"The Publisher of The Catholic Monitor... would be Happy to debate Sammons on "Universal Acceptance" as he debated Skojec in 2019"
It seems that the present publisher of the One Peter Five website, Eric Sammons, and the former 1P5 publisher, Steve Skojec, have a lot in common. Both are obsessed with the notion of the "universal acceptance" of Francis.
The publisher of The Catholic Monitor, Fred Martinez, would be happy to debate Sammons on "universal acceptance" as he debated Skojec in 2019 in the comment section and the CM post Monitor: [B]e a Man... [A]dmit that your Theory about "Universal Aceptance" is a Fraud or Counter" vs. Skojec: "[C]all him a Liar. At least be a Man about it": https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/monitor-be-man-admit-that-your-theory.html:
The Catholic Monitor received this request in the comment section from
Steve Skojec, publisher of the website One Peter Five, to "feel free to
post our entire correspondence" on our give-and take:
Please feel free to post our entire correspondence, Fred. I think the context would be informative for your readers, if you're done self-aggrandizing.
I, also, received a request from a new Catholic Monitor reader to give the whole background of the "tit for tat" between Skojec and the Monitor. I will post the latest correspondence between the One Peter Five publisher and the Monitor after the whole story is told about the give-and take which started in the beginning of this year:
The Catholic Monitor received a third comment from the former public relations and (apparent) semantics expert OnePeterFive publisher Steve Skojec that was puzzling.
But before I respond to it I want to say I pray for him. I am praying because I am worried about him and I am worried specifically about his increasing and multiplying of disparagements for what someone is calling the "Skojec Little Book of Insults."
Before I respond to his first and third comments (the second one isn't pertinent) it is important to look at the phenomena that has started to be called the "Skojec Little Book of Insults."
In 2016, the website AKA Catholic was the first to notice the phenomena:
"This morning, a friend called my attention to a post over at One Peter Five wherein Steve Skojec took the opportunity to denigrate the Remnant and Catholic Family News for what he condescendingly called 'excessive snark and polemics.'”
“'It’s unfortunate that trads can always be counted on to warm up the circular firing squad,' he wrote. 'It’s time for us to drop the snark and the sharp elbows and actually gather people in from this storm.'”
"This he offered in reference to the Remnant / CFN recently joint-published three part series: With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis."
"... The reason Skojec decided to take a poke at two of Catholicism’s finest publications isn’t a mystery; he made his motives entirely plain when he immediately went on to say:
"There are probably any number of reasons why 1P5 has, in just two years, become one of the top three mainstream traditional Catholic publications online (in terms of audience size), but I suspect our attempt to find balance in our approach and not treat those who don’t yet see the point we’re making as the enemy are a part of that.""If there is anything amazing here, it’s the shamelessness and ease with which Skojec can engage in cringeworthy acts of self-promotion, and it’s nothing new."
"Neither is his willingness to exploit an opportunity to bash what he clearly sees as competition (not their ideas) for almighty “audience size” and the benefits presumably derived therefrom; even if it means launching a calculated attack against those who are clearly on the side of the true Faith and have always treated him with every kindness."
At the time, Chris Ferrara called the as yet unnamed "Skojec Little Book of Insults" a "circular firing squad":
Reply Chris Ferrara Steve Skojec "Oh, I see. You get to belittle the Remnant for its excessive snark and polemics and boast of your own popularity because 1P5 is just so much more respectable, you see, and when I defend the newspaper I write for against your snide put-down this proves your point?"
On Jun 2, 2019 7:17 PM, Steve Skojec wrote:
You should just come right out and call him a liar. At least be a man about it.
Fred Martinez To:Steve Skojec Details
Wait until you find out how Taylor Marshall really feels about Benevacantism.
Fred Martinez To:Steve Skojec Details
My "be a man" was in direct reference to your passive aggressive statements about Peter K. Don't beat around the bush if you're going to call a man a liar. Come right out and say it.
As I said before, misrepresentation seems to be a habit of yours.
Everyone can see that you didn't or can't answer the problems with your theory.
If you can't follow the arguments made in this post I honestly feel sorry for you.
I feel sorry for you, also, because you have Ann in the brain. It seems like she is haunting your brain. You have lost your mind if you think Bishop Gracida and I are following the mastermind Ann's talking points.
Anyone with half a brain can see the difference.
