Bishop Athanasius Schneider maintains that any irregularities that may have occurred in the 2013 Conclave have in any case been healed in radice by the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been recognized as pope by the Cardinal Electors, by the Episcopate, and by the majority of the faithful. Practically speaking. The argument is that, regardless of the events that may have led to the election of a pope – with or without external meddling in it – the Church, practically speaking, places a time limit beyond which it is not possible to challenge an election if the person elected is accepted by the Christian people. But this thesis is called into question by historical precedent.
In 1378, after the election of Pope Urban VI, the majority of Cardinals, Prelates and the people recognized Clement VII as pope, even though he was in reality an antipope. Thirteen out of sixteen cardinals questioned the validity of the election of Pope Urban due to the threat of violence from the Roman people against the Sacred College, and even Urban’s few supporters immediately retracted their election, summoning a new Conclave at Fondi which elected the antipope Clement VII. Even Saint Vincent Ferrer was convinced that Clement was the real pope, while Saint Catherine of Siena sided with Urban. If universal consensus were an indefectibly valid argument for a pope’s legitimacy, Clement would have had the right to be considered the true pope, rather than Urban. Antipope Clement was defeated by Urban VI’s army in the battle of Marino in 1379 and transferred his See to Avignon, leading to the Western Schism, which lasted thirty-nine years. Thus we see that the universal acceptance argument does not withstand the test of history. - Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò [https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-catholics-must-seriously-consider-the-possibility-that-francis-isnt-the-pope/?utm_source=featured_news&utm_campaign=usa]
Michael J. Matt
Over the past two years, tens of millions of Americans have awakened to the fact that the “Dialectical Left,” which includes Communism, achieves its agendas most effectively by strategically changing the meanings of words. This is a tactic that is very effective until it is recognized, at which point it rapidly becomes counterproductive because it is so obviously manipulative and so easily resisted by demanding clear definitions. [https://newdiscourses.com/2022/09/three-terms-communists-redefined-to-subvert-society]
"I thought it was getting into Sedevancantism." - Michael Matt [Censoring Viganò? Michael Matt responds, https://twitter.com/Michael_J_Matt/status/1708926355528699925]
The Remnant editor Michael Matt appears to not be allowing free debate and argument on the validity of the papacy of Francis and says his reason for this is the "Sedevacantism" in the video of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.
So, this seems like a good time to see if Mr. Matt has more guts than Steve Skojec, the publisher of One Peter Five. The Catholic Monitor asks the Remnant editor to answer the following dubia questions that Skojec ran away from:
1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said ” 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.” Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.
4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:
“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”
Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.
5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and notorious “Sedevacantist and Benevacantist” mastermind Ann Barnhardt for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/5-dubia-questions-for-steve-skojec.html]