Skip to main content

Skojec, if Francis is a "Woman," a "Heretical Jesuit, Undispensed from his Vows" or "in Violation of... Law... for his own [Conclave] Election" is he "Eligible to Assume the [Papal] Office in the First Place"?

For the record, I am sick of Steve Skojec's despicable personal attacks on Ann Barnhardt. He appears to be a pitiful coward.

He seems to attacks others because he is afraid to answer this post, the previous post and the 5 Dubia questions I challenged him with because he apparently is intellectually challenged or too egotistical to admit he is wrong.

But, for his sake we need to pray that he finds a good priest to help him overcome this sinful behavior.

However, getting back to the point, at times, I have found that the comments in the Catholic Monitor comment section are better than many of my posts. This was true of what Justina wrote about Skojec's pitiful idea "universal acceptance":

"[T]here is something insidious about the truncated version of "universal acceptance" being peddled over at 1P5. Cut off, as this blog post correctly and vitally notes, from the concept of a valid election, "universal acceptance" can only mean ecclesial democracy of the crassest kind. What if, for example, a woman were to usurp the Petrine office next? If enough people decided to recognize her and the Skojecs of this world succeeded in silencing all criticism, would that make her the Pope?"

"Now Steve, were he here to defend himself, would probably point out that he would not attempt to silence the critics in such a case, but rather, would join them--which only goes to affirm that the concept of "universal acceptance" cannot be treated as unconditional. The individual in question, in fact, has to be eligible to assume the office in the first place, which may not pertain in the case of a certain heretical Jesuit, undispensed from his vows and conniving in violation of Canon and other law with a long-established group of lobbyists for his own election, at a conclave that should never have taken place in the absence of any authoritative determination that the See was actually vacant to begin with. (Just sayin'.) But back to the concept of "universal acceptance" itself."

"The term "acceptance" is not without its cultural overtones. Like "choice" or "diversity" or "inclusion," it doesn't always mean what we think it means. Who, in fact, tends to say "acceptance," as a buzzword for the totality of their own worldview? Why, the "free and accepted" Masons, of course."

"So Steve is treading on some seriously thin ice here. What John of St. Thomas meant by the term, and what Bergoglio's rabid defenders are trying to twist it into, may be two very different things. I would say that somebody ought to warn Mr. Skojec about this, except that many of us have done so already, getting ridiculed, maligned, banned and blocked for our pains."

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

Comments

Nandarani said…
I can only understand Steve Skojec's behavior as evidence of behavior so disordered that I can't even put it into words. And my instinctive reaction to what I see posted on canon212 of his tweets - I am not on social media - is to keep my own self far away from even posting a comment about it. But since I came over here I see an opportunity. Much of the time, it is the devil instigating impulsive communications which all of Steve Skojec's appear to be. He is so out of touch with his own interior as to be utterly and in public acting like he is. But such thoughts even in private are utter garbage, to be rejected right away as the devil working. He does work in the interior. We are NOT 'ok' interiorally as a default position. NO ONE IS INNOCENT.

But it may be in some sense that Mr. Skojec has to work out his destiny in this way... with his friends saying 'you're better than that' in tweet, and trying to help him. Perhaps he needs the public behavior to make the situation more acute on a spiritual level of which he could be largely unconscious. He thinks he is very conscious, but actually isn't.
Debbie said…
Steve's attacks against Ann, and dare I say, his hatred of her, I am certain, is inflamed by his good friend Hilary White. Hilary was spreading some vicious lies about Ann on Steve's now deleted FB post about Ann....and God knows what else she may have lied about to Steve in private. These two are some seriously misguided people.

The Remnant still publishes Miss White, which is why I no longer subscribe to their paper nor visit the site. If Mr. Matt can be so wrong about who Hilary really is, what else might he have wrong? Unite the clams....indeed.

And yes, the response from Justina is gold!

Sorry for the rant, but I believe we all need to know who we're dealing with.

The Church is getting very, very small.
Debbie said…
*clans....lol
Aqua said…
I like Anne’s response to this today: “My physical beauty? We laff. We laff hard. I am gunning for the Beatific Vision. I am at my most beautiful when I make a good confession” (etc).

Yup.

Debbie said…
Indeed. But by far her best response was to Dr. Marshall's "good luck finding a Mass" tweet. I was truly suprised when I saw the good doctor had not deleted his horrible tweet after Ann's thorough and beautiful tongue lashing.
Irenaeus said…
Something to keep in mind is that Mr. Skojec and Ms. White are heavily involved in the Catholic news world, and are serious people on top of that, which is what I think lends to their pessimism. I have noticed that Mr. Skojec is at least more open about his struggles, to the point where he has admitted to semi-depression. I am not so sure about Ms. White. She tends to keep her interior struggles to herself.

They need our prayers. We really should not be talking about them so much.

