Author Topic: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante (Read 6744 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** September 21, 2023, 06:37:32 AM »

In this Remnant article, +Schneider endorses Billot’s “universal consent = sanation of invalid election” argument (ok, even if you disagree, it’s still a respected argument by a respected classical too-tier theologian), but then proceeds to say:

1) The St. Bellarmine argument about ipso facto deposition is wrong (ok, but does he really understand St. Robert’s true argument, or is he just accepting the debatable Sede interpretation of it, which says the deposition happens without any prior Church involvement?),

But..

2) He also suggests Cajetan, JST, et al are also wrong, since (he claims) there are no administrative means by which a pope can be deposed (not even by God, with the Church merely declaring that fact?),

And concludes, therefore, even a truly heretical pope can and must only be endured, as there is no recourse.

Not unexpectedly, tge Remnant comment box under the article has exploded into a CI-style bloodbath:

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/6815-about-the-validity-of-the-pontificate-of-pope-francis

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** September 21, 2023, 07:21:17 AM »

In other words, +Schneider appears to have created a new, third position.

But supposing, per impossible, the cardinals declared Francis a heretic, yet bizarrely continued to honor the alleged legitimacy of his pontificate, despite being a declared heretic, would it not be tantamount to believing a non-Catholic can be pope?

In that case, there is no principled reason why the Dalai Lama or antichrist could not be legitimate popes (and have not all the theologians been unanimous in their agreement tgat a oooe must at least be a Catholic man)?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** September 21, 2023, 07:29:58 AM »

It seems to me that there are only three ways +Schneider’s position is even theologically plausible:

1) Even declared heretics remain inside the Catholic Church (an opinion made by zero classical theologians)

Or

2) A declaratory statement of heresy by the Church is without effect, and the declared heretic retains his office (novel and impious);

Or

3) It is not permissible or possible for the Church even to declare the fact of heresy (to the detriment of souls everywhere, and regardless of the contrary opinion of so many classical theologians).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** September 21, 2023, 09:56:59 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 21, 2023, 06:37:32 AM

In this Remnant article, +Schneider endorses Billot’s “universal consent = sanation of invalid election” argument (ok, even if you disagree, it’s still a respected argument by a respected classical too-tier theologian), but then proceeds to say:

1) The St. Bellarmine argument about ipso facto deposition is wrong (ok, but does he really understand St. Robert’s true argument, or is he just accepting the debatable Sede interpretation of it, which says the deposition happens without any prior Church involvement?),

But..

2) He also suggests Cajetan, JST, et al are also wrong, since (he claims) there are no administrative means by which a pope can be deposed (not even by God, with the Church merely declaring that fact?),

And concludes, therefore, even a truly heretical pope can and must only be endured, as there is no recourse.

Not unexpectedly, tge Remnant comment box under the article has exploded into a CI-style bloodbath:

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/6815-about-the-validity-of-the-pontificate-of-pope-francis

I'll disagree with your assertion that the way everyone understood St. Robert before Salza & Siscoe's butchery of it was "wrong". But that's a side issue.

One of the principles laid out by both St. Robert and John of St. Thomas was that the God would not allow the Church without recourse to remedy such a situation. That's an absurd conclusion that the Church can do nothing to even declare deposed some open/obvious manifest heretic. If for some reason all the Cardinals / bishops converted (but not Bergoglio) and they declared Bergoglio was a heretic and had lost his office, I think that would certainly be the case. I agree that +Schneider's analysis is off base.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** September 21, 2023, 10:08:15 AM »

Basically, his position is nonsense, and NONE of the main protagonists, St. Robert, Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, none of them would accept his conclusion that the Church couldn't even decide or determine that a certain man was no longer the pope. This was one of the "5 opinions" but there was only like one guy who held it and he's long dead.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #5 on:** September 21, 2023, 10:11:44 AM »

The site "One Peter Five" posted the same +Schneider garbage theology. Maybe this will give +Vigano the opportunity to come out full-force and address this topic. +Schneider is obviously trying to keep the indulter sheep inside the V2 umbrella, while +Vigano is doing the opposite.

Stubborn · « **Reply #6 on:** September 21, 2023, 10:19:02 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 21, 2023, 07:29:58 AM

It seems to me that there are only three ways +Schneider’s position is even theologically plausible:

1) Even declared heretics remain inside the Catholic Church (an opinion made by zero classical theologians)

Or

2) A declaratory statement of heresy by the Church is without effect, and the declared heretic retains his office (novel and impious);

Or

3) It is not permissible or possible for the Church even to declare the fact of heresy (to the detriment of souls everywhere, and regardless of the contrary opinion of so many classical theologians).

Well, the Church's cardinals and bishops can indeed declare the fact of heresy, they're obligated to do so too, but beyond warning the pope and all the sheep, that's about all they can do.

