Bishop Schneider: Supporting an anti-Pope is the Tradition of the Church

Editor’s Note: This video’s content is as explosively absurd as it’s title. And this, from a man of God who said in previous years, that heresy does not put you outside of the communion of the Church. It contains numerous historical errors and a complete complex of faulty and erroneous opinions and interpretations of jurisprudence and canon law. In a few days, I will enumerate these errors and refute them, but it will take some time, considering my many other duties at the moment.

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

11 thoughts on “Bishop Schneider: Supporting an anti-Pope is the Tradition of the Church”

  1. I have spotted disturbing inconsistencies and contradictions of canon law which thanks to this blog I’m familiar with, –and I’m just an ordinary layman.
    As I understand it, Canon Law is the voice of Christ, through Peter, regulating the administration of the Church.
    My pastor says that if Canon law says something (in this case about papal resignations, and regulating conclaves) and everyone ignores it, OR, it falls into desuetude, that law itself doesn’t bind– such as women being obliged to cover their heads in Church. He maintains that since Vatican II, it is no sin if women come to church bare-headed. (I commented that if they were ignorant of this law “of holy tradition” –& I’m not sure head coverings were in canon law– there was no sin; but that older women who once did it, and then left off, are guilty of something; probably irreverence and possibly vanity (?) However Canon Law regarding Papal Resignations & Consitories did not fall into the same category as women’s head coverings, and weren’t to be compared.
    But my principle answer to him was,
    “Then what good is Canon Law if it’s ok for everyone to agree to ignore the parts they don’t want to obey? Our Lord says that what Peter [& his successors] would bind on earth,– would also be bound in Heaven.” Our polite discussion ended there. . . .

    1. I do not know if wearing head covering was ever a canon, but it is Apostolic Tradition and is to be restored and not lightly ignored.

    2. Father Hesse once explained that in matters of governance and discipline the Pope could make changes, like the wearing of veils (disipline), the disolution of the jesuits (governance) but the Pope cannot make changes related to faith (like completely changing the rite of mass, and with this changing the faith)

      1. Yes.
        And it needs to be repeated that though the [legitimate] pope can change canon law, –yet as regards the law governing conclaves, a [legitimate] pope cannot pass an “ex post facto” law changing the laws under which he himself was elected.

        He can’t retrospectively change the past, in other words, notwithstanding there is some shaky precedent in the legitimising of previously excluded bastard offspring of a King to the line of succession when all other legitimate heirs have died/ been killed off. (I’m thinking of the bastard heirs of John of Gaunt, a situation which caused the English Wars of the Roses).

        Tangentially, this is another reason to preserve chastity at the service of the sanctity of marriage: it prevents bloody dynastic wars between legitimate and illigimate offspring. E.g.: If Abraham had trusted God, he would not have fathered Ishmael on Hagar: and therefore prevented the Islamic persecutions Christians suffer today. (The Ishmaelites are those who later became Muslims)

  2. If someone has the time to accurately transcribe this talk in English, please post it here, as it will assist those who do not know English to hear this argument and understand it better.

  3. Msgr. Athanasius Schneider is wrong in his recent statement: «Theory that Benedict XVI is pope and not Francis defies ‘tradition of the Church’ », because we can verify that in the History of the Catholic Church there have been several periods of even up to 4 years without a reigning pope and periods in which an antipope has usurped the papacy.
    Periods without a pope: between Saint Marcellin (296-304) and Saint Marcellus (308-309), between Saint Eusebius (309) and Saint Melquiades (311-314), between Saint Clement IV 1265-1268 and Blessed Gregory X 1272 -1276.
    The list of anti-popes is long, one of the most notorious is the anti-pope “Anacletus” who was implanted in a non-canonical election after Innocent II, the true Pope, had already been elected. Despite his invalid and non-canonical election, Antipope Anacletus II gained control of Rome and the support of a majority of the college of cardinals. Anacletus had the support of almost the entire population of Rome, until the true Pope regained control of the city in 1138 (The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Anacletus”, vol. 1, 1907, p. 447).»

Comments are closed.