Skip to main content

Will Skojec join Mirus' Communion for Adulterers Heretics against St. Francis de Sales & Cd. Burke?

- Updated November 21, 2019

One Peter Five's Steve Skojec has been joined by Francis apologist Catholic Culture's Dr. Jeff Mirus in his name-calling.

They are both calling everyone "sedevacantist" including Doctors of the Church who say a "Pope [who]... is explicitly a heretic" can "cease to be pope" by the Church establishing and declaring that he is a manifest heretic.

Mirus inferred that Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales is sedevacantist for saying a explicit heretic pope can "cease to be pope."
(Catholic Culture, "Sede Vacantism: An attack on the Church's Authority Principle," November 21, 2019)

Mirus is now officially a collaborator of Skojec in calling everyone a sedevacantist who shows evidence that Francis is in heresy for making Communion for adulterer his "authentic Magisterium" teaching or showing evidence that the Francis conclave was invalid.

Mirus was already a official member of the leftist Mark Shea heretical party of Communion for adulterer which became a ally of Skojec in adopting his name-calling tactic.

They are even calling Cardinal Raymond Burke a sedevacantist if he doesn't submit to Francis and accept the sacrilege of Communion for adulterers as well as disagree with St. Francis de Sales' teachings.

The Adultererist heretics are the allies of Skojec claiming that it is impossible for Francis to "cease to be pope" for teaching explicit manifest heresy and it is impossible for a supposed pope to be a antipope despite any evidence.

Ironically, the Mark Shea clone Mike Lewis even proves that Francis obstinately doubts and denies the infallible dogma of the Seventh Commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" thus making him a explicit heretic:

"Burke has rejected... [the Communion for adulterers] guidelines of the Buenos Aires bishops which was explicitly promulgated as authentic Magisterium by Pope Francis."
(wherepeteris.com, "Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an Antipope?", September 25, 2019)

The Adultererist heretics apparently don't think the Ten Commandments are infallible Catholic dogma.

Since Skojec appears to think with his Adultererist allies that it is historically impossible for a supposed pope to be a antipope even if his conclave was invalid contrary to Catholic history and that it is absolutely impossible for a explicitly heretical pope to "cease to be pope":

Will he join his allies in calling for Cardinal Burke to be a called a sedevacantist?

Remember, while Skojec will deny that he is formally for Communion for adulterers, his teachings on Francis while not formally Adultererist supports the Adultererist heresy.

Or, is it possible that he can overcome his opinions on Francis that support the Adulterist heresy by joining Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales in calling on Cardinal Burke to issue the formal correction on Francis's Communion for adulterers explicit heresy?

St. Francis de Sales proclaimed:

"The Pope... when he is EXPLICITLY A HERETIC... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostlic See."
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

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

Comments

Aqua said…
The birth of this crisis saw the Father of the future restoration, Archbishop LeFebvre, deal with the original de facto schism bravely, boldly, practically - a guide to all who would follow.

It has taken the rest of the Church 50 years to catch up, but we are all finally at the same place as he was when he confronted Pope Paul VI “to his face” (Gal 2:11-14) on the existential theological errors of Vatican II and its resulting Constitutions.

The Archbishop’s bravery and certainty was sourced in God and the unbroken, unchanging Tradition given by God to guide us throughout time. And he broke with the heretical (as yet formally undeclared) deviations and stood in defense of all that is of God and thus true.

Ultimately *we must all make the same fundamental Catholic choice as Archbishop Lefebvre*: which path - left, or right?

It cannot be avoided by any Catholic; no hiding from the conflict. God demands a decision based on our inner belief and faith.

I stand with Archbishop LeFebvre and all his base premises that led his blessed Order to thrive, grow, sustain holy places for God in dark, evil days.
Aqua said…
I am not a member of SSPX, but an admirer. I do not know the answer to your question.

My sense is that they are not as concerned about Francis and the invalid Papacy and the heresy as they are with the precedent act that caused it all.

I see it in that way. Fruit of an evil tree. Heretics do what heretics do. The documents and Constitutions and the ever-present “spirit of the Council” infect everything they touch. Go to the source and the rest will fall into line. Neglect the source and, like the “Sorcerer’s Apprentice”, evil is like a hydra that cannot be defeated.

Archbishop LeFebvre confronted the precedent error. Then, he founded an organization committed to Truth not bound in any way by that error.

Now, as to the true Pope? Yes, they will have to decide and declare. If they decide wrong, they will be judged accordingly. It is foundational, Cornerstone level belief.
Aqua said…
Justina - do tell. What?
Justina said…
What I said. If you try to post anything questioning the false consensus that Mr. Matt is trying to create, your comment is removed. I then wanted to post the observation that removing comments from people of good will who see things differently only goes to demonstrate that the proposed clan unification is highly artificial, and guess what? That got removed, as well.
Aqua said…
@ Justina:

Yeah, I find that incredibly frustrating. Deleting is one step below insulting and denigrating, because you refuse to even engage on that visceral, emotional level.

I comment there (rarely) from time to time, very generically. Can’t engage them because, after all the work I put into a comment - flush. Waste of time. They aim for control. My experience with them is now distant memory, but similar to yours.

I have always felt that if you have truth, you can calmly talk to anyone. One evidence that you possess truth is a fearless willingness to take anyone on, perhaps get embarrassed, but not care because Truth is one’s home.

Frank Sheed is one of my favorite authors. He wrote one of my favorite books Theology and Sanity -

https://www.amazon.com/Theology-Sanity-Frank-Sheed/dp/0898704707/ref=sr_1_1?crid=X5WDN0IQ5BR3&keywords=frank+sheed+theology+and+sanity&qid=1569732165&s=gateway&sprefix=Frank+Sheed%2Caps%2C216&sr=8-1

He was an Aussie Catholic Street Preacher (convert) in England, early 20th century. He’d go out on the corner and take on topics (Mars Hill kind of thing) from any and all. He wrote about that. Impromptu, question, answer, anything. I highly, highly admire that.

We need more of that among our Catholic intellectuals. Less blocking and banning. You never know when the person you block walks away from the Faith, never to return. Treat everyone (assuming mutual goodwill) with the courtesy of a reply.
Justina said…
I'm a Sheed fan, too!
Aqua said…
@ Justina: Your observations on the names, the people, is very interesting. It comes down to “good will” - I limit my time to those with it.

Certain people just need to be left alone so they can heal; experiencing spiritual trauma I do not wish to participate in aggravating their spiritual wounds.

Others are of good will, though mistaken, but have the unfortunate nature of blocking opposition and refuse to engage others in the quest for unity in Charity and Truth through patient dialogue.

Those I gravitate to are those who facilitate healthy, intellectual, theological dialogue. I need not agree with them. All that is required is “good will” in shared Catholic Faith and a *true* desire for unity (I hate the “clan” thing) in Christ, under the true and reigning Pope.

I very much enjoy healthy debate with those I disagree with because it allows me to consider ideas foreign to my belief set and that process helps me remain centered in the fullness of Truth. I am willing to change, as long as new facets of Truth can be adequately, convincingly explained. That is impossible when debate is shut down through blocking, deleting, or via insults and ad hominem.

It seems to me Catholics, who worship The Word incarnate; who have access to all Truth, should be the ones most willing to engage others. That is what I aim for.
Fr. VF said…
I get a kick out of those who try to squelch all discussion by asserting that antipopes are IMPOSSIBLE. IIRC, there have been 43 antipopes!
Alexis Bugnolo said…
Aqua,

When did the Archbishop canonically condemn anyone for 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