Bishop Schneider, your Essay is a porridge of falsehood and presumption!

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

French Translation

The Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica hands down the Catholic Tradition on the duties of the Catholic Faithful in matters where the Faith itself is put into public doubt or danger by the actions or statements of prelates, even of one’s own Bishop, when he writes:

To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the Faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectufully. Hence the Apostle, writing to the Colossians (4:17), tells them to admonish their prelate: “Say to Archippus, Fulfill thy ministry!”. It must be observed, however, that if the Faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence, Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the Faith, and, as the gloss on St. Augustine says, on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.” (Summa Theologica, II II, Q. 33, a. 4, ad 2)

Thus, I take up my pen to publicly rebuke Mons. Athanasius Schneider for statements made in his Essay published today at LifeSite News,  entitled, On the question of the true pope in the light of the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy and the speculations about the resignation of Benedict XVI.

First, I find remarkable, that the Monsignor has doubled down on his opinion that the canonical crime of heresy publicly posited does not cause one to lose immediately every office in the Church, both theologically and canonically. He has sustained this opinion before, against all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, as has been shown by several other writers (refuted ably here). His attempt to do so again, by arguing that a particular passage of Gratian is spurious is simply an absurd recourse to an absurd argument. Gratian was never a magisterial authority, so whether a particular passage is authentic or not, does not change the fact that notable authors, including Pope Innocent III, before and after Gratian held the opinion that heresy causes the loss of office, for anyone whomsoever. — Is he really saying, that Innocent III taught error, because of a faulty gloss? I say that he himself, that Bishop Schneider, is teaching error on the basis of a bad hermeneutic. To claim that the Church can lose Her Faith because She cannot discern that an unauthentic gloss presents false teaching, is to say the Church has no grace of discernment in matters of the Faith, but I, Bishop Schneider, know better than them all. Who do you think you are, your Excellency? Do you think you are greater that Saint Robert Bellarmine, S. J., who is as Doctor of the Church, and who disagrees with you?

Canon 1364 makes no exceptions whatsoever for a pope. The principle of The First See is judged by no one, which is enshrined in canon 1404, regards cases before a tribunal and acts of the Roman Pontiff. It does not regard the man who is the pope, in the case of his personal faith. Because just as a man who is a heretic, is not a member of the Church, a man who is a heretic holds no office. And thus a man considered or judged on account of heresy, is not considered or judged on account of any office. This is why Canon 1364 has no exceptions and imposes an excommunication upon each and everyone who commits a public crime of heresy, schism or apostasy.

Second, as regard the Declaratio of Pope Benedict: Your excellency shows that you either do not understand Canon Law or that you do not understand causality itself. If you had apprised yourself of even some of the documents sent to you by many Catholics round the world, you can see that the Code of Canon Law — an authentic Magisterial Document which you have no right to disregard or misrepresent — itself requires for a valid papal resignation, that the act posited by the man who is the Roman Pontiff, be an act of renunciation of petrine munus. But Pope Benedict XVI never posited such an act. Statements made before or after such an act, regarding intention or signification of the act, have no bearing whatsoever on the nature of the act. If your excellency had done as much due diligence as I have, when you were in Rome, and paid a visit to Mons. Arrieta, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts, you would have understood that an act of papal renunciation has to be clear in itself, it cannot be subject to the interpretation of anyone, not even by the pope. For if it needs interpretation or explanation, then it is not clear, and not valid. And if the man has validly resigned, any interpretation he gives is not authoritative. Nor can a pope resign, by authoritatively interpreting an invalid act as valid, after the fact. Because Canon 332 §2 requires an act of renunciation of petrine munus: and by such it does not permit an act of resignation by means of a post-factum papal interpretation of a not clearly manifest act.

Your opinion runs contrary to Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, C. Ss.R., a Doctor of the Church, on legal interpretation. Do you think you know better than he, who held 2 doctorates in Law, one in canon law and another in civil law?

