A Reply to Msgr. Athanasius Schneider’s preposterous appeal to accept Bergoglio as pope

by Antonio Ghislieri

Despite not being an ordinary, the Auxiliary of Asana, Kazakstan, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, OSC has enjoyed no small influence within the Universal Church owing to his vast travel, his remarkable facility with many languages and a reputation for defending the Apostolic Tradition in both its content and praxis.

This article replies to the recent video by the Bishop, published here.

And yet, perhaps more for these reasons than any others, his recently video-posted reflections through the auspices of LifeSite News represent not simply a profound disappointment to those whose have been following very carefully the all-important details surrounding the papacy since Benedict XVI’s historical “Declaratio” of 2013, but a rupture in His Excellency’s reputation as a voice to be counted upon in the grave matter of sound theological leadership. In short, he has denounced the position that Pope Benedict has never left office, calling this a gateway to ‘Sedevacantism.”

Schneider’s View

In an oral presentation — calmly, but deceptively delivered — one comes to understand that Bishop Schneider’s position is not based at all upon facts, but upon a political discomfort, namely, that for Benedict as true pope not to have taken any act of governance for nine years would undermine the Church’s visibility, a necessary aspect of the indefectability of the Mystical Body. Moreover, he utterly refuses to consider the forensic evidence for the claim, condemning it as “legal positivism” and resorts to a terribly convoluted review of other instances of contested papal elections for a “sure guide” in how to deal with the contemporary papal crisis.

Problems with Schneider’s Historical “Approach”

Perhaps Bishop Schneider seeks to style himself a latter-day St. Bernard of Clairvaux; if so, he has failed quite blatantly. St Bernard successfully prevented an open schism in the Church; the same will not be said for Schneider’s intervention. Inasmuch as the Cistercian Doctor’s reputation for holy wisdom was so widespread whilst he lived, not only was he called upon to examine the validity of claimants of the papal throne in 1130, Bernard’s conclusion, based upon EXAMINATION OF THE CANONICAL EVIDENCE was respected. In wake of Bernard’s offering it, Antipope Anacletus renounced his claim. Curious, to say the least, that Bishop Schneider failed to include this applicable, historical precedent in his little review of ecclesiastical history.

Posterity’s “Looking Back” upon the purported simony of Gregory VI, by which he is said to have procured the papal throne for himself does not bestow upon posterity the authority to re-adjudicate the facts of that time. Do the annals of that era indicate there to have been a challenge on anyone’s part of the validity of Gregory’s election? Though the bishop does not tell us, one way or another, this historical moment might well — if simony was, in fact involved — constitute something of an embarrassment to students of Catholic history; it by no means serves to conclude that that moment in history serves as “precedent” for the present one: we are witnessing an open challenge to the election of Bergoglio based upon canonical facts. Schneider’s taking it upon himself to rely upon this 1045 “example” frighteningly recalls Justice SD O’Connor’s legal opinion that an abortion “option” ought not be withdrawn for the fact that people have come to rely upon its availability. “Let’s not look at the liceity of that action, but consider that others were able to live with it,” the Bishop seems to suggest.

The inference that the French Cardinals responsible for instigating the Western Schism at the close of the 14th century had any legitimacy to call for a “mulligan” owing to their votes’ having been forced by fear has ever been risible — and that is why their attempts to resurrect an Avignon Papacy were always counted as political scheming against the good of the Church. According to Schneider’s rendition, one is given to believe this was an instance where applicable law (governing conclave) was set aside by the Roman Church. Such rubbish ! — Urban VI’s legitimate election was never in question until the French cardinals discovered that he meant business about reform and went about it with a zeal which made life a tad too penitential for their collective scarlet bottoms.

