Skip to main content

Does Skojec's Theologian of "Universal Acceptance" happen to be Vatican II Architect Maritain's Top Theologian?

Steve Skojec has been apparently claiming John of St. Thomas's idea on "universal acceptance" of popes is infallible Catholic doctrine.

It appears that he got this conviction about the importance of this theologian from Robert Siscoe.

So far, as far as I can find, the only other modern theologian who considers John of St. Thomas (John Poinsot) that important is Jacques Maritain whose disciple was Pope Paul VI. Paul VI said:

"I am a disciple of Maritain. I call him my teacher."

Paul VI's teacher was a close collaborator of Saul Alinsky who wrote in Rules for Radicals: "I have always believed birth control and abortion are personal rights."

Maritain called Alinsky a "practical Thomist" according to lawyer Chris Ferrara.

Maritain is considered by many to be a architect of Vatican II.

According to the American Maritain Association:

Pointsot (John of St. Thomas) is central to understanding Maritain's theology which was central to Paul VI's Vatican II:

"Maritain's own advocacy of Pointsot, whose writings are a sine qua non for understanding Maritain's own 'intellectual locale' as a Thomist."
(American Maritain Association, Maritainassociation.com, "John Deeply and Jacques Maritain Chair of Philosophy," Professor Schulz, 2 years ago)

Just how infallible is Pointsot?

If Skojec can't find a pope or council to support his idea, can he at least find a Doctor of the Church or at least a saint to support it.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.


Comments

Steve said…
You know, Fred, research isn't that hard. I'm not claiming it as infallible. That would be absurd. What I said in my actual post, which was only 471 words long and wouldn't have taken that much time to read, is:

"I am posting this today as a point of reference. I see a lot of argument over what “universal acceptance” means, but it’s much simpler than people think. And if the explanation of John of St. Thomas is correct — and I have no reason to believe that it isn’t — then we can see that Francis was universally accepted."

https://onepeterfive.com/a-brief-word-on-universal-acceptance-of-a-pope/
11:15 AM
Fred Martinez said…
You know, Steve, research isn't that hard. Please read John of St. Thomas who talked about past popes not present popes as a scholar at Von Veni Pacem in the post "Friendly Challenge to Robert Siscoe" who could read Latin convincingly showed. Your "universal acceptance" idea is not infallible or certain as I show in my post "1P5's Skojec claims "that a Pope Universally Accepted is Infallibly Certain," but is it Infallible or Certain?"
8:30 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more