Flashback: Might Bp. Schneider, Skojec & 1P5 think Athanasius was Wrong to Teach Jesus is God because "there [was] No Official Church Teaching on this Issue"?
The theory of the automatic loss of the papacy due to heresy remains only an opinion, and even St. Robert Bellarmine noticed this and did not present it as a teaching of the Magisterium itself. - Bishop Athanasius Schneider [https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-validity-of-pope-francis/]
The following is from a Catholic Monitor reader:
Because the [Pope John Paul II's] Universi Dominici Gregis says that it is necessary to abdicate according to Canon Law 32:2. Failure to comply on this point will lead to the conclusion in Article 76:
"In the event that the election is made in a manner other than that prescribed in this Constitution or without the conditions set forth herein having been observed, such election is therefore null and void, without the need for any declaration, and therefore confers no right on the person elected." [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2023/09/are-1p5-gaspers-feser-their.html]
This idea that the Bergoglian situation is unprecedented means we cannot do anything about it is absurd. Arianism was, at the time, unprecedented, but something was done about it. Any number of conflicts have come up, and something was done about them. Why do we suddenly believe that our hands are tied? - The Catholic Monitor [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2023/09/thanks-bp-schneider-for-your-opinion.html]
Francis apologist Steve Skojec and his website, One Peter Five, have come to the defense of their beloved it is infallibly impossible that Pope Francis can be a antipope and, also, if he is a heretic, he can't be deposed anyway.
This time they didn't bring up the totally discredited "universal acceptance" argument, but presented laughable strawman arguments.
The One Peter Five article claims that a invalid papal conclave that elected a antipope can't happen during the time of Francis (which happened during the time of St. Bernard of Clairvaux) "because the underlying assumption is that Francis can't be the pope because Francis is a heretic."
(One Peter Five, "Is Francis the Pope?", October 29, 2019)
This is a laughable strawman argument because the supposed "pope" during St.Bernard's time wasn't a heretic, but was a invalidly elected antipope because his conclave didn't follow the conclave constitution of the previous pope.
(Whether the supposed "pope" was a heretic or not a heretic is beside the point. The main point is and was did the conclave follow the conclave constitution of the previous pope.)
By the way, Mr. Skojec, the main argument of Bishop Rene Gracida is that the Francis conclave didn't follow the conclave constitution of the previous pope.
Also, can someone get Skojec and his writers a Catholic history book?
The next laughable argument is a pope who is a heretic can't he deposed even though Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales explicitly states so because "there is no official church teaching on this issue" according to the One Peter Five piece.
According to Skojec's website, St. Athanasius was wrong to fight for the undefined teaching that Jesus is God because there it wasn't a "official church teaching" so, like the Francis apologists at One Peter Five, Athanasius should have sat on his hands and said Jesus isn't God because there is no "official church teaching" defining the teaching.
By the way, Mr. Skojec, there is no "official church teaching" that a heretic pope can't be deposed, but there is a Doctor of the Church who explicitly teaches that a heretic pope can be deposed.
St Francis de Sales declared:
"The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostlic See."
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)