Moreover, the Bishop’s belittling of contemporary, legal evidence concerning our present-day crisis is a disgraceful ruse, undermining, above all, our Lord’s own words: “What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” In the end, Schneider’s assertions amount to little if anything more than a politically-fitted “Don’t rock the boat,” when the “rocking” has, in fact, been orchestrated by those who have set aside the authority of John Paul II, which yet governs the licit running of papal succession.

Gate to “Sedevacantism”

As to the bishop’s assertion that challengers to the Bergoglio’s regime pave a way to “sedevacantism,” this is no more than “chum thrown to sharks.” For, Benedict XVI, beyond the wildest expectations, continues to live and breathe (itself an indication of where God might be lending His support). To adjudicate a situation based upon circumstances that have not yet obtained is itself bad logic.

What is more bad logic is to disregard a priori what the law itself would require, in whatever event would trigger yet another illegitimate conclave. The fact remains that the major events of 2013, namely, the canonically null “abdication” and the conclave which ensued, must be revisited for the sake of healing both the papacy and the Church. To rely upon a papal secretary — as Bishop Schneider does — as sufficient witness to conclude that Bergoglio is pope is the gestalt of the fabled ostrich: it refuses to see facts in plain sight because the resulting obligations in justice are both enormous and frightening.

Without question, there must obtain at some future date the not only enormously painstaking task of sanatio for the acts of purported government by a putative papacy, but also the condemnation of its many criminal actions. Until that time, the gift of valid episcopal ordination provides sufficient continuation of the Sacraments, supported as that charism is by the principal of “ecclesia supplet.” (Oddly, not mentioned in Schneider’s list of “endangered” acts: phoney canonizations.)

The Good of the Church/ of Souls

What the Asana Auxiliary never takes into consideration — manifesting his trust to be more in men than in God — is heaven’s manifold demonstration that the Holy Spirit of God in no way illuminates, protects, nor makes fecund the work of him whom Schneider claims to be successor of Peter. Who can argue that the machinations of the Jesuit idolator are anything other than bereft of divine support? Only 5th Columnist Freemasons.

How heaven will intervene to address the situation created by Benedict’s Declaratio, the ramifications of which will perdure beyond his death, is not yet manifest. What we do know is that Christ has conquered, Christ reigns and that He commands from heaven as well as from the Tabernacle, where He appears to nap once more. Yet once more, He will arise to calm to storm. Faith in Him, not in the facile words of poorly-spoken pastors will avail His own who know His Voice and distinguish It from that of hirelings.

Divine Infant Jesus, have mercy on us.
Mary Guadalupe, Patroness of the Unborn, convert our country’s hearts and end the abortion holocaust.
St Joseph, Protector of the Holy Family, pray for us.

17 thoughts on “A Reply to Msgr. Athanasius Schneider’s preposterous appeal to accept Bergoglio as pope”

  1. “For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. ”

    “It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), 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 (Filioque) exists.

    There can only be “A Great Falling Away”, a Great Apostasy, from The True Church, Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).

    “How heaven will intervene to address the situation created by Benedict’s Declaratio, the ramifications of which will perdure beyond his death, is not yet manifest.”

    This does not change the fact that to permit bishop v. Bishop, cardinal v. Cardinal, and pope v. Pope, to subsist within Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is to deny The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, and thus deny The Divinity Of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity.

    “Penance, Penance, Penance.”

    Let us Pray that Pope Benedict XVI will be moved to a safe location so that he can address the issue of the denial of The Unity Of The Holy Ghost and the resulting Great Apostasy.

    The Charitable Anathema has always existed for the sake of Christ, His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, all who will come to believe, and the multitude of prodigal sons and daughters, who, hopefully, will soon return to The One Body Of Christ, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).

    The denial of The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), is the source of All Heresy.

