The heresies that apparently denied free will were Protestantism and Jansenist which was a Catholicized Protestantism or semi-Protestantism.
Might the promoter of banning the Mass, because of the supposed Black Plague coronavirus, One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec be infected with the heresy of Jansenism?
This heresy like Protestantism, Jansenism and the Modernism of the Nouvelle theologie school, that dominated the proceedings of Vatican II, claimed to be returning to the "early Church" practices.
Jansenism emphasized pessimism due to original sin and predestination as did Calvinism and Lutheranism with the denial of free will.
One of the main tenets of Jansenism was that Holy Communion shouldn't be received frequently. In the early twentieth century, Pope Pius X, the hammer of Modernist heretics, condemned this tenet and endorsed frequent Communion.
It appears that Skojec agrees with the Jansenist heretics and opposes Saint Pius X's endorsement of frequent Communion.
In a podcast of Rules for Retrograde, Dave (although it might have been Tim because their voices are similar), in a conversion about the "early Church" and why apparently because of original sin infrequent Communion was seemingly good for the reason of the veneration due to the Eucharist, said:
"The frequent reception of the Eucharist, as Steve [Skojec] I think was speaking about in the Mike Church Show, the frequent reception of the Eucharist is a really relatively new thing."
(Rules for Retrograde (Tim Gordon & Dave Gordon), R4R#43: Coronavirus & Catholicism w/ Steve Skojec," March 20, 2020, 18:00-18:11)
Moreover, theologian Jessica Murdoch of Villanova University quotes Pope Pius X saying this type of thinking is Jansenistic:
"'[T]he poison of Jansenism, which had infected... under the appearance of honor and veneration due to the Eucharist, has by no means entirely disappeared'... this same pontiff declared: 'Let frequent and daily communion... be available to all Christians... it is enough, nevertheless, that they be free from mortal sins, with the resolution that they never sin in the future.'"
(First Things, "A Pessimism that would Canonize All'" February 21, 2017)
Jansenist's pessimism led them to say that Holy Communion shouldn't be received frequently because they thought like Luther and Calvin that man had no free will to cooperate with God's grace to overcome mortal sin and make a "resolution that they never sin in the future."
Apparently, Francis by his Lutheran/Calvinist denial of free will affirms the semi-Protestant heresy of Jansenism which denied love for "love under compulsion is hardly love." It appears that Francis "removes the very essence of love—freedom."
"Thus the Jansenists reduced morality to meaninglessness. There is no hope here—one inescapably acts according to a delectation that does not in any way correspond to one’s free will. Both merit and damnation are possible without true freedom."
"By rendering the will passive, Jansenius removes the very essence of love—freedom. For love under compulsion is hardly love. In the view of Jansenius, our storm-tossed souls merely crest and fall with no possibility of self-control. The upshot: Sin is ultimately God’s fault, rather than ours, because God could place the irresistible love of virtue in our souls, yet chooses not to."
"... But [Francis's Amoris Laetitia Lutheran/Calvinist and Jansenist] moral and anthropological pessimism do not do justice to God’s mercy. For God’s superabundant mercy extends to redemption in Christ, who takes on our very nature in the hypostatic union and truly sanctifies our nature interiorly. By sanctifying us in a startlingly intimate way, the merciful God creates love in us—makes us lovable, draws our hearts into his own, and makes us fully free and capable of living the Christian life with vigor and joy. The moral norms of the Church are grounded, therefore, in what we might call a supernatural realism. Contrary to the sentiments of our age, realism is not found in an anthropological pessimism that settles for the 'grey' of continually 'missing the mark' and denies God’s transformative love. Rather, through faith we know that God’s grace makes us capable of virtue, even at times heroic virtue, as we see in the lives of the saints, who we might say are the most real among us."
"We are, indeed, plagued by a new sort of Jansenism, one rooted in presumption rather than despair. The 'old' Jansenism arose from both anthropological and theological despair—the Catholic absorption of total depravity, and the loss of hope in the possibility of salvation. Ironically, those who criticize the four cardinals—and anyone who believes that Amoris Laetitia is in need of clarification—often fall into a new form of Jansenism. This 'new' Jansenism is marked by a similar pessimism with respect to human nature—total depravity under a new name, whether 'weakness' or 'woundedness' or 'greyness.' And like what preceded it, the new Jansenism articulates a loss of hope in the power of grace to regenerate the soul. The difference is that the new Jansenism tends towards presumption. Whereas the Jansenism of old despaired that anyone could really be loved by God, be good enough to receive Holy Communion, or be saved, its newer version has so little faith in the power of God to change hearts that it presumes God does not care for something so insignificant as the human heart. No, God is too busy to care about my paltry sins. None are loved personally as they are, but rather all are loved in a great, amorphous mass of humanity that could not but be saved. One need not be in a state of grace to receive Holy Eucharist, because the state of grace is not a real possibility for most people."
"At first blush, the new Jansenism sounds encouraging—none are guilty, all are saved! In truth, however, a pessimism that would canonize all is only a shade less pessimistic than one that would condemn all to hell. As St. Thomas notes, both despair and presumption are sins against hope."
Is it possible the Jansenistic pessimism against receiving Holy Communion frequently has infected Skojec and the Gordon brothers?
Remember that Murdoch in writing the above said she thought that the Francis document "Amoris Laetitia... often fall[s] into a new form of Jansenism":
"At first blush, the new Jansenism sounds encouraging - none are guilty, all are saved! In truth, however, a new pessimism that would canonize all is only a shade less pessimistic than one that would condemn all to hell. As, St. Thomas noted, both despair and presumption are sins against hope."
Theologian Dr. Lawrence Feingold explains the Lutheran sin against the theological virtue of Hope which is presumption:
"[T]he original doctrine of Luther presumed to be certain of salvation without the necessity of contrition."
(Course Notes for Fundamental Moral Theology, December 2009, Page 160)
Why is Hope called a theological virtue?
"Hope is termed a theological virtue because its immediate object is God."
(Catholic Encyclopedia: New Advent, "Hope")
It may be that for Francis, Skojec and the Gordon brothers in their obsession with the coronavirus that their "immediate object is [not] God," but their "immediate object is" fear of death" since all of them apparently think the new virus is supposedly the new Black Plague.
As St. Athanasius said the real "disciple of Christ despise death... instead of fearing it."
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.