The Catholic Monitor

It appears that the OnePeterFive website papal validity expert Robert Siscoe could possibly be either a poor scholar or possibly a bit disingenuous in his leaving out the second part of a quote by a Doctor of the Church. He says "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election... Here is what [Doctor of the Church] St. Alphonsus taught:" 'It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff.'" (TrueorFalsePope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a  Pope," 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) The problem with Siscoe's quote is he leaves out the very next sentence: "'But if fo

Turning the table on Bishop Athanasius Schneider's opinion that a heretical pope can't be deposed is easy. Schneider said: "[N]o... universal... or... Papal Magisterium... would support the theories of the deposition of a heretical pope," but the exact same thing can be said of the bishop's opinion: "[N]o... universal... or... Papal Magisterium... would support the theories of" not being able to depose "a heretical pope." Schneider's opinion has next to zero authority or merit when standing next to the teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales: [T]he Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church 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) Schneider, also, apparently is implying sit on you hands and do nothing when he says: "There is no historical case

The Catholic Monitor received a comment from Steve Skojec today that was puzzling. But before I respond to it I want to say I like Steve. In our few correspondences by email he has been a gentleman. I pray for him and his important work. I have recently been a bit worried about him because lately he has started multiplying disparagements for what someone is calling the "Skojec Little Book of Insults." Below is the comment I received from Steve: 1 comment: Steve 11:15 AM You know, Fred, research isn't that hard. I'm not claiming it as infallible. That would be absurd. What I said in my actual post, which was only 471 words long and wouldn't have taken that much time to read, is: "I am posting this today as a point of reference. I see a lot of argument over what “universal acceptance” means, but it’s much simpler than people think. And if the explanation of John of St. Thomas is correct — and I have no reason to believe that it isn’t — then

Steve Skojec has been apparently claiming John of St. Thomas's idea on "universal acceptance" of popes is infallible Catholic doctrine. It appears that he got this conviction about the importance of this theologian from Robert Siscoe. So far, as far as I can find, the only other modern theologian who considers John of St. Thomas (John Poinsot) that important is Jacques Maritain whose disciple was Pope Paul VI. Paul VI said: "I am a disciple of Maritain. I call him my teacher." Paul VI's teacher was a close collaborator of Saul Alinsky who wrote in Rules for Radicals: "I have always believed birth control and abortion are personal rights." Maritain called Alinsky a "practical Thomist" according to lawyer Chris Ferrara. Maritain is considered by many to be a architect of Vatican II. According to the American Maritain Association: Pointsot (John of St. Thomas) is central to understanding Maritain's theology which was cen

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