    Dear Blessed Mother Mary, Mirror Of Justice And Destroyer Of All Heresy, Who Through Your Fiat, Affirmed The Filioque, and thus the fact that There Is Only One Son Of God, One Word Of God Made Flesh, One Lamb Of God Who Can Taketh Away The Sins Of The World, Our Only Savior, Jesus The Christ, thus there can only be, One Spirit Of Perfect Complementary Love Between The Father And The Son, Who Must Proceed From Both The Father And The Son, In The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity (Filioque), hear our Prayer that The True Pope, and those Faithful Bishops In Communion With Christ and His Church, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, will do The Consecration Of Russia to your Immaculate Heart, exactly as you requested, visibly separating the counterfeit church from The True Church Of Christ, and affirming The Filioque. Although at the end of the Day, it is still a Great Mystery, It is no Mystery, that we exist, because God, The Communion Of Perfect Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Exists. It has always been about The Marriage In Heaven and On Earth. “Blessed are those that are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.” “Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.” “Come, Holy Ghost”.
    🙏💕

  2. Thanks, Brother.

    “Until that time, the gift of valid episcopal ordination provides sufficient continuation of the Sacraments, supported as that charism is by the principal of “ecclesia supplet.” ”

    What does this mean in the concrete? Can you elaborate?

    (typo: Asana for Astana, which too easily with the reversal of the first two letters suggests who is behind it all). Sinke Guimaraes has always seen Schneider as controlled opposition. I still can’t figure out why, to my awareness, TIA doesn’t give space to either you or Don Minutella? )

    1. His argument is swiss cheese, there is so many holes in it. I cannot imagine anyone with a phD worth anything asisted and in writing this discourse. Schneider has fallen from grace and sane argumentation. It is particularly sad to see this, for myself, because I once admired him so much.

      1. No big surprise; he and Card. Burke have been “banqueting” and bequeathing dribble for years now. Archbishop Lenga,formerly of Kazakhstan no less, called Bergoglio an “usurper and heretic” almost from the beginning!

  3. I must confess I am aghast and bewildered by Bishop Schneider’s “chop-logic.”

    Logical consistency and careful attention to words and their definitions applied to apposite Canon Law are the way to see the Truth in this matter. One doesn’t pay attention to whatever the media have to say about it, especially when they present erroneous translations of Latin

    “Sin blindeth the sinner” not to see the Truth. It’s not rocket science, once you are aware of the original texts and documents. (Admittedly, that took a while; I and countless others had mistakenly presumed good faith on the part of the translators and the College of Cardinals)
    I am the last one to dare accuse ++ Schneider of sin, or cowardice;
    What on earth can be his problem ?! Are these the times when Our Lord said that had they not been “shortened”, even the Good would be deceived, led astray? (I’m not certain if these are rhetorical question or not.)

  4. My hope is that God – Father, Son, Holy Spirit- is keeping Pope Benedict XVI alive and will restore him to the See of Peter, now a see impeded. When the restoration happens, The Holy Spirit as protector of the Church will invigorate Pope Benedict XVI both spiritually and physically in a way that will open the eyes of man and will seem like a miracle. Pope Benedict XVI as resuming his papacy in full will reveal the third secret of Our Lady of Fatima. Then after this all deeds of Bergolio will be abrogated and the church restored. Pope Benedict XVI might or not meet martyrdom at that time for his actions, but will be seen as a great Pope. The church will survive the heresy of Bergolio, those that stood with Bergolio will be seen for what they are, complicit with the Devil.

    The next act will be by a true Pope (either Pope Benedict XVI or his valid successor) in consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as requested by Our Lady at Fatima.

    There is a prophesy that Pope Benedict XVI valid successor is the one to consecrate Russia, but to me there is a possibility that God’s mercy might allow Pope Benedict XVI to do the consecration. If not, I am sure Pope Benedict XVI will understand why that honor is not his to perform. In any case, Pope Benedict’s actions since 2013 are of such magnificence that I am completely sure that his actions are just what the Holy Spirit asked him to do. Pope Benedict XVI as humble as he is, will be satisfied with having saved the Church per the Holy Spirit direction.

