What You Mean "We," Kemo Sabe

As they say, the joke is as old as the hills.

The Lone Ranger and Tonto find themselves surrounded by hostile Indians. The ever-resourceful masked ride of the Plains turns to his faithful Indian companion Tonto and asks, “What are we going to do now, Tonto? To which Tonto replies, “We what you mean we, Kemo Sabe?” (Another version has Tonto saying, “What you mean we, white man?”

Looks like I overlooked one of the possibilities while assessing Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s plan to take out “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano, namely, that other semi-traditional/critics of his within the hierarchy of his false religious sect that is the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church would head for the tall grass to protect their own “episcopal” perquisites while throwing Vigano under the bus as a “disrespectful” extremist. I should have seen this coming, but I didn’t, which just goes to show us all once again that one can never underestimate the ability of those who believe that the Catholic Church can be “infected” with error to come up with convoluted explanations as to why one can oppose a true pope as long as one is “reasonable” in doing so.

“Bishop” Athanasius Schneider is contending that Carlo Mario Vigano was too disrespectful to “Pope Francis,” claiming his own criticism of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is based out of a love for the false “pontiff” to help him correct his errors. Where did he learn his ecclesiology?

Anyhow, here is a report about Athanasius Schneider’s claiming the high ground for himself while expressing the hope that the unholy non-father, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, will not excommunicate Carlo Maria Vigano for his intemperance:

VATICAN CITY (RNS) — An outspoken critic of Pope Francis, the Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana, Kazakhstan, said that while Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s public opposition of the pope “is irreverent and disrespectful,” the Vatican should think twice before excommunicating him.

“I think the pope would be wise and prudent if he were to not excommunicate Archbishop Viganò,” Schneider told Religion News Service in an interview on Monday (June 24), adding that, “with this act, the Holy See will increase divisions even more.”

The Vatican Department for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Vatican’s Inquisition, summoned Viganò to trial on June 28 under charges of schism, which can incur the penalty of excommunication. Viganò wrote in a public statement that he has no intention of attending the “fake trial” and doubled down on his criticism of the pope and the Vatican.

Schneider said Vatican officials should invite Viganò privately, and not in a judicial setting, to smooth over differences. “I lament that Archbishop Viganò uses disrespectful language,” he said, adding that “it’s not edifying or helpful to anyone.” (Conservative prelate warns that excommunicating Viganò will lead to further division.)

Interjection Number One:

Well, this is how Pope Saint Pius X proposed to deal with Modernists, and anyone who claims to be a believing Catholic while denying that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a Modernist is either willfully blind or just plain intellectually dishonest:

“They [the Modernists] want to be treated with oil, soap and caresses,” he said of his antagonists. “But they should be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don’t count or measure the blows, you strike as you can.”  (Saint Pius X: The Son of a Village Postman Who Urged Modernists to be Beaten With Fists)

All right, it is back to the news story about Athanasius Schneider claiming the “high ground” in a
“respectful” opposition to the man he considers to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter while accusing Carlo Mario Vigano of, in effect, taking the low ground:

Viganò, who was papal nuncio to the United States, rose to fame in 2018 when he published a lengthy letter accusing Pope Francis of covering up reports of sexual abuse of minors by the influential U.S. ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick. In the letter he asked the pope to resign from his position.

In the following years, Viganò’s positions became increasingly radical, criticizing the Second Vatican Council, condemning the COVID-19 vaccines and praising Russian President Vladimir Putin as the savior of Christianity. (Conservative prelate warns that excommunicating Viganò will lead to further division.)

Interjection Number Two:

This narrative, found within the text of the Religious News Service report, would have readers believe that there is no rational basis for documenting the harm that is being caused by the diabolical poisons that have been marketed as the means to prevent contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus or, at the least, mitigating its effects (for latest evidence on the blood clots caused by these poisons, please see COVID shots have 200-times higher risk of brain clots than other jabs: new report).

As to the rest, however, “Archbishop” Vigano has been correct to criticize the “Second” Vatican Council even while refusing to recognize that the “pope” who elevated him to the conciliar hierarchy, Karol Joszef Wojtyla/John Paul II, and the one he believes was a defender of tradition, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, played instrumental roles in shaping the course of this robber council. On the other hand, Vladmir Putin is no savior of “Christianity” as he is as amoral in his personal life and in the conduct of his war upon Ukraine as are the Western globalists who are using the tin horn dictator Volodymyr Zelensky to their bidding for him against him all while innocent civilians continue to be targeted by both warring parties.

