Tag Archives: Bishop Athanasius Schneider

Bishop Schneider & Dr. Taylor Marshall, 2 proven dishonest Liars

REPRINT FROM MARCH 2020

Note that it has been a year, and neither has answered these 5 questions!

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Over at Catholic Monitor, Fred Martinez has cut through all the deception and lying of Bishop Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall in their recent YouTube Video, and has proposed to them 5 yes or no Questions, and asked them publicly to respond.

His article is entitled, Do Marshall and Schneider think they are greater theologians than Doctors of the Church, Sts. Robert Bellarmine and Francis de Sales?

This article follows upon Martinez’ rebuttal of their arguments in several articles:

  1. Why did Taylor Marshall Chicken Out in Questioning Bp. Schneider on the Bellarmine teaching on Heretical Popes Ceasing to be Pope?
  2. Is Bp. Schneider a “Flying Monkey” or another Type of Enabler?
  3. Why is Bp. Schneider spreading the Doubtful Propaganda of a possible Leftist British Operative?
  4. Schneider’s Opinion has next to Zero Merit when standing next to the Teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales
  5. Is Bishop Schneider a Pelagianist?
  6. Schneider’s Opinion vs. Cdl. Burke: ‘If a Pope would Formally Profess Heresy he would Cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s Automatic.”
  7. Doubtful Schneider vs. St. Bellarmine & Bp. Gracida: “A Doubtful Pope is no Pope”
  8. Bp. Schneider vs. Pope Innocent III, Trent & the Ancient Fathers

5 Questions for Bishop Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall

I urge all Catholics to confront these men on social media and in email and in person. Also share these questions with all who claim to find their false arguments to be convincing. The faith is in danger by the errors spread by these two men.

Fred Martinez writes:

To make it really easy for them it has been formatted so that they only have to answer: yes or no.

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 schismatic? 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 schismatic? 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 schismatics? Answer: yes or no.

5. Is Bishop Gracida really a Sedevacantist and schismatic 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.

Answer or show you are a fraud!

Fred Martinez is an excellent master of rhetoric. He knows how to posit a question, the answer to which will expose the one to whom it is addressed either as a liar or force him to admit that he was lying and take back his lie. It’s inescapable debating style.

Consequently, short of an act of public repentance, I think that neither the Bishop nor the Doctor will respond to Fred’s 5 Questions. And that means, that neither should you follow the Bishop or Doctor anymore, because by their silence they show themselves to be dishonest liars. For an honest liar should admit at least in public that he is lying.

____________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the Video by Dr. Taylor Marshall interviewing Bishop Schneider. The text in quotes is taken from The Catholic Monitor Blog, by the intrepid Fred Martinez.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

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″]

 

 

 

 

Russo to Schneider: We must believe Benedict, when he says he is still the pope

logo

MARCOTOSATTI.COM

Authorized English translation by FromRome.Info

Due Papi, Due Domande Impellenti, Una Risposta urgente.

by Marco Tosatti

Dear Friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae: a friend of our community, Sergio Russo, author of the book about which about which we spoke some time ago, Sei tu quello o dobbiamo aspettarne un altro? (Are you the one or should we expect another?), has sent us a reflection which seems to us particularly interesting and stimulating on the strange situation in which we we are living, and about which we have spoken in recent days.  Have a good read!

§ § §

Two Impelling Questions
which necessitate an urgent answer

by Sergio Russo

The first is: “Is Pope Francis a pope in every way, or not?”

The second, which is consequent upon the first, is: “Is Pope Benedict XVI still the pope, or not?”

I offer my personal contribution to the present debate, taking occasion also from the recent intervention by the Mons. Athanasius Schneider (dated Feb. 28, 2020) published originally in English at the site LIfeSite News, and also in French translation on the blog, Le Blog de Jeanne Smits.

Therefore, I will list here simply a series of facts, and not of argumentations, leaving it to the Reader to form his own opinion on the matter, knowing well, however, that contra factum non valet argumentum (against a fact no argument is valid).