Being that heresy is a sin that only Catholics may be forgiven of in the sacrament of penance, the idea that a Catholic who is guilty of the sin of heresy is outside of the Church is wrong.

As such, V1 taught that even an ecuмenical council is not the pope's superior and does not have any authority to judge the pope...

"...they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** September 21, 2023, 11:06:31 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 21, 2023, 10:11:44 AM

The site "One Peter Five" posted the same +Schneider garbage theology. Maybe this will give +Vigano the opportunity to come out full-force and address this topic. +Schneider is obviously trying to keep the indulter sheep inside the V2 umbrella, while +Vigano is doing the opposite.

Yeah, that's my suspicion, that +Schneider has been controlled opposition all along and he's taking this absurd position to quell the unrest among those in the Conciliar Church who still have some faith left and realize that Jorge is not a Catholic.

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #8 on:** September 21, 2023, 11:22:24 AM »

Bishop Schneider holds Opinion No. 3 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine. Opinion No. 3 is the following:

That a pope who is even a manifest heretic is not deposed ipso facto and cannot be deposed by the Church.

Here is what St. Robert Bellarmine writes regarding Opinion No. 3:

“The third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent [321]. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council, which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd.”
(Source: https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30)

The other cleric that I know of that holds Opinion No. 3 is Fr. David Hewko. In the following sermon, Fr. Hewko defends Bishop Schneider's position:

And Fr. Hewko wrongly uses Archbishop Lefebvre to defend his position.

Fr. Hewko has stated that even if a pope were to admit that he was a heretic, he would remain pope until a future pope judges him.

Opinion No. 3 opposes the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII who taught in Mystici Corporis (Paragraph 22) that the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church:

“Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet.”

“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #9 on:** September 21, 2023, 11:59:24 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on September 21, 2023, 11:22:24 AM

Bishop Schneider holds Opinion No. 3 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine. Opinion No. 3 is the following:

That a pope who is even a manifest heretic is not deposed ipso facto and cannot be deposed by the Church.

Here is what St. Robert Bellarmine writes regarding Opinion No. 3:

“The third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent [321]. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council, which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd.”
(Source: https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30)

The other cleric that I know of that holds Opinion No. 3 is Fr. David Hewko. In the following sermon, Fr. Hewko defends Bishop Schneider's position:

And Fr. Hewko wrongly uses Archbishop Lefebvre to defend his position.

Fr. Hewko has stated that even if a pope were to admit that he was a heretic, he would remain pope until a future pope judges him.

Opinion No. 3 opposes the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII who taught in Mystici Corporis (Paragraph 22) that the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church:

“Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet.”

“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

While I obviously agree with your rejection of +Schneider’s endorsement of Opinion 3, I disagree with your reading of Pius XII:

The pope is simply saying that sin does not separate one from the Church as schism or heresy do.

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #10 on:** September 21, 2023, 12:07:37 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 21, 2023, 11:59:24 AM

The pope is simply saying that sin does not separate one from the Church as schism or heresy do.

“Certain sins – viz., apostasy, heresy and schism – of their nature cut off the guilty from the living Body of Christ…..It can hardly be denied that those who take up any of these positions – most evidently is this the case with the deliberate apostate – sever themselves by their own act from membership of the Church.”
(The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Volume II, Arranged and Edited by Canon George Smith, New York, 1961, Fourteenth Printing, p. 708)

“In the encyclical (i.e., Mystici Corporis), the Holy Father speaks of schism, heresy, and apostasy, as sins which, of their very nature, separate a man from the Body of the Church. He thereby follows the traditional procedure adopted by St. Robert himself in his De ecclesia militante.”
(Monsignor Joseph Fenton, The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine's Teaching about Membership of Occult Heretics in the Catholic Church, The American Ecclesiastical Review, March 1950, p. 219)

“Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of the faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy, automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy‘ (MCC 30, italics ours).”
(Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 153)

Angelus · « **Reply #11 on:** September 21, 2023, 12:12:55 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on September 21, 2023, 11:22:24 AM

Bishop Schneider holds Opinion No. 3 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine. Opinion No. 3 is the following:

That a pope who is even a manifest heretic is not deposed ipso facto and cannot be deposed by the Church.

Here is what St. Robert Bellarmine writes regarding Opinion No. 3:

“The third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent [321]. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council, which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd.”
(Source: https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30)

The other cleric that I know of that holds Opinion No. 3 is Fr. David Hewko. In the following sermon, Fr. Hewko defends Bishop Schneider's position:

And Fr. Hewko wrongly uses Archbishop Lefebvre to defend his position.

Fr. Hewko has stated that even if a pope were to admit that he was a heretic, he would remain pope until a future pope judges him.

Opinion No. 3 opposes the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII who taught in Mystici Corporis (Paragraph 22) that the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church:

“Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet.”