With regards to the post in December, Ms. Barnhardt had a Mass (or Masses) offered for them. That was the best response she could have given, and I commend her for that.
Debbie said…
Certainly prayers/Masses should be offered for them. But it is their chosen profession to be in the Catholic news business; a lucrative one at that with Francis as "pope". Their attack on those (Ann specifically) who offer some answers to the current crisis is not only despicable, but dangerous to the souls who listen and follow them. Evil must be exposed.
Irenaeus said…
I've been informed that since they aren't writing for the mainstream Church, their pay is abyssmal. It's a tough life.

I would agree the constant attacking and snipping is dangerous, but I think a lot of people are learning to recognize that and are withholding their admiration. (I myself did not like the incident in December, which I only heard about after the fact.)

While they may be driven by self-love from time to time (the most odious obstacle to our sanctification), I truly think they love Christ and His Church, and are trying to make sense of everything that is going on. Like all of us. That's why I am not too hard on them.
Dymphna said…
Miss White had a very sad youth but it's no excuse....
Justina said…
The question that I have for Mr. Matt is: how does the Remnant's "Unite the Clans" effort differ in kind from Bergoglio's Abu Dhabi statement? Both approaches assume that agreement among human beings can be reached and maintained without adequate regard for the truth. As evidence of the similarity, I offer the Remnant's tendency to treat anyone who questions Bergoglio's legitimacy the same way Bergoglio treats anybody who questions Amoris Laetitia.
Aqua said…
Justina, That is absolutely true.

And that is why “unite the clans” can *only* work under the Pope; why we must know who the true Pope is; which Pope is protector and defender of the One True Faith - passed on intact and whole from generation to generation.

I have been reading up on and considering the SSPX. Classic example of how “unite the clans” only works subordinate to truth. FSSP split from SSPX when Arbp LeFebvre consecrated four Bishops in disobedience to Pope John Paul II (1988).

First: Arbp LeFebvre submitted to Truth first, and the Pope second *in context of the Truth. Threatened with excommunication by the Pope himself, at the very end of his life preparing to meet God? He did it anyway. Truth first.

Second: FSSP Priests who disagreed with his decision and reasons then split off from SSPX. FSSP submits to all the Vatican II documents and the four (even more troubling) Constitutions that came after. SSPX on the other hand accepts everything in them *that is true and in accord with Sacred Tradition and rejects all that is not. *Truth First*.

And so, FSSP now is faced with the dilemma of the consequences of their decision as the Conciliar Church collapses in error after error - esp the error of two Popes.

Not so the SSPX. I sense in them a quiet confidence devoid of confusion because they bravely chose and choose Truth every step of their way since founding.

Read the latest letter from the SSPX Superior General, Fr. Davide Pagliarani - https://sspx.org/en/church-its-head-50632

Pope Francis troubles them not. “He is a symptom. He is not the problem. What was wrong before remains wrong today and we are facing growing apostasy due to these uncorrected errors”. Their answers, without fail, head-slappingly true (of course!).

Unite the clans means nothing to me (Hallmark Card sentiment) unless it centers on the Re-discovered Sacred Dogmatic Tradition, it’s Traditional Latin Mass and the one, true Pope - servant in full to his Lord Jesus Christ and Our Lady, the Blessed Mother.

Arbp LeFebvre planted a seed in 1988 of the Church’s future restoration. He was unjustly excommunicated (an act of martyrdom imo) and through the willing personal sacrifice of this August Archbishop (blood if you will) we the living have a seed of hope.
Debbie said…
Mr. Matt is a huge supporter of SSPX, right? Wondering then why he too is a firm FiP?

And where does this leave the ICKSP? That's where I go.
BrotherBeowulf said…
Debbie, on occasion I go to the Institute of Christ the King outside N. Y. C. and must say love everything about them but one.

And that is they have recently added to every Sunday Mass a second Collect where they pray for the Pope by name and as you may guess it ain’t Benedict. Don’t know if it’s throughout the institute—if you haven’t noticed the second collect w the big fat ‘Franciscus’ in the middle I reckon you’ve been spared!

One of the priests there has voiced serious reservations about whether Francis is pope (not, of course). It must be exceedingly difficult for him to subscribe to this program of gratuitous support, for Francis, when he’s fully cognizant as a highly intelligent and well educated priest, of each and every heresy du jour of Antipope Francis the Apostate (as I fondly refer to Jorge el Loco).

I can only go there now if there’s no other option. I keep urging priests of the Old Mass—once they conclude Antipope Francis cannot in fact be pope—to give Benedict a whirl at the Te Igitur. Preparatory to announcing the great truth of the matter.

Maybe instead of a lightning bolt, Grace would rain down upon us.

As to the Clan nonsense—it’s a nonstarter without acknowledging simply who the pope is. Can it not be the Catholic one? Mr. Matt’s refusal to engage the issue is perhaps telling—better a marketing slogan than a marching banner.

BrotherBeowulf said…
Pardon any ambiguity. I do not mean to imply that Francis is highly intelligent well-educated or most of all, at all pained by heresy.

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk