in
perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define] that if ever at any
time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an
Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman
Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the
Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or
Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some
heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been
uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be
null, void and worthless... "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" Apostolic
Constitution of Pope Paul IV, 1559 [https://motheofgod.com/threads/can-a-pope-be-a-heretic-and-can-a-good-catholic-say-so.9461/page-3#post-139764]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.