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.
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
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.
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.
Yup.
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.
And where does this leave the ICKSP? That's where I go.
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.