Back to the news story:

The archbishop also claimed Pope Francis’ election was illegitimate, leading many conservative prelates to distance themselves from Viganò.

“He is in error, because he is voicing a new theory of the probably invalid theory of Francis’ illegitimate election,” Schneider said, adding that Viganò’s positions have “no foundation.” Schneider also claimed to have asked Viganò, who has been living in hiding since he published his public statement in 2018, to avoid using disrespectful language concerning the pope. (Conservative prelate warns that excommunicating Viganò will lead to further division.)

Interjection Number Three:

Here is the skinny: Carlo Maria Vigano is in error about the reason that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “election” was illegitimate. Bergoglio is a pretender to the papal throne not because of any scheme that took place in the conclave eleven years, thirteen days ago but because he defected from the Catholic Faith decades ago. His claim to the papacy is illegitimate because of his adherence to condemned and anathematized propositions just as the claims upon the papacy made by Angelo Roncalli, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, Albino Luciano, Karol Jozsef Wojtyla, and Joseph Alois Ratzinger were invalid. Athanasius Schneider is wrong to believe that each of conciliar “popes” have been true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter. This is yet another case of, if you will, semi-traditional pots calling supposedly radical traditional kettles black.

Back to the news report:

Regardless, the Kazakh bishop believes Viganò should not be excommunicated. “I think that today the church has so much internal division that it would be imprudent, even if there is some canonical ground to judge Archbishop Viganò.”

Schneider is the latest among a number of conservative papal critics who have disassociated themselves from the fiery archbishop. Conservative Italian pundits welcomed the pope’s decision to finally take action on Viganò, while the traditionalist Society of Pius X, founded in 1970 by the schismatic Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, stated that they do not support Viganò’s claims that Francis’ election was illegitimate. (Conservative prelate warns that excommunicating Viganò will lead to further division.)

Interjection Number Four:

This is a theatre of the absurd.

The Society of Saint Pius X has a vested interest in maintaining the fiction of the legitimacy of the conciliar “popes” so that they can claim to be defenders of tradition and defenders of the papacy by refusing to submit to popes that are in “error” in order to bring them back to the Catholic Faith. This has worked well for over fifty years as the Society believes itself to be the infallible magisterium concerning all that pertains to the defense of the Holy Faith.

Insofar as “Bishop” Schneider’s saying that an “excommunication” of “Archbishop” Vigano would be “imprudent,” suffice it to note that his own “prudence” is that of the flesh, a “prudence” that seeks to maintain “civility” while “correcting” a superior who is in error.

This is absolute absurdity that has nothing to do with authentic Catholic teaching about the papacy.

To the story yet again:

An ethnic German raised in Kazakhstan under the Soviet Union, Schneider emigrated to Germany with his family to escape the communist repression of Catholicism. He has criticized Pope Francis’ limitations on the Latin Mass and his decision to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion. When Pope Francis prayed with Indigenous people at the Vatican gardens during the 2019 summit of bishops on the Amazon region, Schneider said it constituted “implicit pantheism.”

He has also criticized the pope’s ecumenical and inter-religious efforts to foster dialogue, claiming they undermined the “one true religion.” His diocese was the first to reject the application of the 2023 Vatican declaration “Fiducia Supplicans,” allowing priests to bless same-sex and irregular couples. (Conservative prelate warns that excommunicating Viganò will lead to further division.)

Interjection Number Five:

“Bishop” Athanasius Schneider’s constant criticism of Jorge Mario Bergoglio on these matters differs from that of “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano only in tone, not truly in substance, and it ignores the plain fact that no Catholic is free to criticizing a reigning Supreme Pontiff, no less to defy him publicly:

Distracted with so many occupations, it is easy to forget the things that lead to perfection in priestly life; it is easy [for the priest] to delude himself and to believe that, by busying himself with the salvation of the souls of others, he consequently works for his own sanctification. Alas, let not this delusion lead you to error, because nemo dat quod nemo habet [no one gives what he does not have]; and, in order to sanctify others, it is necessary not to neglect any of the ways proposed for the sanctification of our own selves….