  • Both academics and experts of things theological, as well as simple faithful, have noted how, from the date of March 13, 2013, even unto today, there has been created an unheard of situation, never before happening in the two thousand year history of the Church: the co-existence and co-habitation in the Vatican of two popes.
  • All of these, however, know well that the expression, “pope emeritus”, plays on the congruence/assonance of “Bishop Emeritus” and “Cardinal Emeritus”, and that, besides, it is not ordained by any canon of ecclesiastical law, neither past nor present …
    Moreover, it is to be noted – and here it basically returns to the same univocity which occurs in effect in the principle — just as there is, thus, no “priest emeritus”, so also, both the academic and the faithful have always known (but perhaps today the way to understand things has changed?) that there absolutely is no other kind of pope, neither Emeritus nor Presiding, and more so, and this by “una contraddizione, che nol consente … (a contradiction which does not consent to it)”, as Dante would say, since — and all believing Catholics have always held this as valid — the pope is the symbol and guarantor of unity in the Catholic Church, and She is one Body (though Mystical, but a true body), which cannot have but one sole Head!
    Therefore, not a two-headed Body, which would be a monstrosity, and neither a headless body, which would instead be a deficiency: as a matter of fact, one alone is the Christ, one alone is the Church, one alone the Faith, one alone the Vicar of Christ and one alone the Head of the Church …. and this is what the two-thousand year Magisterium of the Church has always affirmed, without the least hesitation!
  • Pope Francis, on the one hand would be the pope in every way, since he was licitly elected by all the Cardinals, united in a lawful Conclave (and which consequently is indubitable)
  • On the other hand, we are given to know that the election of Pope Francis (and this is also indubitable) might not be equally valid, since according to a declaration — never denied — of the now late Belgian Cardinal Godfried Dannels, present in his book-biography, which reports the admissions of the prelate made to the journalists, J. Mettepenningen and K. Schelkens, the said Cardinal revealed to them that a group of Cardinals and Bishops (to which he also belonged) worked for years to prepare for the election of J. M. Bergoglio, seeing that all of these porporati were opponents of Joseph Ratzinger: it was, in fact, a group which was kept secret, which the same Cardinal Danneels defined as “a mafia club, which bore the name of St. Gall”.
    And this type of agreement, according to the Apostolic Constitution of Saint John Paul II, Universi Dominic Gregis, which regulates the “vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff”, falls under a latae sententiae excommunication, as is clearly affirmed in nn. 77, 81, and 82:

    « Confirming also the prescriptions of our Predecessors, I prohibit anyone, even if he is marked with the dignity of the Cardinalate, to make agreements, while the Pope is alive and without having consulted him, about the election of His Successor, or promise votes, or take decisions in this regard in private meetings » (n.79);
    « The Cardinal Electors are to abstain, moreover, from every form of vote-canvassing, agreements, promises or other pledges of any kind, which can constrain them to give or deny their vote to one or another.  If such in reality would happen, even if under the obligation of a vow, I decree that such a pledge be null and invalid and that no one is bound to observe it; and from this moment I impose the excommunication latae sententiae upon the transgressors of this prohibition.» (n.81);
    « Equally, I forbid to the Cardinals to make, before an election, formal agreements, whether to receive pledges of common agreement, obliging themselves to put them into effect in the case that one of them be elevated to the Pontificate.  Even these promises, as much as they might be made, even under the obligation of an oath, I declare null and invalid » (n.82).

  • It is good to repeat that the “Renunciation” of Benedict XVI (according to his own admission) was truly made in full awareness and without any constraint … and yet that such a “renunciation” cannot be held to be truly such, since (and this is the seventh one which has occurred in the course of the two thousand years of Church history) all those who did renounce the papacy afterwards returned to their prior status as before thier election: and hence he who was a Bishop or Cardinal, returned to being a Bishop or Cardinal … he who was before a hermit, returned to be a hermit … (if one remembers the events of Pope Celestine V and Pietro da Morrone!), and hence none remained pope (not even an “emeritus”, or any other kind), by continuing to wear the white cassock, by maintaining the papal coat of arms, by signing wtih the name of the Pontiff, etc..
  • Hence, just as, if one must believe that Benedict XVI posited his “renunciation” in total autonomy and independence … so and equally, one must believe in what He himself declared:  “… When, on April 19 nearly 8 years ago I accepted to assume the petrine ministry … from that moment on I was engaged always and for always by the Lord …  The “always” is also a “for always”, there is no longer a return to the private: My decision to renounce the active exerciste of the ministry, does not revoke this ” (Benedict XVI, Wednesday General Audience of Feb. 27, 2013, Piazza S. Petro).
    And hence, through his own same admission, Benedict XVI is always and still pope, whether others say so or not.
    Therefore, in this case more than ever, there is required by all a firm intellectual coherence: if we ought to believe and hold as true the words of the Holy Father about His own renunciation, we ought, on the other hand and equally, believe and hold as true the just mentioned words pronounced by Benedict XVI, which affirm that he remains still and always pope!
  • In conclusion, how can one explain, then, such an apparent and present unresolved situation in the Church … what, in substance, ought we hold to have clear ideas and not to let ourselves be overwhelmed, even us, by such a contemporary “confusion”?

The solution is supplied us both by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, but as something requiring of us the highest attention and correct discernment ….

It is Our Lady Herself, in fact, who asks us to pay attention to Her words, left in our own days at Fatima, in which She speaks, both of the Holy Father, and of a Bishop dressed in white.

The Divine Providence has also arranged, also in our own days, that Pope John Paul II elevated to the honors of the altar the Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich, making in this way known to all believers her singular visions, especailly those in which she saw “the Church of the two popes”, the Church of always, faithful to the Magisterium, at whose head is the Holy Father, and another “new” church: big, strange and extravagant … (and, moreover, that the warnings, in part from the Mother of God are truly very many: the Miraculous Medal, La Salette, Fatima, Garabandal, the Marian Movement of Priests and many, many others …).

