George Bernard Shaw affectionately called G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc the Chesterbelloc monster because their thinking was so synonymous or the same.
I good-naturedly call Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Taylor Marshall the Schneidermarshall monster because their thinking is so synonymous
For the most part, the mouth of the Schneidermarshall appears to be Marshall so I have five questions for him.
Before we get to those questions it's important to show that the Catholic Monitor has rebutted the Schneidermarshall's arguments in several posts:
Do Marshall and Schneider think they are greater theologians than Doctors of the Church, Sts. Robert Bellarmine and Francis de Sales?
1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said “The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See.” Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a schismatic? Answer: yes or no.
2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” a Sedevacantist or a schismatic? Answer: yes or no.
3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.
4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:
“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”
Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or schismatics? Answer: yes or no.
5. Is Bishop Gracida really a Sedevacantist and schismatic for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
I good-naturedly call Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Taylor Marshall the Schneidermarshall monster because their thinking is so synonymous
For the most part, the mouth of the Schneidermarshall appears to be Marshall so I have five questions for him.
Before we get to those questions it's important to show that the Catholic Monitor has rebutted the Schneidermarshall's arguments in several posts:
- Why did Taylor Marshall Chicken Out in Questioning Bp. Schneider on the Bellarmine teaching on Heretical Popes Ceasing to be Pope?
- Is Bp. Schneider a “Flying Monkey” or another Type of Enabler?
- Why is Bp. Schneider spreading the Doubtful Propaganda of a possible Leftist British Operative?
- Schneider’s Opinion has next to Zero Merit when standing next to the Teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales
- Is Bishop Schneider a Pelagianist?
- Schneider’s Opinion vs. Cdl. Burke: ‘If a Pope would Formally Profess Heresy he would Cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s Automatic.”
- Doubtful Schneider vs. St. Bellarmine & Bp. Gracida: “A Doubtful Pope is no Pope”
- Bp. Schneider vs. Pope Innocent III, Trent & the Ancient Fathers
Do Marshall and Schneider think they are greater theologians than Doctors of the Church, Sts. Robert Bellarmine and Francis de Sales?
5 Questions for the Mouth of the Schneidermarshall: Taylor Marshall
I urge all Catholics to confront these men on social media and in person with these questions. Also, share these questions with all who claim to find their positions creditable.
To make it really easy for Marshall it has been formatted so that he only has to answer: yes or no.
2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” a Sedevacantist or a schismatic? Answer: yes or no.
3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.
4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:
“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”
Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or schismatics? Answer: yes or no.
5. Is Bishop Gracida really a Sedevacantist and schismatic for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Comments
Catholics live in the clarity of “Yes” and “No”; “True” and “False”; “Black“ and “White”; “Clarity” and “Confusion”; “Right“ and “Wrong”; “Righteous” and “Sin”.
Confused Catholics need clarity in these days. Shepherds will not provide it.
I have seen these two speak and I predict they will never answer any of your questions in the yes or no format. I don’t even think it will be a yes or no “but...” format. I predict, if your questions are answered there will be paragraphs upon paragraph of exceptions and contradictions and at the end of discourse confusion.
What we need is a !!!!
Hat we will get is a ????
The Pope BXVI, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, as he announced his resignation (Feb. 11, 2013) he precisely defined the method of choosing his successor in two points: 1) The Holy See will be vacant on Feb. 28, 2013 and 2) cardinals have to call a conclave and elect a new supreme shepherd.
You raise good points about the Declaratio of February 11, 2013. Dr. Carroll hardly meant, however, that the Pope is above the law. Pope Benedict must resign in accord with Canon Law as it exists now and at the time of his Declaratio. He did not do so. Therefore he is still the Pope.
It is analogous to the American legal distinction between dicta and actual holding of a given court's decision. The holding governs, the dicta does not. Whatever the dicta, or extraneous words not pertaining to the actual resignation or lack thereof, they are not binding.
Pope Benedict is bound by Christ's law, one manifestation of which is church Canon law.
Therefore Pope Benedict must resign in a way consistent with Church Canon Law. Canon Law 332 Section 2 requires a Pope to renounce the Petrine munus, but Benedict in his February 11, 2013 "Declaratio" renounced only the ministry.
As to calling for an election, Pope Benedict did not say "by the Cardinals," but rather "by whose competence it is." That may mean the Cardinals, and then again it may not. If it does mean the cardinals, it would mean only the Catholic ones, and of them, only those who had not incurred latae sententiae excommunication which probably would knock out about 75% of them.
By the way, Universi Domenicis Gregis is the law set by Pope John Paul II that would govern any conclave had Benedict, or rather when and if Benedict ever validly resigns the Papacy. By that standard, the faux conclave of 2013 would also result in being declared a nullity for the preexisting conspiracy among certain cardinals of the Gallen Mafia, who even enlisted such layman as prominent Italian Businessmen (Scalfari?) as disgraced non-Catholic Ex-cardinal McCarrick gleefully testified after the fact, who came to lobby him for Bergoglio the eve of the Faux Conclave. See March 2013 McCarrick speech at Villanova, excerpt here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnM3959OzTc .
Pope Benedict was not "defining" any method of electing his successor. That was already defined by UDG.
"I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on the 19th of April, 2005, to vacate from the 28th of February, at 20:00 hours, Rome time, the See of Saint Peter, and that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those who are competent."
So he renounces the ministry, not the munus. Thus his resignation is per Canon 332 section 2, invalid.
What Pope Benedict does after that does not matter, because he has retained the Petrine charge or munus, whether translated as "Office or Mandate." Whether he vacates the See of St Peter or no does not bear on the munus.
So Pope Benedict was evicted. That does not delegitimize him as Pope and Vicar of Christ. That he had to appear to resign at least to the extent of vacating the premises was most likely due to duress in the face of a coup d'état by the clerical Homosexual Network Strangling the Church, spearheaded by the St Gallen Mafia.