The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.

It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy, situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: RORATE CÆLI: “Love the Pope!” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)

Whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

There are only two options if one feels compelled to criticize one they believe is a true pope: either the critic is not holy or the man they think is the pope is no pope at all.

To the final excerpt from the Religious News Service about Athanasius Schneider throwing Carlo Mario Vigano under the conciliar express bus from Stazione Termini to the Vatican:

His new book, “Flee from Heresy,” details the history of schismatic and heretical schools of thought in the church and is scheduled to publish July 16. “Even a blind person perceives that we are living in a time of great confusion regarding clarity of doctrine and morals. It felt necessary to help the faithful and priests to speak about the common errors not only of our time, but also of the past,” he said.

Schneider said relativism is the greatest challenge facing the church in its suggestion that “truth is not something absolute, but relative.” He pointed to gender theory as a consequence of this mindset and condemned international organizations that defend and support it globally.

“The Holy See is becoming an instrument of the global elites,” he said. “It is sad that this global new ideology managed to succeed to a great extent in taking the Catholic Church hostage and turning the Holy See and the episcopates into its collaborators.”

Schneider said he believes his new book will help inform Catholics about their faith. In October of last year, he presented another book, “Credo: Compendium of the Catholic Faith,” with suggestions for updating official doctrine to address gender, sexuality and modern technology.

While the pope has welcomed dialogue, and even criticism, from his opponents, he has recently cracked down on conservative pundits, including Viganò. Last year, Francis asked that the de-facto leader of the conservative faction in the church, Cardinal Raymond Burke, leave his Vatican apartments, and he removed outspoken papal critic Bishop Joseph Strickland from his diocese in Tyler, Texas.

At the time, Schneider took Strickland’s defense, calling the accusations against him “insubstantial and disproportionate” in a public letter.

Schneider told RNS that his criticism of Francis is “an expression of true and sincere love for the pontiff,” while underlining the duty of bishops to call out the head of the church when he is in error. “I will not be judged by Pope Francis when I die,” he said. “Only God is my judge.” (Conservative prelate warns that excommunicating Viganò will lead to further division.)

Interjection Number Six:

Au contraire, “Bishop” Schneider.

A true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter has complete plenipotentiary power to judge his subjects, and you are unfortunate enough to consider a subject of a known heretic, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, lay Jesuit revolutionary.

While it is true that God alone judges souls after they die, a true and legitimate Supreme Pontiff has been given the power by Christ the King Himself to act as His Vicar on earth and to impose judicial sentences as he sees fit.

Most importantly, though, “Bishop” Schneider’s belief that a true pope can in be “error” is erroneous on its very face. There is plenty of documentation that can be found in Dumbing Down the Papacy: 1976-2024 to refute this error, and the documentation below proves yet again that Holy Mother Church, she who is the spotless, mystical bride of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head, and Mystical Bridegroom, is incapable of making even the slightest concession to error:

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III).

These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church . . . .

But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promotingnovelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

7. It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time "who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity" can very aptly apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason. In order not to be deceived and go astray in a matter of such great importance, human reason should indeed carefully investigate the fact of divine revelation. Having done this, one would be definitely convinced that God has spoken and therefore would show Him rational obedience, as the Apostle very wisely teaches. For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason itself to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined to have been revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived? (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

There can be no doubt in anything pertaining to the Catholic Faith as Pope Pius XI has assured us that the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church 'was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men."

“During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated.”

In other words, it is impossible for one to represent the Catholic Church, whether in an official or unofficial capacity, and knowingly contradict her teaching and continue to remain a member in her. Just as pro-aborts such as the late Edward Moore Kennedy expelled themselves from Holy Mother Church by their support of surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law as a “woman’s right to choose” without any formal declaration of excommunication, so is it the case that those who defect from the Faith on one point by means of what they believe–not by what they attempt to “declare” as binding of the Catholic faithful–from the Faith by virtue of having violated the Divine Positive Law. It is that simple. There is no “reconciliation” between Catholicism and conciliarism.

Need proof?