And, at last, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in nn. 675-677), in which it informs, that, in our own days, all the faithful will be called to confront a “final test”, capable of shocking the faith of many believers, since in it there will be revealed the “mystery of iniquity”, able to provide an apparent solution to contemporary men, under the form of a religious impostiture, and it will be then that we will have to decide on which side to stand: whether with the Anti-Christ (the Anti-Church and the Anti-Gospel, as even John Paul II was wont to say), though this at the cost of apostasy from the Truth, in joining in such a manner the “new church”, great and lauded by the world, as ecological and ecumenical, which concerns itself primarily with the poor … or if we would remain with the Church of always, even if it is today seen in a bad light by the world, which reputs Her as integralist and fundamentalist, to remain with the holy Magisterium, held even today as antiquated, and faithful to the Gospel of Christ, the one and true God, our Savior and Redeemer: “Whom we hold most dear!”

This is an authorized translation of the original at

MARCOTOSATTI.COM

logo

Devils, Murders & Lavender Mafia

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Our Lord has been Crucified. He was nailed to the Cross at the Noon hour. This is our meditation for today. His murder was truly a satanic act, conducted by the wicked high priests of His day. But He triumphed over all of them, because you cannot kill God, for the weakness of God in submitting to Crucifixion is stronger than all the wickedness of men.

Satan, being defeated upon Calvary, however, goes about the world trying to replicate that crime. He does this most particularly by inciting men to the worst vices and inspiring them to become priests and inflict horrible crimes upon the innocent.

One such crime is the rape of boys by priests. Worse, still, is when murder follows.

Such individuals are psychopathic. And in my opinion they should receive capital punishment for all three crimes: murder, rape and sacrilege of their sacred office as priests.

These boys suffer in a sense the full hatred of Satan upon Christ Jesus at Calvary. But, alas, the consequences of their murders are not salvific. The corrupt network of clergy who protect, promote, ordain and consecrate such perps is called the Lavender Mafia. And FromRome.Info is committed to exposing their work in the Church, for the sake of protecting all the Faithful, boys included.

Opus Angelorum

One particularly ugly case is that of the Canons Regular of Santa Cruz and the Opus Angelorum the movement which founded them.

This Ordo began in Austria just after the war. It was based on the private revelations which a laywoman, Gabriele Bitterlich, claimed to receive, and which explained never before known doctrines about Angels and Demons and their spiritual warfare.

One of these doctrines is that you can cure sodomy by a special sort of incantation to particular Demons. But one of the great difficulties that perverts have is admitting their own fault and responsibility. So, I think you can see, then, how such a occult practice might be very attractive to those who want to be cured but not really be cured.

After 1982, the Congregation of the Holy Office, now led by Cardinal Ratzinger, forbade the use of these exorcisms, as Wikipedia relates in its article on the Opus Angelorum:

The exorcism using Mrs Bitterlich’s demon names in violation of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1982 prohibition of use of “the ‘names’ derived from the alleged private revelation attributed to Mrs Gabriele Bitterlich” may have been one of the reasons for enacting the Congregation’s more detailed 1992 rules against the use in the movement’s “ministry and apostolate” of “the theories originating from the alleged revelations of Mrs Gabriele Bitterlich concerning the world of the angels and their personal names, groupings and functions”, and its ruling, “Exorcisms may be carried out only in line with the Church’s norms and discipline on the matter, and with the use of formulas approved by the Church.

In fact, Austria, where the Opus Angelorum began is notorious for the Lavender Mafia among the clergy.

Canons Regular of the Holy Cross

This new movement, Opus Angelorum, succeeded quickly in gaining the highest approbation of the Church. They were allowed to revive a defunct order in Portugal and re-establish it. It is called the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross, or of Santa Cruz.

The Bishop who assisted the new and improved Sr. Lucia of Fatima, make her moves on the stage of world opinion, after 1960, was a member.

So is Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

However, the Order has two very black spots. One regards Father Franciscan Cunha. Here I quote from Wikipedia in Portuguese, using a Google translation. Everything which follows is Wikipedia, until I say otherwise:

+ + +

Frederico Cunha, from his full name Frederico Marques Cunha (born April 12, 1950 in Natal, Brazil), habitually referred to in the media as “Padre Frederico” is a Catholic priest convicted in Portugal for the murder and sexual abuse of children and adolescents. He escaped justice in 1998. [ 1 ]

