CathInfo.com

I've concluded that Bishop(?) Schneider is most likely a controlled opposition agent. 

It's getting harder and harder to deny this.
Yet he is such a likeable villain if he is, and so good at his job.
In the Militia Immaculatae we pray three times a day: O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee, and for those who do not have recourse to Thee, especially the Freemasons and those commended to Thy care.

I do like his conservative schtick.


He's an ecuмenical bridge builder.

I would put the word "bishop" followed by a question mark?  Schneider was consecrated in '06 by Card. Sodano, and Card. Sodano was consecrated in '78.  As far as I am concerned there is a huge question with their orders.  This is just more Novus Ordo Clown World.

I often do when I'm making a point, but it's also cuмbersome.  Even Bishop Sanborn has said that it's OK to use terms like "Bishop" as effectively a customary form of address (a title by which the person is generally known) and not every use of the term involves some kind of theological statement on someone's part.  I find that a rather balanced view, since one might collapse under the weight of scrupulosity if one believes that calling him Bishop Schneider would somehow be tantamount to a denial of the faith.

I'm less concerned, though, about his validity than I am about he very curious role he has played.  Why is some obscure auxiliary from a diocese of 50,000 (tiny foir Catholic diocese) somehow the worldwide face of the Traddie wing of the Conciliar Church?  Why is Schneider not punished, but even often photographed having smiley and glad-handing meetings with Bergoglio and Prevost, when he criticized Bergs as "denying the ENTIRE Gospel" (sounds like apostasy) ... when Strickland got sacked for FAR LESS.  Why is Schneider rolled out to do damage control every time +Vigano says something that needs to be "refuted", making the round on all the Trad, Inc. venues?

Finally, as mentioned, what put it over the edge when he made ridiculous statements about how the only teaching of the Church is that a heretical pope is not and cannot in any way be deposed ... that's so ridiculously false that it must be a lie, since i can't believe that Schneider is that utterly ignoring of a matter about which he postures as some authority.  I mean ... he's entitled to hold that opinion, obivously, since the Church has not condmened it either, though some hold that Vatican I implicitly endorsed Bellarmine's view, and yet I do not begrude his holding that opinion, as dumb as it is ... but, come on now, to claim that the Church's teaching rejects the positions of Bellarmine AND Cajetan (and 99.5% of all theologians line up with one or the other of these), I cannot conclude other than that there must be some intentional deception taking place there, ie. that he's deliberately lying.