In the Spider-Man movies whenever Peter Parker disappears then suddenly Spider-Man appears.
Might it be the same way in Catholic blogging?
Just when I thought Steve Skojec had disappeared suddenly the Amateur Brain Surgeon who sounds just like Skojec appeared in the Catholic Monitor comment section. I have long suspected this long time Catholic blog commenter is the Steve.
The Amateur Brain Surgeon made his appearance in the post titled "'Vigano's "Problem... of a Canonical Nature': St. Alphonsus dei Liguori, St. Bellarmine & Bp. Gracida: 'A Doubtful Pope is No Pope.'" The Amateur Brain Surgeon's ways so mirror the Skojec ways that I could not help having a exchange with him as if he were the one and only Steve.
But, before we show the exchange here is the answer to the Brain Surgeon and the Skojec constant harping on John of St. Thomas to prove Francis is definitely pope:
https://archive.org/details/vannoortvol2christschurch/page/n69/mode/2up
page 112-113:
Assertion 2. The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts This proposition is Let’s start with Van Noort, Christ’s Church theologically certain.
Before continuing with Van Noort, allow me to insert this: "Teachings which pertain to the Faith and are theologically certain (sententia fidei pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) are doctrines on which the teaching authority of the Church has not yet pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed because they are logical conclusions drawn from a proposition that is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain. Propositions contradicting theologically certain doctrines are censured as errors in theology." https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/what-are-theological-notes-28450
Let’s go back to Van Noort:
A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with [getting at] dogmatic facts…was Pius XII legitimately elected bishop of Rome?
Of course, whatever the Church declares directly must be maintained by everyone, e. g. that the Vulgate contains the word of God; that Pius XII is head of the Church, that the doctrine of this or that book is heretical, it arrived at these decisions in the following manner: every faithful translation of the inspired books contains the words of God; but the Vulgate is a faithful translation; therefore, . . . Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is head of the Church; but Pius XII was legitimately elected; therefore, . . .
So, it is only theologically certain and thus infallible that Pius XII is head of the Church, if and only if 1) a divinely revealed proposition: "anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is head of the Church," is joined with 2) an historically certain proposition: "Pius XII was legitimately elected." In the case of Bergoglio, it is not historically certain he was legitimately elected.
Now, if we abandon the supposition that Bergoglio is head of the Church based on dogmatic fact and turn instead to the infallible nature of the ordinary and universal magisterium and claim that as the basis of Bergoglio being the head of the Church, this is still problematic. When Van Noort states on page 265 that:
the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matters in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call 'ecclesiastical faith,' the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas).
He is, of course, correct regarding the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium, but he is incorrect in the example he chooses:
when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.
Just because something has theoretically and practically been recognized by the bishops and by the universal Church DOES NOT EQUATE TO ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIAL TEACHING!
Communion in the Hand, Eucharistic Ministers, Ordaining Sodomites, etc. have theoretically and practically been recognized by the bishops and by the universal Church for more than 50 years.
Women wearing shorts or short skirts and/or immodest tops at Mass (and in public) has theoretically and practically been recognized by the bishops and by the universal Church for more than 50 years.
And given these examples, Van Noort is also seemingly mistaken in claiming (pages 113-114):
Assertion 2. The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.
By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living
As for John of St. Thomas, ironically, his teaching: "Whoever would deny that a particular man is pope after he has been peacefully and canonically accepted, would not only be a schismatic, but also a heretic," is not itself, peacefully and canonically accepted:
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: "Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation." (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943)
Rev Ignatius Szal: "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
De Lugo: "Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao]." (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
I would note that apparently nowhere in his discussion of Pius XII does Van Noort cite John of St. Thomas. Surely, he would have if the Church embraced his view as commanding and infallible. Now here is the exchange:
Comments
Well, she is wrong about what Substantial error means - as even Novus Ordo Watch knows - but in any event here is a female Canon Lawyer on the matter
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/03/can-a-pope-everresign/
Are y'all aware of the consequences of PUA, Peaceful Universal Acceptance (google PUA and True or False Pope)?
It mens that when virtually everyone accepted that Franics was Pope that became a Dogmatic Fact as attested to by Father Berry in "Church of Christ" and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger when he was Perfect of the Scared Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Does any of that matter to you?
Nah, for a certain type of man just can't get enough of a laywoman leading them around by the nose.
Does it matter at all that the entire Cardinalate accepts Francis as Pope; does it matter to you that the entire Episcopacy accepts Francis as Pope; does it matter to you that the entire priesthood accepts Francis as Pope; does it matter to you that he entirety of the Religion Orders accept him as Pope?
Nope.
Why?
Because a lay woman who was a former cattle futures trader makes ignorant claims about Canon Law.
As a Catholic are you supposed to know that the Pope is the Supreme Legislator who decides what constitutes proper Canon action?
Nope.
For ya'll a former cattle futures trader is the Supreme Legislator and Supreme arbiter of Canon Law.
As a Catholic you are expected to know that nobody judges a Pope, but, obviously you don't know that
The sad things is it is y'all who are suffering from diabolical delusion. Satan has used the personal false opinions of a lay woman to lead y'all out of the Church,
Good call :)
Well give him his due
Amateur Brain Surgeon on December 9, 2017 at 4:59 pm said:
"Dear Frank. ABS and Thee both know we have been long abandoned by the Cardinals (they should wear sack cloth festooned with white flags) and Bishops (pink vestments seem a natural here) and so we have the Francis.