Arrival in Madeira

Manuel Catarino says that Frederico Cunha, before arriving in Madeira in 1983, lived in Italy, inserted in the religious order of the Canons Regular of Santa Cruz (the Crosiers), the order that directs the movement of the Work of the Angels, called in Latin Opus Angelorum, “an ultraconservative congregation, of esoteric practices not always applauded by the Curia of Rome”. [ 2 ] (The Holy See declares that “the Work of the Holy Angels, which, as it stands today, is a public association of the Church in accordance with traditional doctrine and the directives of the Supreme Authority; it spreads devotion among the faithful to the Holy Angels, urges prayer for priests, promotes love for Jesus Christ in His passion and union with it “.) [ 3 ] Also the Austrian protest newspaper [ 4 ] Kirche In states that he was then a member of the Work of Angels. [ 5 ] According to statements by the priest himself and the diocese of Funchal, he is a priest of that diocese, not of a religious order. [ 6 ]

Ponta de São Lourenço, Madeira

D. Teodoro de Faria , the bishop of Funchal, from Madeira, who had met Frederico Cunha in Rome, made him his private secretary. Catarino says that Father Frederico’s bizarre behavior attracted attention. He had a special taste for skulls, which he wore on his coat or hanging from his belt. From a certain point, D. Teodoro de Faria waived the services of the secretary. Father Frederico started to move from parish to parish. The island’s faithful complained. And the bishop changed his parish. Where he spent the longest time, as a shepherd, was in São Jorge, in the north of the island, from 1987 Here he was as a shepherd from 1987 to 1990. He then met Miguel Noite, the son of a poor family, who became his lover. [ 2 ]

Other sources, when speaking of more recent similar events in Madeira, describe Frederico Cunha with less dismal details. [ 7 ] [ 8 ]

Crime, imprisonment and prosecution

According to the prosecution of the Public Prosecutor, Frederico Cunha, on May 1, 1992, met Luís Miguel, a 15-year-old boy, on foot on the Caniçal road and offered him a ride in his black Volkswagen. His corpse was found at the bottom of the Caniçal cliff, at Ponta de São Lourenço, on the eastern end of Madeira, with signs of aggression. The crime, according to the prosecution, took place at the viewpoint, without witnesses. The priest never denied his presence at Caniçal: he was there, but in the company of Miguel Noite – who claimed to have been there with his lover. Six witnesses said they saw the priest with a blond boy in the car. [ 2 ]

The victim’s corpse, Luís Miguel Escórcio Correia, was found on the morning of May 2, 1992, on the beach below the Caniçal cliffs, where Opus Angelorum maintained its subsidiary Casa do Caniçal. The police initially thought it was an accident. But when the body was autopsied, coroner Emanuel Pita discovered that several injuries, including a fatal head injury, could not have resulted from his falling off the cliff. Based on the results of the autopsy, a criminal investigation was launched. [ 2 ] [ 9 ]

An anonymous witness reported to the police by phone that he had seen Cunha’s car at the scene of the crime. [ 10 ] During a search of Cunha’s home, the police found a series of pornographic photos of children and adolescents taken by the priest to his victims. On May 25, 1992, Frederico Cunha was arrested and placed in preventive detention in the city of Funchal. [ 11 ]

Bishop Teodoro de Faria protested the imprisonment of F.Cunha and described him as “innocent as Jesus Christ” also he was unjustly attacked by the Jews. [ 12 ] Many Catholics were “surprised, shocked and ashamed” by this comparison. [ 11 ] Father Frederico himself, in Jornal da Madeira, compared himself to Jesus Christ, saying that like the son of God, he was “a victim of injustice and absurdity” . Highlighted figures of the Church were affirmative witnesses. The President of the Regional Government of Madeira, Alberto João Jardim , accused “a certain mainland media” of using the case “to denigrate Madeira’s image”. [ 11 ] In 2010, in an interview with the newspaper Público , attorney João Freitas, himself a practicing Catholic, publicly declared that he had been pressured in the context of criminal proceedings, several times, to force the acquittal of the accused. J. Freitas said that the pressure was not exerted solely by the church; it also came from other quarters. [ 13 ] The diocese of Funchal never opened any canonical process to Father F.Cunha, not even after the Court condemned him, that is, he never promoted the necessary procedures for him to be prevented from exercising. [ 14 ]

The trial took place on March 10, 1993, a year after the crime. Frederico Cunha was sentenced to 13 years for the murder of Luís Miguel, with subsequent penalty of expulsion from Portugal. Cunha was also ordered to pay the murder victim’s family members the sum of 1,600,000 escudos as compensation, which was never paid. The godson, Miguel Noite, was jailed for 15 months, with suspended sentence, for cover-up and false declarations. [ 2 ] During the trial, four adult witnesses told the court how they had been sexually abused by the priest. [ 8 ] . Frederico came to serve time in Vale de Judeus, Alcoentre. [ 12 ] [ 2 ] [ 14 ]

He had not yet served half of the sentence, in Vale de Judeus, the priest was authorized by the judge for the execution of sentences, Margarida Vieira de Almeida, to spend eight days with his mother, in Lisbon: both, on April 10, 1998, they fled by car to Madrid, and took the first plane to Copacabana, in Brazil, where they still reside. [ 2 ] [ 1 ] The priest used a duplicate passport, provided by the Brazilian Embassy itself, which prompted a request for explanations from the Portuguese Government. [ 15 ]

Life in Brazil

Currently, Father Frederico lives with his mother in a building between Copacabana and Ipanema, in one of the most luxurious places in the city of Rio de Janeiro. When in 2015 the Portuguese newspaper Sol interviewed him, he said that he continues to celebrate masses, although not in conventional places: “It is in a pastoral that I say mass” . He dedicates himself to abstract photography. He continues to affirm his innocence and considers that his condemnation in Portugal was typical of a Nazi regime. [ 14 ]

The execution of the international arrest warrant and the rest of the sentence expired on April 8, 2018. [ 16 ]

+ + +

Thus Wikipedia in Portuguese.  Bishop Schneider joined the Canons Regular in 1982, was ordained a priest in Brazil in 1990, earned a doctorate in Patristics in 1998 from the Augustinianum, here at Rome, and presumably studied here in person from 1996-1998. But his published biography is a blank from 1990 to 1996.

Bishop Schneider began teaching Patristics in Kazakhstan in 1999 and just 7 years later was named an Auxiliary Bishop and consecrated by Cardinal Sodano. A truly remarkable achievement for a seminary professor. His co-consecrator was a Sodano man, so this is also very remarkable. Sodano is now known to be the protector of pedophiles and sodomites from Argentina to Mexico. Maciel, founder of the Legionaries is the most notorious. Many of the most unsuitable men appointed by John Paul II as Bishops were consecrated by Sodano, whom, rumors hold received financial favors for his support.

Bishop Schneider became an Auxiliary Bishop in the diocese of Archbishop Lenga. The day Lenga was forced out, just 5 years later, Schneider was transferred to the Diocese of Astana.  Lenga’s replacement — also consecrated by Sodano — is no longer a bishop. After a few years he was removed and reduced to the state of a layman for some grave crime. Bishops Schneider had the knowledge and wherewithal to get moved out before the problem arrived, and with Sodano’s blessing.

In the same year Bishop Schneider was ordained a priest in the Opus Angelorum’s Canons Regular, another very disturbing event occurred, as Wikipedia relates in the Opus’s article. “Movement” here refers to the Opus.

In 1990, journalist Heinz Gstrein, who is also an Orthodox theologian,[21] wrote that the superior of a religious community in the Indian state of Kerala, who was sexually abusing members of his community, turned to the movement for advice and aid. They undertook not to make his lose his position or suffer any other loss and performed an exorcism on him to combat “the demons of homosexuality Dragon, Varina und Selithareth” (names in Mrs Bitterlich’s writings about angels and demons).[22] Afterwards he committed a sexual murder. Homosexual acts were illegal in India until 2018 (see Homosexuality in India) and Gstrein points out that concealing a design to commit an offence is punishable under Indian law.[23][24]

What remains most curious, is how the Canons Regular came to have a house in Madeira, on the cliff above where the battered and dead body of Father Francisco Cunha’s victim was found. Father Francisco some how hit it off with the new Bishop of Madeira in 1983, in the first year of the Bishop’s episcopacy, during a brief visit at Rome. This Bishop also had the curious circumstance of being consecrated just 6 days after his nomination, by the Grand Master of the Order of the Holy Sepulcher, who had been Nuncio in Portugal until the Bishop was about 17 years of age.

I do know, from the investigations I conducted for various authorities, here in Italy, that pedophile priests share boys by dropping them off at Sanctuaries and Monasteries as prospective vocations.. They visit for a day or two and are then taken to other monasteries or rectories. In the mean time at these places or nearby them, they are solicited for sex or forcibly raped. The priests and laymen, often judges, lawyers and doctors, who are involved worked together to promote one another, as has been documented elsewhere in such cases.

I mention al these facts, because, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, according to Dr. Henry Sire, in book, The Dictator Pope, is a known black mailer.  Bishop Schneider gave a very noble profession of faith against the errors of Bergoglio, until, after the signing by Bergoglio of the document saying all religions are equally willed by God, Schneider went to meet Bergoglio in person, to reproach him about it, and in the matter of a hour flipped. Ever since then, Schneider insists that Bergoglio is not a heretic and even if he was there is no way to remove him. And that all who would think to do so are “spiritually myopic”!

A myopic defect is a defect of the eyes which causes them only to see things near by and not long afar off. If you are protecting your career, being myopic is a problem.

What does Bishop Schneider know about these demonic incantations to cure sodomy and exculpate pedophiles? Did he personally know Father Francisco? Does he know of other affairs in the Opus Angelorum or Canons Regular of the Holy Cross which Bergoglio could have used to black mail him? Was he ever a visitor at the Canons Regular of the Santa Croce house in Madeira, Portugal, on the cliff above where the murdered boy was found?

I write these things, not to damage the reputation of anyone, but to warn the faithful as to why Bishop Schneider may no longer be a reliable witness to the Gospel.