“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

The Third Opinion (which Bellarmine calls "exceedingly improbable") is also the position of the Neo-SSPX:

https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/question-papal-heresy-part-4-20547

Can a Pope Fall in Notorious Heresy?

On the other hand, if we are talking about notorious heresy, it is obvious that he cannot during his lifetime: notorious heresy is in fact heresy that is declared by the competent superior, and since the Pope has no superior here on earth, no one is competent to declare his heresy canonically. From a strictly canonical perspective, the Pope therefore during his lifetime could fall only into occult heresy. Once he has died, his heresy can obviously be declared by his successor and become notorious. But that does not authorize us to say that the Pope could fall into notorious heresy, since by definition this fall could take place only during his lifetime.

This authorizes us only to say that a Pope could be anathematized posthumously, provided that we are not misled by the expression, since a deceased pope is no longer Pope. In reality, this anathema pertains strictly speaking not to his person but to his statements: the heresy is notorious, but it is so if it is understood not in the first sense, as a person’s moral act, but in the second sense, as the doctrinal description of a proposition.

So who are you gonna believe? St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church? Or some poorly-trained theologians from the SSPX? Or the SSPX's best buddy, "bishop" Schneider.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #12 on:** September 21, 2023, 12:18:02 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on September 21, 2023, 12:07:37 PM

“Certain sins – viz., apostasy, heresy and schism – of their nature cut off the guilty from the living Body of Christ…..It can hardly be denied that those who take up any of these positions – most evidently is this the case with the deliberate apostate – sever themselves by their own act from membership of the Church.”
(The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Volume II, Arranged and Edited by Canon George Smith, New York, 1961, Fourteenth Printing, p. 708)

“In the encyclical (i.e., Mystici Corporis), the Holy Father speaks of schism, heresy, and apostasy, as sins which, of their very nature, separate a man from the Body of the Church. He thereby follows the traditional procedure adopted by St. Robert himself in his De ecclesia militante.”
(Monsignor Joseph Fenton, The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine's Teaching about Membership of Occult Heretics in the Catholic Church, The American Ecclesiastical Review, March 1950, p. 219)

“Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of the faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy, automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy‘ (MCC 30, italics ours).”
(Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 153)

Not sure why you’re citing all this, since none of it is in dispute.

I’m simply pointing out that you’re misreading Pius XII, who’s simply saying that sin doesn’t separate one from the Church (eg., as schism and heresy do).

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #13 on:** September 21, 2023, 12:32:27 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 21, 2023, 12:18:02 PM

Not sure why you’re citing all this, since none of it is in dispute.

I’m simply pointing out that you’re misreading Pius XII, who’s simply saying that sin doesn’t separate one from the Church (eg., as schism and heresy do).

What did I write that doesn't jive with the teaching of Pope Pius XII that I quoted?

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #14 on:** September 21, 2023, 12:37:09 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on September 21, 2023, 12:12:55 PM

The Third Opinion (which Bellarmine calls "exceedingly improbable") is also the position of the Neo-SSPX:

https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/question-papal-heresy-part-4-20547

Can a Pope Fall in Notorious Heresy?

On the other hand, if we are talking about notorious heresy, it is obvious that he cannot during his lifetime: notorious heresy is in fact heresy that is declared by the competent superior, and since the Pope has no superior here on earth, no one is competent to declare his heresy canonically. From a strictly canonical perspective, the Pope therefore during his lifetime could fall only into occult heresy. Once he has died, his heresy can obviously be declared by his successor and become notorious. But that does not authorize us to say that the Pope could fall into notorious heresy, since by definition this fall could take place only during his lifetime.

This authorizes us only to say that a Pope could be anathematized posthumously, provided that we are not misled by the expression, since a deceased pope is no longer Pope. In reality, this anathema pertains strictly speaking not to his person but to his statements: the heresy is notorious, but it is so if it is understood not in the first sense, as a person’s moral act, but in the second sense, as the doctrinal description of a proposition.

So who are you gonna believe? St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church? Or some poorly-trained theologians from the SSPX? Or the SSPX's best buddy, "bishop" Schneider.

Thanks for pointing this out. I thought the neo-SSPX held to the Fourth Opinion:

That a manifest heretic does not fall from the pontificate by himself ipso facto, but must be judged by the Church to fall from office.

This is the basis of Salza and Siscoe's book which was promoted by the neo-SSPX.

Author Topic: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante (Read 6744 times)

SeanJohnson

+Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

SeanJohnson

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

SeanJohnson

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Ladislaus

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Ladislaus

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Pax Vobis

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Stubborn

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Ladislaus

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Catholic Knight

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

SeanJohnson

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Catholic Knight

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Angelus

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

SeanJohnson

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Catholic Knight

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Catholic Knight

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante