Skip to main content

Is 1P5 Skojec's Infallible Opinion that Francis's Papacy can't be Invalid leading him into Heresy?

It appears that One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec's infallible opinion that the Francis papacy cannot be invalid under any circumstances is leading him towards heresy.

Yesterday on Twitter, Skojec said to @JoshuaPotryus and @MikeJon:

"The problem is that infallibility appears to be tautological at best and borders on superstition at worst."

A example of a tautology is former Vice President Dan Quayle's:

"If we do not succeed, we run the risk of failure."

A possible Skojec tautology might go:

"If Francis is not a valid pope, we run the risk of Francis being a antipope" which may lead to this possible Skojec tautology:

"I believe Vatican I's papal infallibly teaching "appears... [to border] on superstition," so I accept as true that that infallible dogma "appears... [to border]" on being a unfounded belief."

It appears that Skojec's logic goes something like the following:

"Francis's papal validity is a 100% infallible belief and if anyone doubts it they are a schismatic therefore Vatican I's infallible teaching on papal infallibly "appears to be a tautological at best and borders on superstition at worst."

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


Comments

Debbie said…
Hey guys.....here's something to think about: what if Francis is definitely pope is, well wrong?
Jack said…
People who imagine that Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility is circular, tautological, or otherwise redundant imagine that the dogma goes like this: "Solemn papal definitions are infallible, because the pope has the power of infallibility." Which is like saying, "it's right because the pope says it's right."

This would be to set up the pope as a kind of god, since only God is truly self-justifying like this, right simply because He is right, because He is Truth itself by His very essence.

I think in the wake of liberalism and its undermining of all authority, Catholics rallied to the pope and after Vatican I made this kind of mistake, at least implicitly, that the pope is right because he is right. But this is just another human error, setting up a man in God's place, undermining authority in an even more subtle way.

The pope is not right because he says he's right, and he's not infallible simply because he has the power of infallibility (although he is and he does). Vatican I is very clear. The pope is infallible BECAUSE Christ gave the keys to Peter and his Successors, and HE guaranteed by HIS divine power that the pope would never err in his solemn teaching capacity. This is perhaps a subtle distinction, but it makes a profound difference. It means that our faith is not centred on the person of the pope, but centred on Christ just has it has always been.

So when we come across a pope who appears to be erring in doctrine, the first thing we should ask is whether he is really erring or not. And if he is erring, the next thing to ask is whether his papacy is legitimate or whether he's an antipope. But for people with a worldly mindset who are too willing to accept the world's opinions and maintain their public image, and who's faith is more centred on the person of the pope than on the person of Christ, they would rather deny Vatican I and become heretics than accuse a possible antipope (despite there having been many, many antipopes in history) and fall temporarily out of favour.

To be honest at this point I would not be surprised if Skojec is a kind of double agent and 1p5 a false-opposition operation designed to keep potential critics of the regime confused and pigeonholed. Keep traditionalists as a whining bunch of scandalmongerers rather than united in any useful purpose.
Aqua said…
This analysis is very helpful.

The first Pope, the one selected by Christ Himself, made some serious errors. He was “corrected to his face”. And he took the correction, as all good Christians do, conforming himself to the will of Christ,

Popes are men, not gods. Not even an angel can alter God’s unchanging Doctrine. Pope’s are servants, like all Catholics, of the truth. We venerate those who lead us into all Truth. We correct and/or ignore those who lead us into error. Simple as that.

And Popes most certainly can lead themselves and others into error. The conditions of Vatican I infallibility are limited, not universal. That is the mistake Skojec makes, extrapolating limited V I infallibility into general superhuman infallibility,

It is our duty to inform fellow Christians, including the Pope, when they depart The Way. It is not obedience to allow others to fall into sin leading to hell and then say nothing.
Therese said…
"It is our duty to inform fellow Christians, including the Pope, when they depart The Way. It is not obedience to allow others to fall into sin leading to hell and then say nothing."

Indeed, anything less is cowardice, as I believe Mr. Martinez has already noted.

We have arrived at the point at which this fact must be faced and acted upon. Low-profile, workaday Catholics are more likely to get this; they have fewer commitments outside the family. It's much safer to be little, poor, and of no account.

Popular posts from this blog

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 | cocatholicconference.org   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious

Does Francis's "Right-hand Man" Parra have a "Sexual Predation against Seminarians, Adultery, and even a Deadly Sex Game...[that] 'might even be a Scandal Surpassing that of McCarrick'"?

  Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra with Francis Today, the Call Me Jorge website asked "What could be so important that Francis interrupted his weekly adulation [Audience] session?": Pope gets a phone call during the Audience. Haven’t seen this before. Then he quickly leaves and says he will be back. pic.twitter.com/npCuPzdnxP — The Catholic Traveler (@MountainButorac) August 11, 2021 It was Abp. Mons. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Substitute for the Secretariat of State, who was involved in the recent scandal of mismanagement during the acquisition of a € 300 million building in London. Still no word on what the phone call was about . [http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2021/08/what-could-be-so-important-that-francis.html] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[https://catholicherald.co.uk/roman-curia-the-popes-new-right-hand-man/] In 2019, Life Site News reported that Parra alleged

Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the "Gruesome Death of Arius"?

  I have read the letters of your piety , in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians , in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius . With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy . But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy , has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church ; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question woul