    Continue to have faith in God, continue to pray, specially the Rosary, we are close to a solution, we must continue to trust in God.
    J.M.J.

  5. Every Sunday my rosary intention is offered for the Pope. Right after praying it today, it occurred to me that there is another “argument” – well, it’s not really and argument but more of an observation and an accompanying thought – that doesn’t rely on Canon Law (which of course is the most relevant and important factor) or history or anything else that may be above the ability of the average person to understand.

    It occurred to me that at this point in 2022, after 8 years of this situation, the mere fact that Benedict hasn’t clearly put this to rest is strong evidence that he is still the Pope. Because at this point he obviously knows that there are more than just a few people who think he is still the Pope and that Francis is an anti-pope. How could he not have clarified this issue by now? Some seems to insist that he has done so but can’t ever present anything really conclusive and is always left to interpretation. But there could hardly be anything simpler than for Benedict to just set up some sort of press conference (or whatever is appropriate) and address the allegations about his “resignation” in detail and then refute them. Nothing could be easier than for him to say “For all those who say that I am still the Pope and didn’t really resign: please stop believing this. I did resign, I am not the Pope in any sense of the word. Francis is definitely the real and only true Pope of the Catholic Church. I just thought it would be nice to maintain some sort of connection to my past office, but I now see that i have unintentionally lead many, maybe millions, of the faithful astray and may God forgive me for that. So please, let’s end this and move on. I will from now on leave the Vatican, cease wearing the papal cassock, cease giving apostolic blessings, cease referring to myself as “His Holiness” and “Pope Benedict” and will not allow others to call me so. I will never chime in on Church matters and will truly just step out of the scene altogether. etc. etc. etc.

    What stops him from doing this?

    With each day that passes without him doing such a thing, my belief in him being the Pope grows stronger and stronger. Unless we want to assume that Ratzinger is ultra vain or just a plain massive a-hole (neither of which seems plausible) then what explains his allowing this to continue other than him simply still being the Pope and thus not making any effort to correct all of us who think he still is?

    Unless he is just a “class A jerk”, the best explanation seems to be that he is the Pope. I call this the “Benedict not an A-hole” argument.

    Imagine – suppose even if he hadn’t behaved in a way that leads people to think he is still Pope, and yet people still thought he was Pope, he would still be morally required to correct such people. But how much more so should that be the case if people believe he is still the Pope in large part BECAUSE of his choice of actions?

  6. That’s a great shame…This is going from bad to worse …why would a good Bishop accept someone who isn’t the pope as Pope. That’s insanity .

    1. Yes, I cannot understand this Bishops obsession to defend the indefensible, when there are doctrinal and canonical grounds to admit illegitimacy or at least personal doubt of legitimacy.

  7. The transcript below taken at:

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-schneider-theory-that-benedict-xvi-is-pope-and-not-francis-defies-tradition-of-the-church/

    See below the full transcript of Bishop Schneider’s video.

    Reflections on the question of the validity of the papacy of Pope Francis

    The safest guiding principle in the crucial question for the life of the Church regarding the validity of the papacy of Pope Francis, should be the prevailing practice in the history of the Church, with which were resolved cases of presumably invalid papal renunciations or elections. In this prevailing practice was shown the sensus perennis ecclesiae.

    The principle of legality applied ad litteram (to the letter) or that of juridical positivism was not considered in the great practice of the Church an absolute principle, since the legislation of the papal election is only a human (positive) law, and not a Divine (revealed) law.

    The human law that regulates the assumption of the papal office or the dismissal from the papal office must be subordinated to the greater good of the whole Church, which in this case is the real existence of the visible head of the Church and the certainty of this existence for all the body of the Church, clergy and faithful.

    This visible existence of the head and the certainty about it are required by the very nature of the Church. The universal Church cannot exist for a considerable time without a visible Supreme Shepherd, without the successor of Peter, since the vital activity of the universal Church depends on its visible head, such as e.g. the appointment of diocesan bishops and cardinals, appointments that require the existence of a valid pope.

    In turn, the spiritual good of the faithful depends on a valid appointment of a bishop, since in the case of an invalid episcopal appointment (due to a presumably invalid pope), priests would lack pastoral jurisdiction (confession, marriage). From this also depend those dispensations that only the Roman Pontiff can grant, and also indulgences, all this for the spiritual good and eternal salvation of souls.

    Applying in this case the principle of supplying of jurisdiction would undermine the characteristic of the Church’s visibility and would be substantially the position of the sedevacantist theory. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, when consecrating bishops without the Pope’s mandate, also applied the principle of supplying of jurisdiction, but he applied it only to specific cases and not to the entire pontifical jurisdiction. He always mentioned the pope in the Canon of the Mass.

    The acceptance of the possibility of a prolonged time of a vacancy of the Holy See (sedisvacantia papalis) easily leads to the spirit of sedevacantism, which ultimately constitutes a kind of a sectarian and quasi-heretical phenomenon that has appeared in the past sixty years due to the problems with Vatican II and the conciliar and post-conciliar popes.

    The spiritual good and eternal salvation of the faithful is the supreme law in the normative system of the Church. For this reason, there is the principle of supplet ecclesia or of sanatio in radice (“healing at the root”), that is, the Church completes what was against the human positive law, in the case of the sacraments, which demand jurisdictional faculties, e.g. confession, marriage, confirmation, the burdens of the intentions of the Masses.

    Guided by this truly pastoral principle, the instinct of the Church has also applied the supplet ecclesia or the sanatio in radice in the case of doubts about a renunciation or a pontifical election. Concretely, the sanatio in radice of an invalid pontifical election was expressed in the peaceful and morally universal acceptance of the new Pontiff by the episcopate and the Catholic people, for the same fact that this elected (presumably invalid) Pontiff was nominated in the Canon of the Mass practically by the entire Catholic clergy.

    The history of the Church is a sure teacher in this matter. The longest vacancy of the Apostolic See lasted two years and nine months (from 29 November 1268 until 1 September 1271). It was also the time in which lived St. Thomas Aquinas. There were evidently invalid pontifical elections, i.e. assumptions of the papal office invalidly, e.g. Pope Gregory VI became pope by buying the papacy with a large sum of money from his predecessor Pope Benedict IX in the year 1045. However, the Roman Church has always considered Gregory VI as a valid pope and even Hildebrand, who later became Pope St. Gregory VII, considered Gregory VI to be a legitimate pope, notwithstanding the illegitimate manner by which Gregory VI became pope. Pope Urban VI had been elected under enormous pressure and threats from the Roman people. Some cardinal electors feared even for their lives, such was the atmosphere of the election of Urban VI in the year 1378. During the coronation of the new pope all the cardinal electors paid him homage and recognized him as pope during the first months of his pontificate.

    After a few months, however, some cardinals, especially the French cardinals, began to doubt the validity of the election because of the threatening circumstances and the moral pressure they had to suffer during the election. For this reason, these cardinals elected a new pope, who was called Clement VII, a Frenchman, who chose Avignon as his residence. He and his successors were considered by the Roman Church always as anti-popes (see the editions of the Annuario Pontificio). Thus began one of the most disastrous crises in the history of the Church, the Great Western Schism, which lasted almost forty years, tearing apart the unity of the Church and damaging the spiritual good of souls so much. The Roman Church has always recognized Urban VI as a valid pope, despite the probably invalidating factors of his election. The fact that even a saint, as for example St. Vincent Ferrer during a time, recognized the anti-pope Clement VII as the only valid pope, is not a convincing argument, since saints are not infallible in all their opinions. The same St. Vincent Ferrer later abandoned the Avignon anti-pope Clement VII and recognized the pope in Rome.

    Pope St. Celestine V made his renunciation in circumstances of pressure and insinuations by the powerful Cardinal Benedetto Gaetani, who succeeded him as Pope Boniface VIII in the year 1294. Because of these circumstances, a part of the faithful and clergy of that time never recognized Boniface VIII as a valid Pope. However, the Roman Church considered Boniface VIII as a legitimate pope, because the acceptance of Boniface VIII by the overwhelming part of the episcopate and the faithful healed “at the root” the possible invalidating circumstances of both the renunciation of Celestine V and the election of Boniface VIII.

    The following explanation of Professor Roberto de Mattei demonstrates convincingly the inconsistency of the theories of an invalid papacy of Pope Francis:

    “It has mattered naught that Monsignor Georg Gänswein, in a declaration to LifeSiteNews on February 14, 2019, reaffirmed the validity of Benedict XVI’s renunciation of the Petrine Office, by stating that “there is only one Pope legitimately elected – and it is Francis.” By then the idea of a possible redefinition of the Papal ministry had been launched. Some people say that pope Benedict’s intention was that of maintaining the papacy, assuming the office capable of bifurcating in two; but this is a substantial error, since the monarchal and unitary nature of the Papacy is of divine right.

    God alone judges intentions, whereas Canon Law merely limits itself in evaluating the outward behavior of the baptized. A well-known sentence of canon law affirms that «De internis non iudicat praetor»; a judge does not judge interior things. On the other hand, Canon 1526, § 1 of the new Code of Canon Law points out that: «Onus probandi incumbit ei qui asserit» (the onus of providing the proofs falls to the one alleging). There is a difference between a clue and a proof. The clue suggests the possibility of a fact, the proof demonstrates the certainty. Agatha Christie’s rule whereby three clues are a proof, is fine in literature but not in civil or ecclesiastical courts. Furthermore, if Pope Benedict is the legitimate Pope, what would happen if from one day to the next he should die, or instead, before he died, Pope Francis should pass away? Given the fact that many current cardinals were created by Pope Francis and none of the cardinal electors consider him an Anti-Pope, the apostolic succession would be interrupted, jeopardizing the visibility of the Church. The paradox is that to prove the invalidity of Benedict’s renunciation juridical sophisms are employed, but then to resolve the problem of Benedict’s or Francis’s succession, extra-canonical solutions ought to be used.” (The Unknowns at the End of a Pontificate, originally in Corrispondenza Romana, July 1, 2020)

    The hypothesis of Benedict XVI’s invalid renunciation, and therefore of the invalidity of the papacy of Francis, properly presents itself as a dead end, a cul-de-sac. For nine years the Apostolic See would have been de facto vacant, since Benedict XVI did not make any act of government, no episcopal or cardinal appointment, no act of dispensation, of indulgences, etc. For this reason, the universal Church would be paralyzed in its visible aspect. Such an assumption would amount in practice to the attitude of sedevacantism.

    In the past nine years all the appointments of Apostolic Nuncios, diocesan bishops and Cardinals, all the Pontifical dispensations, the indulgences granted and used by the faithful would be null and void, with all the harmful consequences for the spiritual good of souls (illegitimate bishops, invalid episcopal jurisdictions, etc.). All the cardinals nominated by Pope Francis would be invalid, that is, there are non-cardinals, and this would apply to the most of the current college of cardinals.

    Another purely theoretical hypothesis: if Benedict XVI would have been an extremely liberal and almost heretical pope and would have renounced in 2013 in circumstances similar to those that actually occurred in 2013 (therefore having possible elements of invalidity) and then would be elected a new pope with an absolutely traditional spirit. And this new pope – presumably elected invalidly because of the invalid renunciation of his predecessor and because of the violation of some norms of the conclave – would begin to reform the Church in the true Catholic sense, appoint good bishops and cardinals, issue professions of faith or ex cathedra pronouncements to defend the Catholic faith against the current errors within the Church, certainly no good cardinal, bishop and faithful Catholic would consider this new hundred percent Catholic pope an illegitimate pope, asking for his renunciation and for the old liberal pontiff to return to rule.