The laity, like during the Arian crisis, is the one part of the church with the courage to all a spade a spade.
There can be no doubt that Francis is a heretic and now he says he is gonna change the Lord’s Prayer; such a desire manifests his massive ego.
The Francis has left the Faith but he is not going to get ABS to leave the Church. ABS is faithful; he is not.
Stay vigilant, brother.
Pax tecum"
https://stumblingblock.org/?p=11461
AND
Lazarus Gethsemane said…
Amateur Brain Surgeon said...
"ABS has never written he despises Francis. He is Our Pope and Our Cross and a Christian Catholic can not despise the Cross he must bear if he is to be a faithful disciple.
Yes, Francis is Pope and it is a sure sign of diabolical delusion when men start defending the indefensible private judgment praxis of a female convert rather that hearing the Church."
See how the Amateur Brainless Sturgeon "loves" his heretical antipope - whom he totally DOESN'T despise? Behold:
Friday, January 12, AD 2018
Amateur Brain Surgeon
"The once estimable Barque Of Saint Peter is now the great garbage scow piloted by the execrable Francis"
Source: https://www.the-american-catholic.com/2018/01/11/popewatch-heresy-has-come-to-eden/
AND
Lazarus Gethsemane said…
Amateur Brain Surgeon said...
"In his defense, ABS writes that he didn't mean those things in a bad way :)"
Oh yes of course, constantly calling the pope a heretic, referring to his office as "the great garbage scow", declaring that he is "no doubt.... a heretic" Oh AND stating that his papal encyclical is "impossible" to be "in continuity with what came before his heresies unless the definition of continuity is so elastic it can mean rupture" - are all signs of your enduring love, respect, and "communion" with your heretic. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/07/i-want-to-ask-mr-sammon-if-he-unlike.html]
"[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."
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/03/can-a-pope-everresign/
The fact is that Ms. B. is wrong about Canon Law which is not surprising because she never studied Canon Law, never took a degree in Canon Law and never practiced Canon Law.
She doesn’t not understand what Substantial Error is nor does she understand that it is The Pope, not her or anyone else, who is The Supreme Legislator and, thus ,Benedict could have resigned using semaphore standing on an aircraft carrier Fiddy Five miles off the coast of Italy had he desired to do so.
The BISPers reject this essential truth:
“DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290
+++++++++++++++++++++
Here is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger explaining that when he was Perfect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
What about the putative "brother?' Well, he is not a brother ...
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2021/03/issues-with-br-alexis-bugnolo-ordo-militaris-fromrome/
The entire Cardinalate, the entire Episcopacy, the entire Priesthood, and the entirety of the Religious orders know that Francis is Pope but Ms. B and Not Brother B claim he is not.
Why is that?
Folie à deux ('madness [shared] by two'), also known as shared psychosis or shared delusional disorder (SDD), is a psychiatric syndrome in which symptoms of a delusional belief, and sometimes hallucinations, are transmitted from one individual to another.
And why does The D.O.A. (Disciples of Ann) act like they do when others prove them wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
Has he said untoward things about the reign of Pope Francis ?
Yes, but saying such a thing does not exclude Communion with Francis because it s the Catholic Church, not ABS or anyone else, who determines whether of not Francis is still Pope.
O, and even if he was judged a heretic, he would still have jurisdiction over you, one assumes you do know that.
The sine qua non of Catholicism is for the person to maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine and Authority and so ABS remains united with his Bishop and Pope.
Wow. Is this the [Amateur Brain Surgeon who sure sounds like Steve Skojec] Qanon of Francis-is-the-best-pope-ever because there has never been an anti-pope in the history of the Catholic Church?
Here are five really short and easy to answer dubia questions which hopefully aren't too complicated for Steve Skojec, publisher of the One Peter Five website, to answer.
To make it really easy for the publisher of One Peter Five it has been formatted so that he only has to answer: yes or no.
1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said "The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See." Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
2. "Universal Acceptance" theologian John of St. Thomas said "This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff." Was John of St. Thomas for saying "the supreme pontiff" must be BOTH "lawfully elected and accepted by the Church" a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
3. Do you think that a "supreme pontiff" if "universally accepted" is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on "dubious election[s]", that he is "a woman... a child... a demented person... a heretic... a apostate... [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law"? Answer: yes or no.
4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:
"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses... A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."
Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.
5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and notorious "Sedevacantist and Benevacantist" mastermind Ann Barnhardt for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II's conclave constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis" which "prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)" was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no.
Please feel free to answer these dubia questions in any manner you decide, Mr. Skojec, except for the following ways:
1. Do not answer the dubia questions by posting a comment in the Catholic Monitor comment section because you are banned until you allow a free forum for debate on these dubia questions on the One Peter Five comment section.
If you attempt to post on the Catholic Monitor comment section before you allow a free forum at your website your post will be deleted.
2. Do not answer the dubia questions by emailing the publisher of the Catholic Monitor until you allow a free forum for debate on these dubia questions on the One Peter Five comment section.
If you attempt to email me before allowing a free forum at your website your email will be deleted and unread.