“This visible existence of the head and the certainty about it are required by the very nature of the Church. The universal Church cannot exist for a considerable time without a visible Supreme Shepherd…”

Thanks, Bishop Schneider. Agreed. Wait, what’s that over there?:

Full article at Lifesite News wherein the good bishop seeks to definitively address those who doubt the validity of Benedict XVI’s putative abdication. You can make your own call if he succeeds. But some quick observations:

Bishop Schneider, when calling into doubt the abdication’s validity as a cul-de-sac, smacking of a “spirit” of sedevacantism, takes a very odd tack. Is this like the “spirit of Vatican II”? Like the “schismatic” spirit of Abp. Lefebvre when he consecrated Bishops to (in his mind) protect the Mass and the availability of the Sacraments for the good of souls? Because of course those who contend Benedict is still pope are anything but sedevacantists. His Excellency lists a number of what-ifs that could force the Church into a position of whether it is unknowable just who is Peter. But it is unlikely that any of them would come about in this specific situation. To address one such hypothetical, this nonagenarian is highly unlikely to outlive every Cardinal appointed by JP2 and himself. Bishop Schneider uses the “attitude of sedevacanism charge to simply act as though we are saying the See is vacant, and then criticizing that position. He doesn’t address the canonical arguments at all.

Bishop Schneider rightly points out that the visible nature of the Church demands a visible head or else the mission of the Church would be paralyzed. Well, we have had a visible head during the entire Bergoglian regime. And the confusion engendered by the putative abdication and the resulting doubts about just who that is tends to prove that tendency to paralysis without a visible head. The situation is akin to the Great Western Schism, of course, in that we have a question of mistake of fact– who is the person of the Pope, not a true schism where those who favor the Benedict papacy are refusing to submit to the Roman Pontiff. They are trying to submit to the true Pontiff. I think it is clear that if there are any Catholics who refuse submission to the Pontiff, they are overwhelmingly in the Bergoglio camp.

Yes, valid appointments of Bishops and the other activities involving the Church’s Supreme Pontiff must be addressed. But in his discussion of supplied jurisdiction, HIs Excellency gives it short shrift, and does not discuss at all the effect of a Pope Benedict who sits by and allows all these appointments of Cardinals and Bishops, etc, without saying a word. Is he prohibited from objecting, or claiming his rights, or is it perhaps tacit consent to allow the juridical Church to function as she must in this unprecedented situation? I agree this is not clear, and due to our lack of knowledge involves some pure speculation from the Benedict is pope camp. But I don’t think this definitively proves Bergoglio is therefore pope. Will anyone, especially a member of the college, address the canonical arguments and the actual text of the resignation? For that is where the matter starts.

Finally, I think the most revealing thing about the Lifesite article and His Excellency’s essay is that reputable people are apparently feeling the need to address the issue at all. There must be a growing number of Catholics who are making known their doubts about the legitimacy of the Bergoglian regime. Beyond doubt, there are many Catholics who realize something is seriously, and unprecedentedly, wrong with this situation.

Oremus pro invicem.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!