Skip to main content

Do Skojec & 1P5 think Athanasius was Wrong to Teach Jesus is God because "there [was] No Official Church Teaching on this Issue"?

Francis apologist Steve Skojec and his website, One Peter Five, have come to the defense of their beloved it is infallibly impossible that Pope Francis can be a antipope and, also, if he is a heretic, he can't be deposed anyway.

This time they didn't bring up the totally discredited "universal acceptance" argument, but presented laughable strawman arguments.

The One Peter Five article claims that a invalid papal conclave that elected a antipope can't happen during the time of Francis (which happened during the time of St. Bernard of Clairvaux) "because the underlying assumption is that Francis can't be the pope because Francis is a heretic."
(One Peter Five, "Is Francis the Pope?", October 29, 2019)

This is a laughable strawman argument because the supposed "pope" during St.Bernard's time wasn't a heretic, but was a invalidly elected antipope because his conclave didn't follow the conclave constitution of the previous pope.

(Whether the supposed "pope" was a heretic or not a heretic is beside the point. The main point is and was did the conclave follow the conclave constitution of the previous pope.)

By the way, Mr. Skojec, the main argument of Bishop Rene Gracida is that the Francis conclave didn't follow the conclave constitution of the previous pope.

Also, can someone get Skojec and his writers a Catholic history book?

The next laughable argument is a pope who is a heretic can't he deposed even though Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales explicitly states so because "there is no official church teaching on this issue" according to the One Peter Five piece.

According to Skojec's website, St. Athanasius was wrong to fight for the undefined teaching that Jesus is God because there it wasn't a "official church teaching" so, like the Francis apologists at One Peter Five, Athanasius should have sat on his hands and said Jesus isn't God because there is no "official church teaching" defining the teaching.

By the way, Mr. Skojec, there is no "official church teaching" that a heretic pope can't be deposed, but there is a Doctor of the Church who explicitly teaches that a heretic pope can be deposed.

St  Francis de Sales declared:

"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

Lasserre deVillier said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
4:41 PM
Athelstane said…
Is it your position that the See of Peter is vacant now?
4:55 PM
Fred Martinez said…
My position is Bishop Rene Gracida's position. Go to his website.
6:31 PM
Aqua said…
Athelstane : According to the invalid Latin original resignation letter of Pope Benedict XVI - The Papal Office remains occupied by Pope Benedict XVI who lives hidden in prayer and contemplation in Mater Ecclesia; the See of Peter is occupied by an antipope with the permission of the Pope.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

*Note use of Munus in paragraph 1; Ministerium in paragraph 2. Munus is the Office. Ministerium is contained within, flows from it.

“(1) Having explored my conscience again and again before the Lord, I have arrived at certain recognition that with my advancing age my strengths are no longer apt for equitably administering the Petrine Office [munus Petrinum] ……. (2) On which account, well aware of the weightiness of this act, I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of the Bishop of Rome.”

He retained the Munus (in his original Latin pen). He delegated the Ministerium.

And ..... no, he cannot, before God, do such a thing. It is game over, right there. The Office is not his, but God’s alone. It is all invalid - Conclave, Election, and all the vile heresy that resulted thereby.

Pope Benedict XVI still reigns. And Bergoglio do what antipopes do.
6:42 PM
Athelstane said…
Ok - thanks for the clarification. "Benedict XVI still remains pope."

I'm just curious, however: What happens if he predeceases Francis/aka Jorge Maria Bergoglio? Is the See of Peter vacant until another conclave is held? Would a pope who was elected at such a conclave but who recognized Francis's election (and thus, all of his acts) be a valid pope, or an antipope?
3:21 PM
Aqua said…
“Oh, the tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive.” (Sir Walter Scott)
9:30 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more