Round 1 of the Skojec-Martinez Debate on Francis's "Universal Acceptance": "Why are Skojec & Siscoe Afraid of a Conclave Investigation by Cardinals?"
Mr. Skojec and Mr. Siscoe, actually, are abusing the authority of John of St. Thomas.
The latter's reflections assuredly presuppose due process or fulfillment of all juridical requisites before and within a papal election as a condition so that assent to its results may be given.
Instead of adverting to this, Mr. Skojec and others on his site 'beg the question' to be demonstrated.
It is not whether apparent universal assent the recent election has occurred, but rather whether such really could occur IF there were true violations of stipulated regulations currently effective in governing papal elections.
There are definitely reasonable questions that have been raised based on documentation of acts and failures by several parties in the last conclave.
To reject these considerations requires establishing that said acts and failures did not occur or that they did not, in any way, violate the stipulations governing a valid election.
However, neither Mr. Skojec and his devotees on his rather illogical site, nor others who should do so, have done this thus far. - Catholic Monitor commenter MEwbank
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:
Even John of St. Thomas agrees with Carroll when he said as quoted by Siscoe:
Besides "acceptance" a valid pope needs to be "lawfully elected."
That's the problem with Skojec's and Siscoe's John of St. Thomas selective mantra about "universal acceptance" while ignoring his "lawfully elected" part of the quote.
This is why Bishop Rene Gracida's call for a cardinal investigation is important.
Bishop Gracida is saying what Pope John Paul II's conclave constitution says about the question of if Francis was "lawfully elected" or not: only the cardinals can investigate it and interpret it.
Siscoe, Skojec, canon lawyers or John of St. Thomas can't interpret it, John Paul II's constitution prescribes that cardinals interpret it.
Finally, I ask Siscoe and Steve to specifically answer if Francis was not "lawfully elected" then does a "peaceful and universal acceptance" overturn a unlawful election?
More importantly, why are Siscoe and Skojec apparently so afraid of a investigation by cardinals since they continually ignore or avoid addressing the subject by the "universal acceptance" mantra?
I ask both to please give a specific answer to why they are apparently so afraid of a investigation.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for Catholics to not just bemoan heresy, but put pressure on the cardinals to act as well as for the grace for a cardinal to stand up and investigate and to be the St. Bernard of our time.