Replies

"...aside from how sincere he may be or whatever good intentions he may have, by holding fast to the Vatican II Church as the true Catholic Church and Francis and his five predecessors as true Catholic Popes, he is doing incalculable damage to souls. This is especially evident in his attempts to squeeze traditional Catholic positions into this anti-Catholic framework.

For example, he has advanced the absurd and anti-Catholic idea that one can be in schism with Christ by adhering to the Pope, and that one can be in union with Christ by being in schism with the Pope. Both of these ideas are, if not outright heretical, extremely injurious to Catholic doctrine on the Papacy. Likewise, Schneider has carelessly spread falsehoods about Pope Liberius in order to make it look as though there were historical precedent for resisting a “heretical Pope” such as he knows Francis to be..."

M-m-m-H-m-m-h.

There are a number of authors active in the same hazardous practice. It seems the most dreaded thought possible is that "francis" or "Benedict XVI" could be heretical false Popes.

Maybe that is how-come this train just keeps steaming ahead leaving vast wreckage in its wake.

Reading the excerpt you posted in full context, it seems this source has the position that this Bishop is problematic because he's conservative and opposed Frances (which is good) BUT he doesn't declare Francis an anti-Pope (which makes him dangerous).

If that's the standard they need to declare someone an ally, they will walk a long way alone. Most of the clergy want to curb Francis' foolish and harmful leftist "politics over religion" approach but will never openly say he's a heretic. They just won't.