Taylor Marshall: There has been a lot of controversy. I think people see the crisis of Pope Francis beginning in 2013, and they are unsettled. So they say, “Well, Pope Benedict is the true Pope. His resignation was invalid.” Often, they refer to the minus-Ministerium distinction and say that he either accidentally or on purpose made a mistake in his resignation document. Therefore, Pope Benedict is the true Pope, and Francis is an anti-pope. What do you say about that, Your Excellency?
Bishop Schneider: All these attempts are, for me, against common sense and against evidence, because there are several proofs and expressions of the former Pope Benedict who said that he is not the Pope. For example, in his last meeting with the Cardinals, when he had already announced his resignation, he said to them, “You will elect a new Pope to whom I will submit myself and to whom I promise obedience.” How can he submit to someone who is not the Pope? It is a contradiction, and it would make Benedict appear as a schizophrenic person if he thought this way.
In his last general audience, he spoke clearly that he resigned with full conscience, with freedom, and knowing all the consequences of this act. These are his own words. Then there are two other proofs. In a letter he wrote in 2014 to Andrea Tornielli, a Vatican journalist, he repeated almost the same words from the general audience and said, “There is not the slightest doubt about the validity of my resignation, and it would be absurd to doubt this.” These words were published in the newspaper La Stampa.
Last year, in a conversation with a journalist from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, Pope Benedict said, as reported by the journalist, and I assume he reported this correctly, I cannot, in principle, deny that this journalist reported the Pope’s words. In any case, he reported this in quotation marks in the printed edition, and then Vatican News published the same quotation. The former Pope Benedict said, “There is only one Pope, and it is Francis.”
We are a visible Church. We are not a Church of dreamers or an agnostic Church. We are a real, incarnational, visible Church. Therefore, the position of the superior carries a presumption of validity. The Church does not judge interior intentions; we cannot see them, but it judges exterior words and acts. There are sufficient external statements from the Pope that he abdicated, that he made his resignation with full conscience and freedom. Regardless of how he behaves now, whether he gives the apostolic blessing, that is another matter. His official words are clear: there is only one Pope, and he himself mentions Pope Francis in the Canon of the Mass.
He is not governing, he makes no acts of jurisdiction, he does not name bishops or cardinals. If he were truly Pope, and if Benedict were Pope and not Francis, then all the bishops appointed in these seven years would be invalid bishops.
Taylor Marshall: They would be real bishops, but have no ordinary jurisdiction.
Bishop Schneider: No, I mean invalid because of jurisdiction, not consecration. The consecration, the ordination, is valid, but their jurisdiction is invalid. And that is a problem. All the cardinals appointed by the Pope now, more than half of the College of Cardinals, were appointed by Pope Francis. So, Cardinal Müller would not be a cardinal because he was appointed by Francis, and so on. It would be an absurdity.
We would go in the direction of the sedevacantists. And then consider the practical consequences: if Benedict dies tomorrow, according to them, Pope Francis is not Pope, so we would be without a Pope. Who would elect a new Pope? More than half of the College of Cardinals, according to them, are not cardinals because they were appointed by Francis. It is impossible. Practically, the Church could not exist, because I cannot imagine a single cardinal appointed before Francis who would convoke a conclave to elect a successor to Benedict when he dies, for example, while Francis is still living and reigning.
So, according to their thesis, for six or seven years, the entire Church would be sedevacantist, without a Pope. This is against the divine constitution of the Church’s visibility. The consequences of this thesis lead simply to absurdity.
Taylor Marshall: Like you mentioned, if Benedict XVI, Ratzinger, right now is celebrating Mass and in the Te igitur, or whichever canon he is using, he says the name Francis, then he would be in schism with himself. How is that possible?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, exactly. It is a good argument. He does this because when people attend his Mass, he mentions una cum Francisco, Papa nostro.
Taylor Marshall: So there it is. You were recently with Benedict Ratzinger, I think last year. There’s a photo of you with him. What was it like being with him?
Bishop Schneider: He was very sharp-minded and very conscious, even though physically frail. He spoke with the entire group of our bishops from Central Asia. I was on his side because I had to translate from German to the other bishops. I was observing that he reacted vigilantly and consciously to every bishop. It was proof that he was very sharp in his mind.
He said to me, because I was the first one who came to him, they said to me, “You are German, you go first”, so I went to him first and greeted him in German. He suddenly said something very personal to me, something only he could have known. He spoke so precisely and directly in German that it was proof to me that this man was still very sharp-minded and aware of everything going on.
Therefore, the book he wrote together with Cardinal Sarah on priestly celibacy, I am convinced he wrote consciously and with a sharp mind. He was not, as some journalists claimed, abused by Cardinal Sarah for his aims. I was a witness at least in March last year, during the ad limina, that he was alert and responsive to other bishops.
Taylor Marshall: And if he were still the Pope, I assume many of those bishops in that audience would have been appointed to their dioceses by Francis, right? Yes. I did not notice anything that suggested he thought he was the Pope.
Bishop Schneider: He behaved very kindly and paternally. Let us consider another hypothesis: if Pope Francis were to convert radically and become a true, zealous Pope Like St. Pius X. Yes, let us say that, because God can do this. He is almighty, and conversions have happened in the history of the Church. St. Paul converted from Saul to Paul. If Francis converted and began to expel wrong teaching and even proclaimed a dogma ex cathedra, for example, that the sacrament of holy orders in all its three degrees, diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate, is reserved only to men, would those who do not recognize him as Pope accept that dogma? If he fulfilled his duty with all zeal, would they accept him?
Taylor Marshall: My suspicion is that most of these people are, like many of us, wounded and confused. You are a bishop, highly educated, multilingual, and we must admit it is complicated. People just want certainty. They do not want to be afraid or confused. For most people, the idea that Benedict is still the Pope brings comfort and allows them to live their lives. But as you pointed out, the consequences of that position are very drastic and severe.
Bishop Schneider: Yes, you are correct, and I can understand that, in some way, it is a mitigating factor. Because the confusion is so tremendous, I can understand it, but it is still wrong. It is the wrong way, because ultimately, these people may be avoiding the cross, the tremendous cross of this pontificate. We are standing on Golgotha, seeing our Mother Church crucified with this confusion and papacy. They cannot accept it and, in some way, are escaping from the cross, fabricating another world, their world with Benedict.
For me, this also shows a lack of trust that God holds His Church in His hands, that God will bring this trial to an end in His time. These people should not focus too much on the Popes. They have the Catechism, the traditional Catechism. They know the faith. They have the Holy Mass. They have Jesus in the Eucharist. They can do good works, do penance, and pray. They can spread the faith.
Why should they focus daily on the Vatican and the Pope? It is not necessary. In former times, people lived and spread the faith without even knowing the name of the Pope. There was no television, nothing, yet they built up the Church through their lives and faith.
So I would recommend this: my dear brothers and sisters, abandon the absurd idea that Pope Benedict is still the Pope. It is a complete fantasy. Accept the reality of the cross. Do not be so focused on the Vatican and what the Pope is doing. Live your life. Offer your sacrifices for the renewal of the Church and the papacy, and God will accept this sacrifice.