+ + +

 

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

A Refutation of Bishop Schneider’s Demagoguery

By Alexis Bugnolo

A lot of Catholics have asked me to refute Bishop Athanasius’ Schneider in detail. I have written a partial refutation, but his position is so absurd I have refrained, but here is a sound refutation on the more principal points:

However, I will point out that there is in the Church no such thing as the Byzantine Catholic Patriarch. The group which produced this has a checkered history, canonically, but at least doctrinally, in this refutation of Mons. Schneider, they take a Catholic position. Synods must be called in every nation to condemn Bergoglio.

The only errors I see in this video are:

First, that the authors of this video hold that if canon law is used to support heresy and apostasy, canon law is invalid. The correct Catholic position is, rather, that when canon law is used to support heresy and apostasy, it is the use which is to be condemned and the interpretation which is to be corrected by canon 17.

Second that they assert that the worship of an idol is a heresy or manifestation of heresy. But it is rather a sin of apostasy, is not directly a sin of heresy, because heresy is the denial of a truth which is revealed by God, but the adoration of an idol is the denial of the entire Deposit of the Faith. Adoration of an idol might include heresy, but it is much more than heresy.

Third, they avoid entirely that Pope Benedict XVI is the true pope. They do this because in certain matters they themselves have usurped ecclesiastical offices and powers, such as, for example, establishing a Byzantine Patriarchate, without any authority from God or Pope Benedict XVI.

Finally,  I would like to point out, for the sake of public record, that back in 2015 I was greatly inspired by the sound and heroic statements of Bishop Schneider against the errors being promoted by Bergoglio. It truly saddens me that he has abandoned the Catholic Faith and Canon Law to insist that Bergoglio is still the pope, despite all his public sins, his pertinacious heresy, his apostasy and his schism mongering. In this he has done a very wicked thing, and I think if he persists in his false position, that he must be reckoned by all Catholics a heretic himself, for denying the constant teaching of the Church that heretics and apostates and schismatics lose office immediately, as canon 1364 states.

 

Russo to Schneider: We must believe Benedict, when he says he is still the pope

logo

MARCOTOSATTI.COM

Authorized English translation by FromRome.Info

Due Papi, Due Domande Impellenti, Una Risposta urgente.

by Marco Tosatti

Dear Friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae: a friend of our community, Sergio Russo, author of the book about which about which we spoke some time ago, Sei tu quello o dobbiamo aspettarne un altro? (Are you the one or should we expect another?), has sent us a reflection which seems to us particularly interesting and stimulating on the strange situation in which we we are living, and about which we have spoken in recent days.  Have a good read!

§ § §

Two Impelling Questions
which necessitate an urgent answer

by Sergio Russo

The first is: “Is Pope Francis a pope in every way, or not?”

The second, which is consequent upon the first, is: “Is Pope Benedict XVI still the pope, or not?”

I offer my personal contribution to the present debate, taking occasion also from the recent intervention by the Mons. Athanasius Schneider (dated Feb. 28, 2020) published originally in English at the site LIfeSite News, and also in French translation on the blog, Le Blog de Jeanne Smits.

Therefore, I will list here simply a series of facts, and not of argumentations, leaving it to the Reader to form his own opinion on the matter, knowing well, however, that contra factum non valet argumentum (against a fact no argument is valid).

  • Both academics and experts of things theological, as well as simple faithful, have noted how, from the date of March 13, 2013, even unto today, there has been created an unheard of situation, never before happening in the two thousand year history of the Church: the co-existence and co-habitation in the Vatican of two popes.
  • All of these, however, know well that the expression, “pope emeritus”, plays on the congruence/assonance of “Bishop Emeritus” and “Cardinal Emeritus”, and that, besides, it is not ordained by any canon of ecclesiastical law, neither past nor present …
    Moreover, it is to be noted – and here it basically returns to the same univocity which occurs in effect in the principle — just as there is, thus, no “priest emeritus”, so also, both the academic and the faithful have always known (but perhaps today the way to understand things has changed?) that there absolutely is no other kind of pope, neither Emeritus nor Presiding, and more so, and this by “una contraddizione, che nol consente … (a contradiction which does not consent to it)”, as Dante would say, since — and all believing Catholics have always held this as valid — the pope is the symbol and guarantor of unity in the Catholic Church, and She is one Body (though Mystical, but a true body), which cannot have but one sole Head!
    Therefore, not a two-headed Body, which would be a monstrosity, and neither a headless body, which would instead be a deficiency: as a matter of fact, one alone is the Christ, one alone is the Church, one alone the Faith, one alone the Vicar of Christ and one alone the Head of the Church …. and this is what the two-thousand year Magisterium of the Church has always affirmed, without the least hesitation!
  • Pope Francis, on the one hand would be the pope in every way, since he was licitly elected by all the Cardinals, united in a lawful Conclave (and which consequently is indubitable)
  • On the other hand, we are given to know that the election of Pope Francis (and this is also indubitable) might not be equally valid, since according to a declaration — never denied — of the now late Belgian Cardinal Godfried Dannels, present in his book-biography, which reports the admissions of the prelate made to the journalists, J. Mettepenningen and K. Schelkens, the said Cardinal revealed to them that a group of Cardinals and Bishops (to which he also belonged) worked for years to prepare for the election of J. M. Bergoglio, seeing that all of these porporati were opponents of Joseph Ratzinger: it was, in fact, a group which was kept secret, which the same Cardinal Danneels defined as “a mafia club, which bore the name of St. Gall”.
    And this type of agreement, according to the Apostolic Constitution of Saint John Paul II, Universi Dominic Gregis, which regulates the “vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff”, falls under a latae sententiae excommunication, as is clearly affirmed in nn. 77, 81, and 82:

    « Confirming also the prescriptions of our Predecessors, I prohibit anyone, even if he is marked with the dignity of the Cardinalate, to make agreements, while the Pope is alive and without having consulted him, about the election of His Successor, or promise votes, or take decisions in this regard in private meetings » (n.79);
    « The Cardinal Electors are to abstain, moreover, from every form of vote-canvassing, agreements, promises or other pledges of any kind, which can constrain them to give or deny their vote to one or another.  If such in reality would happen, even if under the obligation of a vow, I decree that such a pledge be null and invalid and that no one is bound to observe it; and from this moment I impose the excommunication latae sententiae upon the transgressors of this prohibition.» (n.81);
    « Equally, I forbid to the Cardinals to make, before an election, formal agreements, whether to receive pledges of common agreement, obliging themselves to put them into effect in the case that one of them be elevated to the Pontificate.  Even these promises, as much as they might be made, even under the obligation of an oath, I declare null and invalid » (n.82).

  • It is good to repeat that the “Renunciation” of Benedict XVI (according to his own admission) was truly made in full awareness and without any constraint … and yet that such a “renunciation” cannot be held to be truly such, since (and this is the seventh one which has occurred in the course of the two thousand years of Church history) all those who did renounce the papacy afterwards returned to their prior status as before thier election: and hence he who was a Bishop or Cardinal, returned to being a Bishop or Cardinal … he who was before a hermit, returned to be a hermit … (if one remembers the events of Pope Celestine V and Pietro da Morrone!), and hence none remained pope (not even an “emeritus”, or any other kind), by continuing to wear the white cassock, by maintaining the papal coat of arms, by signing wtih the name of the Pontiff, etc..
  • Hence, just as, if one must believe that Benedict XVI posited his “renunciation” in total autonomy and independence … so and equally, one must believe in what He himself declared:  “… When, on April 19 nearly 8 years ago I accepted to assume the petrine ministry … from that moment on I was engaged always and for always by the Lord …  The “always” is also a “for always”, there is no longer a return to the private: My decision to renounce the active exerciste of the ministry, does not revoke this ” (Benedict XVI, Wednesday General Audience of Feb. 27, 2013, Piazza S. Petro).
    And hence, through his own same admission, Benedict XVI is always and still pope, whether others say so or not.
    Therefore, in this case more than ever, there is required by all a firm intellectual coherence: if we ought to believe and hold as true the words of the Holy Father about His own renunciation, we ought, on the other hand and equally, believe and hold as true the just mentioned words pronounced by Benedict XVI, which affirm that he remains still and always pope!
  • In conclusion, how can one explain, then, such an apparent and present unresolved situation in the Church … what, in substance, ought we hold to have clear ideas and not to let ourselves be overwhelmed, even us, by such a contemporary “confusion”?

The solution is supplied us both by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, but as something requiring of us the highest attention and correct discernment ….

It is Our Lady Herself, in fact, who asks us to pay attention to Her words, left in our own days at Fatima, in which She speaks, both of the Holy Father, and of a Bishop dressed in white.

The Divine Providence has also arranged, also in our own days, that Pope John Paul II elevated to the honors of the altar the Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich, making in this way known to all believers her singular visions, especailly those in which she saw “the Church of the two popes”, the Church of always, faithful to the Magisterium, at whose head is the Holy Father, and another “new” church: big, strange and extravagant … (and, moreover, that the warnings, in part from the Mother of God are truly very many: the Miraculous Medal, La Salette, Fatima, Garabandal, the Marian Movement of Priests and many, many others …).

And, at last, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in nn. 675-677), in which it informs, that, in our own days, all the faithful will be called to confront a “final test”, capable of shocking the faith of many believers, since in it there will be revealed the “mystery of iniquity”, able to provide an apparent solution to contemporary men, under the form of a religious impostiture, and it will be then that we will have to decide on which side to stand: whether with the Anti-Christ (the Anti-Church and the Anti-Gospel, as even John Paul II was wont to say), though this at the cost of apostasy from the Truth, in joining in such a manner the “new church”, great and lauded by the world, as ecological and ecumenical, which concerns itself primarily with the poor … or if we would remain with the Church of always, even if it is today seen in a bad light by the world, which reputs Her as integralist and fundamentalist, to remain with the holy Magisterium, held even today as antiquated, and faithful to the Gospel of Christ, the one and true God, our Savior and Redeemer: “Whom we hold most dear!”

