https://www.lifesitenews.com/episodes/bishop-schneider-responds-to-archbishop-vigano-on-papal-legitimacy/?utm_source=most_recent&utm_campaign=catholic

2:15 - Schneider rejects Vigano's analogy to sacramental theology (rightly, I think, because acceptance of an office is not the confection of a sacrament).  But that does not negate the absurdity of Schneider's previously aired position regarding a heretical pope.

5:45 - Repeating Billot

9:50 - Rejects Vigano's historical example; says St. Vincent Ferrer who sided initially with anti-pope later recognized his error and sided with the true pope

I've long suspected that +Schneider is the controlled opposition and gatekeeper for Jorge, carrying water for him.  This didn't become more clear than when he adopted the absurd opinion that there's no way for the Church to be rid of a heretical pope, an opinion that no one has held since Bellarmine first refuted it.

2:15 - Schneider rejects Vigano's analogy to sacramental theology (rightly, I think, because acceptance of an office is not the confection of a sacrament).  

I disagree.  It's an analogy regarding intention and it can apply whether one's dealing with the reception of a Sacrament or the acceptance of an office.  Bishop Sanborn has long made the same analogy.

I don't agree that this is the crux of the issue, however.  I believe that the root cause of Jorge's illegitimacy goes back decades.

I believe that both +Huonder and +Schneider are agents of Jorge Bergoglio with distinct but related missions.

I believe that both +Huonder and +Schneider are agents of Jorge Bergoglio with distinct but related missions.

Clearly.

Thanks for this Sean and your commentary is very accurate. I think the interviewer was a bit lacking because he should have asked some pressing questions regarding V2, the other popes and the NO etc., but from what I heard, I get the impression that +Schneider likely would have defended all that. Beyond that, the things he said which you posted are those things that Catholics have always believed. Strange to hear a NO bishop say some of those things.

Bishop Schneider holds to the Third Opinion of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine.  The Third Opinion is as follows:

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

St. Robert Bellarmine called this opinion "extremely improbable".  More importantly, this opinion indirectly opposes the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII who taught in Mystici Corporis that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church. 

Bishop Schneider's holding to the Third Opinion alone should make one ignore him on this matter.

Not only is it "extremely improbable", but no theologian has held this opinion since it was refuted by St. Robert.  This opinion is a joke, and his clinging to it is to me the clearest sign that he's out there working for Jorge as a "Trad" gate-keeper and controlled opposition.

One might also wonder why +Schneider hasn't been silenced.  +Strickland got sacked for saying much less than +Schneider's criticisms of Bergoglio.  It's possible that Jorge won't sack him or silence him because he doesn't want to turn more of the Trad, Inc. types against him even more ... or else he hasn't silenced him because he's actually working for him and his interests.  I'm inclined to think the latter.

So +Schneider opens by rejecting +Vigano's vitium consensus position, calling it "extremely weak".  He claims that analogy with intention to receive a Sacrament doesn't apply, because we're dealing here with an office rather than a Sacrament.  This is a gratuitous assertion that is not backed up by anything, and it's false.  This is an analogy for sure, and analogies aren't perfect, but there's sufficient similarity between the two to justify the analogy.

Both the reception of a Sacrament and assuming the papal office require consent.  If a man were elected pope and did not give his consent, he would not be the pope.  So the analogy is quite valid.  Question is WHAT the individual needs to consent to, merely to have the title?

He also claims that intention is a matter of the internal forum.  This too is completely false.  Intention is something that can be expressed and known in the external forum.  "Internal Forum" only applies to matters related to subjective guilt and subjective dispositions, but things like intention can be known in the external forum.  If a woman told some friends that she intended to marry some guy just to get his money and had every intention of divorcing him after a few months, walking away with child support and alimony, that intention has been manifested in the external forum.  Now, her degree of guilt, given her knowledge, etc., THOSE are matters for the internal forum, but intention can be known in the external forum.  +Vigano makes a case for why we can know from the external forum that Bergoglio intended to "change" the Church ... based on his own public statements, and since the office of the Papacy inherently (as taught by Vatican II) is to preserve and safeguard the Deposit of Revelation (for which +Strickland even called out Jorge for denying), the argument is that he did not mean to assume the papal office in terms of what its purpose or primary end was.

+Schneider then tries to make a false analogy with popes who only accepted the office for ulterior motives ... so they could enrich themselves, etc. and didn't really care about the papacy.  But none of these pervert popes expressed any contrary intention regarding the papal office itself, that they wanted to use it to change and corrupt the Church.  They simply had ulterior motives.  I liken this to the ends of marriage.  Most couples make use of that without any explicit thought or regard for the primary ends of marital relations, the procreation of children.  But so long as they don't exclude the primary end and recognize it intellectually to be the primary end, they're not subverting or excluding the primary end of marital relations.  Same thing with these popes.  They were primarily motivated by the ancillary benefits of being the pope, but they did not exclude the primary end of the office, to safeguard the Deposit of Revelation ... even if they could hardly care less about it on a day to day basis.  Argument regarding Jorge is that he deliberately sought to exclude and to contradict the primary end of the papal office, namely, to safeguard the Deposit of Faith.

I'll come back to the rest later.