Here’s Paragraph Nine from Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, once again:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

All one has to do is persist in a belief contrary to the Faith to be banished from the bosom of the Church. Belief is bad enough. Speaking about one’s beliefs that are contrary to the Faith and comparing them to what had been taught by the Catholic Church “in the past” demonstrates that there is knowledge of the Church’s teaching and a desire to “move on” in accord with the “movement of the spirit.” The conciliarists have condemned themselves.

The following excerpt from The Catholic Controversy demonstrates that Saint Francis de Sales was willing to do two things that the conciliar “popes,” including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have refused to do—and, quite indeed, castigate in the strongest terms: to defend the truths of the Catholic Faith to non-Catholics and to seek their conversion to the true Church:

Here are the words of the holy Council of Trent speaking of Christian and Evangelical truth: “(The holy Synod). Considering that this truth and discipline are contained in written books, and in unwritten Traditions which, being received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the same Apostles at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and being delivered as it were from hand to hand, have come down to us, following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and honours with an equal affectionate piety and reverence, all the books as well of the Old as of the New Testament, since the one God is the author of both, and also these Traditions, as it were orally dictated by Christ of the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by perpetual succession.” This is truly a decree worthy of an assembly which could say: It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us; for there is scarcely a word of it which does not strike home against our adversaries, and which does not take their weapons from their grasp. For what does it henceforth serve them to exclaim: In vain do they serve me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men (Matt. XV. 9); You have made void the commandment of God for your tradition. (ibid. 6). Not attending to Jewish fables (Tit. I. 1 4); Zealous for the traditions of my fathers (Gal. I. 14); Beware lest any man impose upon you by philosophy and vain fallacy, according to the traditions of men (Col. ii. 8); Redeemed from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers (I Pet. I. 18) ? All this is not to the purpose, since the council clearly protests that the traditions it receives are neither traditions nor commandments of men, but those “which, being received by the Apostle from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the same Apostles, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and being delivered as it were from the hand to hand, have come down to us. They are then the word of God, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, not of men; and here you will see almost all your ministers stick, making mighty harangues to show that human tradition is not to be put in comparison with the Scriptures. But of what use is all this save to beguile the hearers? – for we never said it was.

In a similar way they bring against us what S. Paul said to his good Timothy: (2 Tim. Iii. 16, 17.) All Scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reporved, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished unto every good work. Who are they angry with? This is to force a quarrel.(Querelle d' Allemand.)  Who denies the most excellent profitableness of the Scriptures, except the Hugenots who take away as good for nothing some of its finest pieces? The Scriptures, are indeed most useful, and it is no little favour which God has done us to preserve them for us through so many persecutions; but the utility of Scriptures does not make holy Traditions useless, any more than the use of one eye, of one leg, of one ear, of one hand, makes the other useless. The Council says; it “receives and honours with an equal affectionate piety and reverence all the books as well of the Old as of the New Testament, and also these Traditions,” It would be a fine way of reasoning – faith profits, therefore works are good for nothing! Similiarly, – Many other things also did Jesus, which are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name (John xx. 30, 31): therefore that is nothing to believe except this! – excellent consequences! We well know that whatever is written is written for our edification (Rom. xv. 4), but shall this hinder the Apostles from preaching? These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God: but that is not enough; for how shall they believe without a preacher (ibid. x. 14)? The Scriptures are given for our salvation, but not the Scriptures alone; Traditions also have their place. Birds have a right wing to fly with; is the left wing therefore of no use? The one does not move without the other. I leave on one side the exact answers: for Saint John is speaking only of the miracles which he had to record, of which he considers he has given enough to prove the divinity of the Son of God.

When they adduce these words: – You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it (Deut. iv. 2); But though we or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you beside that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema (Gal. I. 8); they say nothing against the Council, which expressly declares that this Gospel teaching consists not only in the Scriptures, but also in Traditions; the Scripture then is the Gospel, but it is not the whole Gospel, for Traditions form the other part. He then who shall teach against what the Apostles have taught, let him be accursed; but the Apostles have taught by writing and by Tradition, and the whole is the Gospel.

And if you closely consider how the Council compared Traditions with the Scriptures you will see that it does not receive a Traditions contrary to Scriptures: for it receives Tradition and Scripture with equal honour, because both the one and the other are most sweet pure streams, which spring from one same mouth of our Lord, as from a living fountain of wisdom, and therefore cannot be contrary, but are of the same taste and quality; and uniting together happily water this tree of Christianity which shall give its fruit in due season.