This is an authorized translation of the original at

MARCOTOSATTI.COM

logo

5 Questions for Bishop Schneider & Dr. Taylor Marshall

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Over at Catholic Monitor, Fred Martinez has cut through all the deception and lying of Bishop Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall in their recent YouTube Video, and has proposed to them 5 yes or no Questions, and asked them publicly to respond.

His article is entitled, Do Marshall and Schneider think they are greater theologians than Doctors of the Church, Sts. Robert Bellarmine and Francis de Sales?

This article follows upon Martinez’ rebuttal of their arguments in several articles:

  1. Why did Taylor Marshall Chicken Out in Questioning Bp. Schneider on the Bellarmine teaching on Heretical Popes Ceasing to be Pope?
  2. Is Bp. Schneider a “Flying Monkey” or another Type of Enabler?
  3. Why is Bp. Schneider spreading the Doubtful Propaganda of a possible Leftist British Operative?
  4. Schneider’s Opinion has next to Zero Merit when standing next to the Teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales
  5. Is Bishop Schneider a Pelagianist?
  6. Schneider’s Opinion vs. Cdl. Burke: ‘If a Pope would Formally Profess Heresy he would Cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s Automatic.”
  7. Doubtful Schneider vs. St. Bellarmine & Bp. Gracida: “A Doubtful Pope is no Pope”
  8. Bp. Schneider vs. Pope Innocent III, Trent & the Ancient Fathers

5 Questions for Bishop Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall

I urge all Catholics to confront these men on social media and in email and in person. Also share these questions with all who claim to find their false arguments to be convincing. The faith is in danger by the errors spread by these two men.

Fred Martinez writes:

To make it really easy for them it has been formatted so that they only have to answer: yes or no.

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 schismatic? 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 schismatic? 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 schismatics? Answer: yes or no.

5. Is Bishop Gracida really a Sedevacantist and schismatic 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.

Answer or show you are a fraud!

Fred Martinez is an excellent master of rhetoric. He knows how to posit a question, the answer to which will expose the one to whom it is addressed either as a liar or force him to admit that he was lying and take back his lie. It’s inescapable debating style.

Consequently, short of an act of public repentance, I think that neither the Bishop nor the Doctor will respond to Fred’s 5 Questions. And that means, that neither should you follow the Bishop or Doctor anymore, because by their silence they show themselves to be dishonest liars. For an honest liar should admit at least in public that he is lying.

____________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the Video by Dr. Taylor Marshall interviewing Bishop Schneider. The text in quotes is taken from The Catholic Monitor Blog, by the intrepid Fred Martinez.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

The wicked impiety of liars

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Defend Bergoglio, become Bergoglio.

Zealously defend Bergoglio, become worse than Bergoglio.

Here is a prime example:

I replied to Schneider’s ridiculous in my critique entitled, Bishop Schneider, you Essay is a porridge of falsehood and presumption, where I showed his entire argument was based on false information, fake news, and the complete rejection not only of causality but of canon law. His illusions are totally debunked by what Pope Benedict did in fact say and not say, as I have shown on two occasions (here and here).

For Schneider the truth of the canonical meaning of a papal act is found not in the act itself, but in how others consider and accept the act or react to the act. He is a nominalist of highest order. For him a thing has no being or essence, only an effect.

But for Sammons to say what he says, is pure shamelessness. He is inventing a new sect, in which the Church’s own Canon Law is meaningless, but the will of the Cardinals is the definition of reality.

As for Dr. Taylor, in November last year he himself admitted Bellarmine is right about a heretic losing the office of the papacy, but now with Schneider in front of him, he fails to even admit that but lets Schneider trash Bellarmine a doctor of the Church! (Hat tip to Fred Martinez of Catholic Monitor, for this exposé).

Both Sammons and Schneider are not fooling anyone with a shred of Christian faith. Our Religion is based on facts, evidence, truth and Divine Revelation. The words of Jesus Christ to Saint Peter: whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, apply to Canon Law most of all, since by the Code of Canon Law, Pope John Paul II intended to bind the entire Church of the Roman Rite.

And no one can overthrow the words of Jesus Christ!

Bishops Schneider and Sammons and whomsoever attack that which is bound in Heaven are doing the work of Satan, who opposes the law of Heaven.

They are simply not Catholic. But they are worse than simple unbelievers.

Trad Inc. has passed through its final transformation. They are at war with God Himself.

___________

CREDITS: The Featured Image above is a screen shot of Eric Sammons Twitter profile page, and is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]