Third, all the quotes you cite, though they have no bearing, nevertheless, do not even prove the case you make with them, as I shall show here, by quoting each and commenting:

“Among you, in the College of Cardinals, there is also the future pope to whom today I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience” (Farewell address to the Cardinals, 28 February 2013).

Since, normally speaking, all Popes were former Cardinals, this statement can be said at any time to the College of Cardinals, whether all of them are present or not. It means nothing. We all should promise our obedience to all legitimate future popes, and past popes, because our obedience is owed to the office.

“I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty, but with profound interior serenity” (Last General Audience, February 27, 2013).

Howsoever aware one is of an act, does not make an act valid, unless you think you are God or that the one acting is God. Canon 332 §2 by imposing conditions upon a papal resignation and defining it as a papal renunciation of petrine munus, teaches implicitly that Pope John Paul II held invalid a renunciation of ministerium, that John Paul II judged his successor, as the man who was Pope, and that the act itself must be duly manifest, to be valid.  All of which make no provision for full awareness of substantial error or novelty as a cause of validity (cf. canon 188 and 126).

“There is not the slightest doubt about the validity of my renunciation of the Petrine ministry. The only condition of validity is the full freedom of the decision. Speculation about the invalidity of renunciation is simply absurd” (Letter from February 18, 2014, to Andrea Tornielli, published in La Stampa, February 27, 2014).

The controversy over the canonical effect of the Declaratio has nothing to do with the claim that a renunciation of ministerium cannot be valid or is not valid. It has to do with the claim that the renunciation of ministerium effects the same thing as a renunciation of munus, and that it fulfills the requirements of Canon 332 §2, as not being corrupted by substantial error (cf. canon 188).  Moreover, if Pope Benedict XVI thinks that liberty of action alone is the cause of a valid renunciation, then, he shows himself to be in invincible error as regards his own act, because clearly in Canon 332 §2 there are 2 causes of validity of a renunciation of munus: freedom and due manifestation. And if you think you can transpose those 2 causes of validity for an act of renunciation of munus to an act of renunciation of ministerium, to make the renunciation of ministerium a renunciation of munus, then clearly you are in error, grave error! Then your act is invalid either on account of Canons 38 when reading an administrative act in violation of 36 §2, and/or of canon 15 §1 for all such cases of error in juridical acts against canons 188 and 332 §2.

During a conversation with a journalist from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, the former Pope Benedict XVI said: “The Pope is one, he is Francis.” These words of Benedict XVI were reported in the written edition of Corriere della Sera, June 28, 2019 and anticipated in the Italian version of Vatican News on June 27, 2019.

This statement by Bishop Schneider is amazing of itself, because it is made regarding a report which was debunked by LifeSite News just days later. I suppose, the Bishop does not read the very electronic journal which publishes his Essay. And I suppose the editors of the same electronic journal omitted fraternal correction to help him save face by repeating such a false claim. But again, maybe I suppose too much.

Fourth, your excellency, why do you quote statements by Pope Benedict regarding his intentions to prove the Act of renunciation of ministry means an act of renunciation of papal munus, and then, in the next section of your essay, tell us not to hold that the actions and statements made by Pope Benedict which clearly show his intention to hold on to the papal dignity and office are not to be interpreted thus?

The Church is a visible society. Therefore, what was essential for the fulfillment of Benedict XVI’s resignation was not his possible internal thought but what he externally declared, for the Church does not judge about internal intentions (de internis non iudicat Ecclesia). Pope Benedict XVI’s ambiguous acts, like wearing a white cassock, keeping his name, imparting the apostolic blessing, etc., do not affect the unequivocal meaning of his act of renunciation. Many of his demonstrable and unequivocal words and actions after his resignation also confirm that he considers Pope Francis, and not himself, to be the pope.

Is evidence only to be interpreted to support your theory, and not objective reality? Do you honestly think that a validly resigned pope, should dress as the Pope, sign as the Pope, give blessings as the Pope? Moreover, do you think a real pope would salute a retired pope, at Panama City, saying to the crowds:  Look, Benedict, the pope!