We call then Apostolic Tradition the doctrine whether it regard faith or morals, which our Lord has taught with his own moth or by the mouth of the Apostles, which without having been written in the Canonical books have been preserved till our times passing from hand to hand by continual succession of the Church. In a word, it is the Word of the living God, witnessed not on paper but on the heart (The learned Antony Possevin, contra Chytaum, remarks that the Christian doctrine is not called Eugraphium [good witings], but Evangelium [good tidings]. And there is not merely Tradition of ceremonies and of a certain exterior order which is arbitrary and of mere propriety, but as the holy Council says, of doctrine, which belongs to faith itself and to morals; – though as regards Traditions of morals there are some which lay us under a most strict obligation, and others which are only proposed to us by way of counsel and becomingness; and the non-observance of these latter does not make us guilty, provided that they are approved and esteemed as holy, and are not despised.  (Saint Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy, Article II, “That the Church of the Pretenders Have Violated the Apostolic Traditions, The Second Rule of Our Faith, Chapter I: What Is Understood by Apostolic Traditions.)

The bilge that flows forth from the polluted mouths of the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow conciliar revolutionaries was described perfectly by Pope Saint Pious X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Say goodnight, “Bishop” Schneider. Your contentions are erroneous and detrimental to the good of souls by leading so many other well-meaning Catholics to join you in your errors about the nature of the papacy and the inerrancy of Holy Mother Church herself.

Let us storm Heaven by means of our Rosaries so that the darkness of the current crisis will pass sooner rather than later, conscious always of our need to make reparation, especially during this holy season of Lent, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own many sins.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint William the Abbot, pray for us.

From the Divine Office for the Feast of Saint William the Abbot

This William was born of noble parents at Vercelli in Lombardy. He was but little over fourteen years of age, when, impelled by a strange earnestness for holiness, he undertook a pilgrimage to Compostella, to the far-famed Church of St. James. This journey he made clad in a single garment, wearing an iron girdle wound two-fold round his body, and with bare feet. He accomplished his object under the severest hardships of cold and heat, hunger and thirst, and at the great danger of his life. After his return to Italy, he undertook a new pilgrimage, this time to the Holy Sepulchre of the Lord. But in the way of fulfilling this, there arose divers and most grievous obstacles, whereby the hand of God drew the lad to the higher and holier life of a monk. He dwelt in the town of Monte Solicolo for two years, which he passed in constant prayer, watching, sleeping upon the ground, and fasting. At the end of this time, the power of God made him the mean to restore a blind man to sight. The fame of this miracle became so noised abroad, that William could no longer remain unknown. His thoughts turned again towards Jerusalem, and he again entered cheerfully on the journey.

He was again hindered by a vision from God, and remained among the Italians to be more useful, and to bring forth more fruit than he would have done among strangers. With extraordinary speed, he built a monastery upon the summit of Monte Vergiliano, ever since named Monte Vergine, (between Nola and Benevento.) Thither he called around him, as his comrades, devout men, and schooled them into a way of life most closely following the commands and counsels of the Gospel, in great part by a rule taken from the constitutions of Blessed Benedict, and supplemented by his own words, and the example of his own holy life.

As other monasteries were raised, the holy life of William became more known day by day, and brought men to him from all quarters, drawn by the sweet savour of his godliness, and the fame of his miracles. At his prayers the dumb spake, the deaf heard, the withered were strengthened, and they that suffered under divers and incurable diseases received health. He turned water into wine, and openly worked many other miracles. Among all these things it must be told that a wretched woman sought him to lure him to impurity, but he raked hot embers out upon the floor and cast himself down upon them, and wallowed among them, and escaped unhurt. When this thing came to the knowledge of Roger I., King of Naples, it roused in him the highest reverence for the man of God. At the last, after foretelling his own death to the King and to others, and full of good works and miracles, he fell asleep in the Lord, in the year of salvation 1142. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint William the Abbot.)

Say goodnight, “Bishop” Schneider. Your contentions are erroneous and detrimental to the good of souls by leading so many other well-meaning Catholics to join you in your errors about the nature of the papacy and the inerrancy of Holy Mother Church herself.