Bishop Schneider: Nobody has the power to judge Francis’ status as pope

[Stone]

Bishop Schneider: Nobody has the power to judge Francis’ status as pope
'No one in the Church has the authority to consider or declare an elected and generally accepted pope an invalid pope.'



Bishop Athanasius Schneider
Michael Hogan/LifeSiteNews

Oct 3, 2023
(LifeSiteNews - emphasis The Catacombs) –– Bishop Athanasius Schneider has issued the following statement clarifying his position on whether or not he believes Pope Francis is the Pope. His remarks come after Father James Altman announced in a recent video that he believes Francis is not the pope. Altman argues that Francis is not a Catholic, and that a non-Catholic cannot be the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Bishop Schneider argues that even in the case of a “heretical pope,” there is “no-one within the Church to declare him deposed on account of heresy.” His Excellency states that all the teachings of churchmen who have previously written about this subject, including St. Robert Bellarmine, rise only to the level of “an opinion,” as “the perennial papal Magisterium has never taught this as a doctrine.”

The “surer Catholic tradition,” His Excellency continues, is that “in the case of a heretical pope, the members of the Church can avoid him, resist him, refuse to obey him, all of which can be done without requiring a theory or opinion, that says that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed consequently.” [Also the opinion and reaction of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the face of the carnage that occurred under the pontificates of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. - The Catacombs]

In a statement released just days ago, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò argues that resisting Francis, while laudable, is not enough, and that there is a great need to “get to the root of the question” of what the Church should do in the face of “a pope who presents himself with ostentatious arrogance as inimicus Ecclesiæ.”

On the Power to Judge the Validity of a Pontificate

No one in the Church has the authority to consider or declare an elected and generally accepted pope an invalid pope. It is clear from the constant practice of the Church that even were a papal election invalid, it would de facto be healed through the general acceptance of the newly elected by the overwhelming majority of cardinals and bishops [in the case of the Bergoglian papacy, he has been accepted for the past ten years - The Catacombs].

Even were a pope heretical, he would not automatically lose his office, and there is no one within the Church to declare him deposed on account of heresy. Such actions would approach a kind of a heresy of conciliarism or episcopalism. According to these heresies, there is a body within the Church (ecumenical council, synod, college of cardinals, college of bishops), which can issue a legally binding judgment on the Roman Pontiff.

The theory of the automatic loss of the papacy due to heresy is only an opinion; even St. Robert Bellarmine noted this and did not present it as a teaching of the Magisterium. The perennial papal Magisterium has never taught this as a doctrine. In 1917, when the Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici) came into force, the Church’s Magisterium eliminated from the new legislation a remark of the Decretum Gratiani contained in the old Corpus Iuris Canonici, which stated that a pope who deviates from right doctrine can be deposed. Never in the history of the Church has the Magisterium provided canonical procedures for the deposition of a heretical pope. The Church has no power over the pope formally or juridically. According to surer Catholic tradition, in the case of a heretical pope the members of the Church can avoid him, resist him, and refuse to obey him. All of this can be done without any need for a theory or opinion that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed.

Therefore, we must follow the surer way (via tutior) and abstain from defending the mere opinion of theologians, even those of saints like Robert Bellarmine.

The pope cannot commit heresy when he speaks ex cathedra; this is a dogma of faith. In his teaching outside of ex cathedra statements, however, he can make erroneous, ambiguous, or even heretical doctrinal statements. And since the pope is not identical with the entire Church, the Church is stronger than a singular erring or heretical pope. In such a case one should respectfully correct him (avoiding purely human anger and disrespectful language) and resist him as one would resist a bad father of a family. Yet the members of the family could never declare that he has automatically forfeited his fatherhood or been deposed as father. They can correct him, refuse to obey him, separate themselves from him, but they cannot declare him deposed.

Good Catholics know the truth and must proclaim it and offer reparation for the errors of an erring pope. Since the case of a heretical pope is humanly irresolvable, we must, with supernatural faith, implore God’s intervention. For an individual erring pope is not eternal, and the Church is not in our hands but in the hands of Almighty God.

We must hold on to supernatural faith, trust, humility, and a love of the Cross in order to endure such a tremendous and extraordinary trial. These situations are relatively brief in comparison to the Church’s 2000-year history. Therefore, we must not yield to overly human reactions and seemingly easy solutions by declaring the invalidity of a pontificate, but instead be sober and alert, keep a truly supernatural outlook, and trust in divine intervention and the indestructibility of the Catholic Church.

+ Athanasius Schneider

[Stone]

A reminder that these same arguments about either the validity of Pope Francis or the situation in which he is suspected of manifest heresy are not new. They arose under the pontificates of Pope Paul VI and John Paul II (particularly after the first Assisi meeting in 1986). They were forgotten under the quieter "conservative" pontificate of Benedict XVI (though most forget he too carried on the blasphemous Assisi meetings). They have been resurrected with the renewed scandals and errors of the Bergoglian pontificate. 

As a refresjer, this is an excerpt from the traditional SSPX's Little Catechism on Sedevacantism:

What arguments do the sedevacantists adduce to prove their theories?

They use a theological argument and a canonical one. The theological argument consists of positing that a heretic cannot be head of the Church, but John Paul II is a heretic, therefore...

The legal argument consists of pointing out that the laws of the Church invalidate the election of a heretic; but Cardinal Wojtyla was a heretic at the time of his election, therefore...


But isn’t it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate?

St. Robert Bellarmine says that a pope who would formally and manifestly become a heretic would lose the pontificate. For that to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be a formal heretic, deliberately refusing the Church’s magisterium; and this formal heresy would have to be open and manifest. But if John Paul II often enough makes heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy, it cannot easily be shown that he is aware of rejecting any dogma of the Church. And as long as there is no sure proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was Archbishop Lefebvre’s line of conduct.


If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?

No, he should not, for according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even an heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.

According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church. Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion. (Emphasis mine)


But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?

The Dominican Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.

The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy.