Part One:
Heresy and other grave doctrinal errors are found in Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s catechism, which is titled “Credo: Compendium of the Catholic Faith”. The Latin word “Credo” means “I believe”.
“Credo” – Errors on Schism
In n. 564-566, p. 161, the book “Credo” errs gravely on the definition of schism, and even encourages Catholics to commit schism.
Credo: “Those who received baptism, yet have been separated from the unity of the Catholic Church by refusing to recognize the Supreme Pontiff or have canonical communion with him and the other members of the Church (e.g., the Orthodox).”
The error is that mere recognition that a person is the Supreme Pontiff is not sufficient to avoid schism. Here is the definition of schism in Canon law, which is incompatible with the definition of schism in Credo.
Canon 751: “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
Notice that “refusal of submission” is schism; mere recognition that a person is Pope is not sufficient. The faithful must give submission to the Roman Pontiff. The Eastern Orthodox recognize that Francis is the Pope, but they only give him primacy of honor, not submission.
Credo also errs by omitting that refusal of communion is with the “members of the Church subject” to the Pope. So subjection or submission, as it is called, is entirely omitted from both types of schism (refusal of submission; refusal of communion) as erroneously defined by Credo.
This error by Credo is repeated in n. 565: “Are so-called “sedevacantists” in schism? Yes, inasmuch as one who obstinately refuses to recognize a lawfully reigning pope is a schismatic. [p. 161]”
However, mere recognition that a Pope is lawfully reigning is not sufficient. And it is not only “sedevacantists” who are schismatics. Anyone who claims, as is found in various assertions on the internet, that the Pope is a heretic or worse, will certainly not give the required submission to a Pope whom they so accuse. But many persons hold that an heretical Pope is still lawfully reigning. So recognition that a Pope is lawfully reigning is not sufficient to avoid schism. Some schismatics say that Pope Francis is the lawful Pope, but they refuse submission due to their accusations of heresy, etc. Other schismatics refuse submission while saying that Francis is not the lawful Pope. These latter ones are sedevacantists, but they are not the only schismatics.
Worse still, Credo encourages refusal of submission:
“One is not schismatic if he resists a pope or refuses to obey a particular teaching or command of his that is manifestly contrary to natural or divine law, or that would harm or undermine the integrity of the Catholic Faith or the sacredness of the liturgy. In such cases, disobedience and resistance to the pope is permissible and sometimes obligatory. [30]”
It is not necessarily schism to refuse to believe or obey a particular non-infallible teaching or decision of discipline, as the refusal of submission must be broader in order to meet the definition of the grave sin of schism: refusal of submission to the Pope, not merely to one or a few non-infallible decisions of his.
However, accusing the Roman Pontiff of teaching or ruling “contrary to natural or divine law”, or in a way that harms the very “integrity of the Catholic Faith” is contrary to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and contrary to the ancient perennial teaching of the Church [Perennial Catholic Teaching on the Roman Pontiff]. Such a claim, that the Pope can err so gravely in doctrine or discipline, is an heretical error in Credo. The indefectibility of the Church and the papal charism of truth and never-failing faith prevent these errors that Credo claims would justify resistance to the Pope.
Then the claim is schismatic that “disobedience and resistance to the pope is permissible and sometimes obligatory” as this constitutes refusal of submission to the Pope. The same claim is the grave sin of scandal, as it encourages and appears to authorize the faithful to refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff.
There is some room for the faithful to mildly disagree with a particular non-infallible decision of doctrine or discipline, but only to a very limited extent. [See Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus; and Donum Veritatis; and Human Life in Our Day.] Even so, “resistance to the pope” is per se schismatic, as it is directly contrary to submission to the pope. Then the claim that one can disobey the Pope based on a judgment by the faithful that the Pope’s decision on doctrine or discipline is “contrary to natural or divine law” places the judgment of every individual member of the Church above the judgment, teachings, and rulings of the Roman Pontiff and the body of Bishops. Such an attitude, that one can judge every teaching and decision of the Pope and accuse any of these as being contrary to law, is the path to schism and is per se a rebellion against Church authority. A faithful Catholic cannot place his own judgment above the authoritative decisions of the Pope, whose authority is the very authority of Christ.
More Errors from Credo in future posts. There are many errors in that schismatic and heretical “catechism”, and so it will take many posts to explain and condemn it all.
Ronald L Conte Jr
the reproach of Christ 
Schneider writes that he will disobey the pope’s view “that is manifestly contrary to natural or divine law, or that would harm or undermine the integrity of the Catholic Faith or the sacredness of the liturgy”
In that line it is included pretty much EVERYTHING we know about the law, history of the Church.
1. Natural law presumably includes the law from before Jesus Christ and before Moses, or the law that non Christians have, i.e. the law that a pagan tribe would observe such as “you should not kill, and whoever kills must be killed as well”. Only the so defined “natural law” omits some small inconsistencies,…such as polygamy in many nations before, during and after Moses and even within God’s chosen people. And apparently some of the pagan tribes allowed the practice of homosexuality, such as the American Indian tribes for the religious figure shaman, etc. Other peoples and civilizations had their distinct views that I will not elaborate here. “Natural law” is not a law in physics where always the electrons would do the same movement. So when we say natural law and sins against nature, we’d better clarify that we mean the law of Moses synthesized in the 10 commandments, and that is no more what we mean as natural law. But my point here is not to defend the homosexuality in the scope of the natural law, rather to show how incorrect Schneider is.
2. Divine law – apparently here Schneider considers all Revelation received, together, in one big pile, only his own interpretation of it.
3. Harm or undermine the integrity of the Catholic Faith – understand undermine his understanding of the catholic faith, that is subjective in nature. Not even Thomas Aquinas pretended for absolute truth.
4. Or the sacredness of the liturgy – understand the Tridentine liturgy. Not the liturgy St Peter served in the catacombs with the risk of being discovered and killed and being without proper clothes or candles, or the various rites that existed throughout the centuries. It should be understood Only the Tridentine rite. Everything else should be banned.
It is a dark world if we think in such terms. Thanks God, Schneider is not the pope, neither he stands on the right side of Jesus to accuse the poor modernists and throws them in hell forever. Rather there stays Mary to save those who have recourse to Her, both modernists and traditionalists, because both of them and everyone else need mercy.
One Peter Five website has a piece today defending Credo. “Clash of the Catechisms”
Yes, I saw it. I’ll be replying with several articles over times.