    Another hypothesis: The person who was Pope Benedict XVI could still live for several years, and in the meantime all the cardinals nominated by John Paul II and Benedict XVI would die, therefore the college of cardinals would be composed only of cardinals appointed by Pope Francis, therefore they would be non-cardinals according to the theory of the invalid pontificate of Francis, therefore there would no longer be a college of cardinals, and therefore there would be no valid electors, who could proceed to a new pontifical election. The law that says that the cardinals are the only valid electors of the pope has been in force since the eleventh century and was sanctioned by the Roman Pontiffs, therefore only a Roman Pontiff is competent to change the law of the pontifical election and to sanction a rule that would allow to have other electors except the cardinals. If one would follow the theory of the invalid pontificate of Francis, in the hypothetical case, when all the cardinals appointed before Pope Francis would die and also the former Pope Benedict XVI would die, it would not be possible to validly elect a new Pontiff. The Church would be in a dead end, a cul-de-sac.

    The hypothesis that says that Benedict XVI is still the only valid pope, and therefore Pope Francis would be an invalid pope, contradicts not only the proven and reasonable practice of the great tradition of the Church, but also simply common sense. Furthermore, in this case one absolutizes the aspect of legality, that is, in our case of the human norms of renunciation and pontifical election, to the detriment of the good of souls, since there is created the situation of uncertainty on the validity of acts of government of the Church and this undermines the visible nature of the Church, and one approaches the mentality of sedevacantism. The surer way (via tutior) and the example of the constant practice of the great tradition of the Church must be followed also in our present case.

    The rudder of the boat of the Church holds Our Lord Jesus Christ in his hands even in situations of heaviest storms, such as it can be in a time of a doctrinally ambiguous pope. Such storms are relatively short compared to other great crises during the two thousand years of the existence of the militant Church.

    In the midst of the confusion and the storm within the life of the Church of our day, Our Lord will rise and rebuke the winds and the sea (see Mt. 8:24), and there will be again given a time of calm, doctrinal security, liturgical sacredness and holiness of the priests, bishops, and popes. We have to renew in the midst of a situation which humanly spoken appears helpless, our unshakeable faith in the Divine truth that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Catholic Church.

    + Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana.

  8. Just as it is said that the socialists used the “useful idiot” so the Lavender mafia also uses them.
    The St Gallen Mafia imposed a heretic on them so that these servitors obey and blindly follow him. They have fallen into heresy by believing that a heretic can become Pope. BERGOGLIO’S HERETICAL PAST IS FRANCIS PRESENT –
    https://gloria.tv/post/cTXSE92jVTPW4vPBdY8xNKv32
    Father Oko said that the Gay Mafia uses two elements: homosexuals whom they raise to power and also uses weak and cowardly priests, who they know will not dare to expose them. For example we can see that the Dubia remained only on paper, this cowardly hierarchy is the one that has perpetuated the 9 years of government of a heretic who openly opposes the teachings of the Catholic Church. They have preferred to be faithful to Bergoglio than to God and the Church.

    The formation of the Lavender Mafia:
    Describing the formation of homosexual cliques of clergy Fr. Oko says:
    They know well, however, that they may be exposed and embarrassed, so they shield one another by offering mutual support. They build informal relationships reminding of a clique or even mafia, aim at holding particularly those positions which offer power and money.
    When they achieve a decision-making position, they try to promote and advance mostly those whose nature is similar to theirs, or at least who are known to be too weak to oppose them.
    Fr. Oko said, “Just like in the military, in the police, in the art world, once a person with homosexual tendencies gets into power, usually their subordinates are also homosexuals, therefore they start creating a pyramid, and the same thing is happening in the Church with these bishops who knowingly nominate people with the same tendencies.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.