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

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