If you want to close your eyes to facts which disprove your allegations, that is your affair, but asking the rest of the Church to do so is the very consummation of pride.

Finally, I must publicly reprove you for blasphemy against the Saints of Holy Mother Church, when you write:

Declaring Pope Francis to be an invalid pope, either because of his heresies or because of an invalid election (for reasons of alleged violations of the Conclave norms or for the reason that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope because of his invalid renunciation) are desperate and subjectively taken actions aimed at remedying the current unprecedented crisis of the papacy. They are purely human and betray a spiritual myopia. All such endeavors are ultimately a dead end, a cul-de-sac. Such solutions reveal an implicit Pelagian approach to resolving a problem with human means; a problem, indeed, which cannot be resolved by human efforts, but which requires a divine intervention.

Many Councils, not the least of which the Council of Etampes, France, in 1130 A.D., presided over by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, and the Synod of Sutri, approved of by St. Peter Damian and Bl. Pope Victor III and Pope St. Gregory VIII, have pronounced men to be invalid popes. To say that all such endeavors are pelagian and a dead end is not only a historical lie but a blasphemy against these holy men.

For all these reasons, I publicly ask you to withdraw the false assertions of your essay, if you want to be regarded any longer by Catholics as a Bishop who is faithful to the teaching and practice of the Church over the last 2000 years. Your desire to sustain the claim of Bergoglio to the papacy is clearly not based on facts, history or canon law, and is causing grave scandal to the faithful.

The true way forward, is the Catholic way, and it was proposed today by Catholics who know their faith and accept the teaching of the Church in its entirety.


CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the page at LifeSite News, where Bishop Schneider’s Essay has been published. It and the citations from his essay are used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]





With Globalist Censorship growing daily, No one will ever know about the above article, if you do not share it.

30 thoughts on “Bishop Schneider, your Essay is a porridge of falsehood and presumption!”

  1. Reblogged this on Ordo Militaris Radio and commented:
    Bishop Schneider is being rightly so blasted for statements that throw Saints and Doctors of the Church under the bus and even though Lifesitenews published his essay, they broke news a few days ago in debunking the fake news that Pope Benedict said the Pope is one and that is Francis. Lifesitenews should and must pull this essay and correct Schneider and so should others.

  2. Brother Alexis Bugnolo, your words are once again startlingly edifying and curative. Deo gratias.

    I also want to say thank you to everyone who comments on this site. I too share your awe, if I understand right, at having found this glorious source…Deo gratias.

  3. I hear loud banging Church bells on this one. Absolute fantastic rebuttal.

    Let it be very clear and ON RECORD that as of this day, Schneider unrepentantly stood on the wrong side of history, and held the position of a schismatic Bergoglian, and that his position is not founded on Truth in Catholic Dogma, Law or Magisterium.

    This is precisely why I cancelled his invitation to fly and visit my city a few months ago, and shunned him like we must Bergoglio and any unrepentant schismatic, for the glory of Christ and His Kingdom.

    1. LifeSite News has a lot of explaining to do to the public and their financial supporters, because they just published an Essay which asserts as true, that which they themselves reported was a falsehood.

      1. Brother, even for a layman your explanations are very clear and correct. It is astonishing that a bishop like Mgr. Schneider, even in his authority, is erring so gravely and abandoning his already straying flock. Many thanks & God bless.

  4. On the bright side, Brother, Bergoglio must be feeling a little desperate to get his best FrankenTrad weapon of controlled opposition to destroy his credibility like this. Before today, I’ve had a really difficult time explaining to anybody how this seemingly sincere man was one of Bergoglio’s most helpful tools. It’s easier now.

    1. Yes, Bergoglians are just like Democrats. They are so willing to hari kari themselves for the cause, and they are asked to hari kari themselves for the cause. Its a unique modern phenomena, and needs to be studied.

  5. Reblogged this on Septima Buccina and commented:
    I thought I was going to have to comment on this travesty that Draufgänger Schneider wrote, Brother Bugnolo spared me the pain. Everybody should read this – he really nails it. Thank you, Brother Bugnolo.

  6. Very good. br. Alexis. Mons. Athanasius Schneider appears to be part of the controlled opposition and cannot be trusted to express himself on the status of “Pope” Francis.

    1. Seeing that the Council of Trad Inc holds as a dogma that you cannot criticize Burke or Schneider, the fact that they are controlled opposition and willing to reject the faith itself to sustain Bergoglio, is now a necessary public issue. Silence is consent. Are they going to back Schneider, or all the Saints. You cannot have it both ways. The first way is not Trad, it is Anti-Trad, for the anti-Church.

  7. Too bad. I had a faint hope that Bp Schneider will join with Abp Lenga.
    I believe Abp Lenga was superior of Bp Schneider for some time.

    Very good and precise rebuttal.

  8. It is extremely sad to see an evidently holy man who has over the years suffered greatly at the hands of Communism being corrupted into submission by one of its muppets who, having publicly & demonically usurped the Throne of Peter by coercion, had himself elected by the infamous St. Gallen Mafia who used every malicious trick possible to have a living & true Pope, PBXVI, invalidly & illicitly removed from the Papal Office.

    It is also incomprehensible that such a learned Canon Lawyer as Cardinal Burke who at first, with three other Cardinals, wrote & presented the Dubia to PF which warranted a response & when none was forthcoming promised the Catholic world a formal correction which would have to be answered, suddenly make a U-turn & back down.

    Bishops Gracida & Lenga are so far the only prelates who have stepped forward & actually stated the facts as perceived by us all. PF is a Masonic/Marxist/Heretic & must be properly confronted. With all the might of the Holy Ghost behind us we, the Laity, insist that an international investigation into Vatican corruption be instantly convened to establish once & for all the true holder of the PO. This catastrophic & invalid bifurcation of the Papacy can no longer be tolerated as neither can the title Pope Emeritus be. As there can only ever be one Pope we are now demanding to be told which of these men, PF or PBXVI, is the Vicar of Christ on earth.

  9. Very easy, don’t need to debate or argue with the seeds of Satan. Where is Joan of Arc? Where is the Real Crusaders? All you have to do is to get a legion of real soldiers for Christ and take all the fake churchmen by their necks and throw them out. They want a Lucifer religion of the NWO, then they should get out and do their own satanic worship to Satan their father, not using our money, our church to do Luciferian Cult in our Holy Catholic Church. They are fake bishops, fake cardinals, fake popes, fake priests, fake nuns… They are in the highest positions about 4, 533 faggots/pedophiles communists of the Luciferians: the Zionist-Globalist-Freemasonry for the Synagogue of Satan. That is one nice way to do if they don’t use their weaponry on us but I believe they will because those men are criminals and greatest blasphemers who insulted God for centuries. Other way is just finished all the enemy by sword like God allowed us in the old day. GOD NEVER MINGLED WITH SATAN. CHILDREN OF GOD WILL NOT PUT UP WITH SATAN’S CHILDREN. Period. GOD GAVE US A HINT, HE SAID “SHE WILL CRUSH YOUR HEAD” THAT MEAN GOD ALLOWED US TO KILL ALL THE ENEMY AGAINST HIS CHURCH. THOSE GUYS NEED TO BE ELIMINATED IMMEDIATELY. The longer we tolerate them, the more wars and evil they will inflict on humanity and will destroy 95% of all humanity and drag 7 billions souls to hell. That is certain.

  10. Bishop Schneider, just like most prelates, is obviously comprised- either by willing ignorance or some other reason- wink, wink. Someone in power obviously has the goods on bishops like Schneider. All of them perfectly in position for blackmail. What is in Bishop Schneider’s dark closet from the past? Having spent three and a half years in major seminary before getting the boot, I can attest to this truth as I saw it up close and personal.

    Additionally, John Weston and Lifesite News take their marching orders from their top financial donors and from the sellout- Cardinal Burke.

  11. @althesilentcrusader
    What you say is a possibility, but, yet, you should not say such things without a proof. Focus rather on what was said and evaluate.
    Just saying…
    (being guilty of the same myself)

    As per lost hopes for leader.
    Abp Lenga seems to be pretty active. Not just lately but for years. He deserves all our support. Same for Bp Gracida. Prayers at minimum.

    1. You want proof? Follow the money trail. Same goes for Voris, Matt, and most of the R&R crowd. I am not saying anything that I have not personally experienced.

  12. “Among you, in the College of Cardinals, there is also the future pope to whom today I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience” (Farewell address to the Cardinals, 28 February 2013).“

    Not every Cardinal was present, so this statement implies the future pope must have been present. How would he have known whether the future pope was present or not present?

  13. The starting point for studying the “unique modern phenomenon” to which Brother refers in a comment in this thread (about those who are willing to Hari Kari themselves for the cause) would be the transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials and related testimony, in which men confronted with evidence of unimaginably heinous crimes against humanity, crimes which they themselves either committed or willfully facilitated, expressed mere bewilderment at being held accountable, offering in their own defense such observations as, “I always thought the responsibility remained with those in Berlin.”

    It is not without cause that Bergoglio keeps harping on this allegation that his opponents are the ideological heirs of the National Socialists. He needs to turn aside all suspicion that it is his own agenda which constitutes the swastika’s lengthening shadow. As I have argued in an article published elsewhere, his appeal to “Mother Nature” in “Laudato Si” and the Amazonian debacle is only tangentially related to Liberation Theology. In fact, it is lifted straight from the pages of “Mein Kampf” (see the groundbreaking analysis of Richard Weikart in “Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs That Drove the Third Reich,” Regnery 2016, and compare for yourself).

    This notion that obedience consists in the shutting down, rather than the rational submission, of the faculties of the soul is not Catholic, whether the person proposing it wears a miter and sounds orthodox in other ways, or not.

  14. The words attributed here to Pope Benedict XVl, “The Pope is one, he is Francis’, actually, I read that the words of the Holy Father were, ” There is only one Pope. And I am not sitting on the Throne of St. Peter”. Pope Benedict XVl is known for encrypted messages. I interpret Pope Benedict’s words as, There is only one Pope and I am He. I renounced the Ministerium so I don’t sit on the Throne of St. Peter (most possibly he renounced by force). I have never heard of Pope Benedict calling Bergoglio the Pope and I don’t believe we ever will. I’m sure the Holy Father knows Bergoglio is an anti-Pope but for somewhat obvious reasons, he remains mainly silent.

  15. If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected.” Jorge Bergoglio, prior to his election as pope, denying that sin done in private is sin, while denying The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).

    From The Catechism Of The Catholic Church:
    “1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121

    1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125
    1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate’s cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas’ betrayal – so bitter to Jesus, Peter’s denial and the disciples’ flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.”
    It is a sin to accomodate an occasion of sin, and thus cooperate with evils .“

    “It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, “For It Is “Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost”, that Holy Mother Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, exists.

    In The Year Of The Holy Eucharist, have we forgotten God’s Eucharistic Prayer?

    “20And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. 21That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

    22And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one. 23I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. 24Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me: that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world.”

    25Just Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee. And these have known that thou hast sent me. 26And I have made known thy name to them and will make it known: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

    Whoever is against the Pope is, ipso facto, outside the Church.”
    This is true only if it is true that the man who has been elected to the Papacy is not a schismatic, having set himself against every other validly elected Pope, and thus having set himself against Christ, and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, is no longer in communion with Christ and His Church.

    The erroneous notion that public morality and private morality can serve in opposition to one another and are not complementary, has led to grievous error in both Faith and reason, causing physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual harm.

    Perhaps we should demand to see the bodies of those Priests, who I will assume, because you referred to them as Priests, Brother Bugnolo, I assume they are Faithful.

Comments are closed.