In the streets I grew up in what you did was called "disrespecting."
It got my old bad instincts up and I apologize for overreacting.
I hate to say this to you, but you don't have the ability to physically intimidate me.
You remind me of punks that I knew growing up who had big mouths and no backbone that sometimes needed to be taught a lesson.
My "be a man" was in direct reference to the "disrespect" you have shown to a Successor of the Apostles Bishop Gracida in refusing to answer him. I am nothing. I am only representing him. If he told me to stop writing. I would stop in a second.
As I said before, semantics and refusing to answer the numerous problems in your theory is a habit of your.
Your other habit is being a coward unless you don't have the mental ability to understand the questions.
If you can't understand the post above then find someone to slowly walk you through it and stop being like Francis who, also, is afraid to answer the 5 questions or Dubias.
You either can't make a "refutation" of the questions because you don't have the mental ability or you're afraid to answer the questions.
Get back to me when you all have a real argument. Until then, have fun tilting at windmills.
Truth is Jesus Christ.
Get back to me when you find someone to help you understand simple arguments or overcome your fear.
Until then, have fun running away.
Now this is the SAME Skojec who keeps fapping the axiom of: Truth = Simplicity:
"If it can't be explained simply in this space, then the theory is too complex to be of any use. Truths don't take long exposition to state. They're usually able to be expressed in straightforward propositions." ~ Steve Skojec (Twitter 5:18 AM - 19 Feb 2019)
So now Skojec has gone from simple spoken "Truthines" to his current complex convoluted pedantic semantics. So now ole Salesman Stevie (theology expert extraordinaire) has gone from the simplicity of a few words in a simple phrase - to the complexity of parsing out a selective (distorted) meaning to each word. In other words - Skojec is all about the "elevator pitch" of marketing his version of "truthiness" and within that simplistic short pitch - lies the devil in the details of the words themselves. So Skojec simply vacillates between the simplistic and pedantically complex of convoluted BS according to whichever corner he's painted himself into. And THIS my friends is a what PR bullshit artist does. They sell their version of "truth".
Ah to be so learned and wise after "theology" classes at Franciscan University in Stupidville.... Skojec is all things to all suckers.
Behold his longwinded two-part screed in the comments section as he twists himself into knots with his analysis paralysis of his pedantic semantics of sloppy convoluted bullshit- and all it amounts to is his reluctance to admit that his premise was wrong: there is no "formal definition" from the Church that a pope universally accepted *IS* infallibly certain. To which Stevie then restates - that it most certainly IS an absolute infallible certainty - even though no one in the Church has ever defined the *SEMANTICS* of the terms of that baseless assertions - much less the accuracy of its basic premise. LOL
Semantic Stevie - Marketing "Truthiness" by baffling with bullshit. Because the Devil is in the details of every sales that begins with an elevator pitch.
I suspect what you highly doubt is your ability to counter the actual argument so you blow smoke -- maybe that's why you're so hot on the cigar pics. But it's clear as day that you're projecting your own issues/shortcomings -- AGAIN.
(CathInfo.com, "Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal," December 2, 2017)
One assumes that "universally" does not mean every single Catholic - more than a billion. The vast majority of Catholics think Franciscus is Pope. How many catholics are there who do not think Franciscus is Pope?
One would think far less than 1%
You seem to have omitted the details where
A) Skojec originally tried to pass off his "universally accepted" farce as some sort of irreproachably defined formally infallible doctrine of the Church - and when called on that fallacy - he then tried to
B) Pass off a *new* premise of amateur bullshittery with "I am not claiming that John of St. Thomas's definition of Universal Acceptance was infallible, I *AM* claiming that a pope universally accepted *IS* infallibly certain." - Now try wrapping your head around that sophistry of double-speak self-defeating sale-pitch of semantic manure: Which is nothing more than saying
C) A pope "universally accepted" *IS* infallibly certain - even though there IS NO formal (much less infallible) definition of "universally accepted" - Now, see how Semantic Stevie can't stop lying with his 14 levels of semantic bullshit? Especially when he's been clearly busted? And
D) THIS is the same Simplistic Stevie who says all Truthiness should be expressed only in short simple language - or else it's less than truthiness. But back to his revised definition of "Universally Accepted" - it was
E) NEVER lying-Skojec's original point - which was "Yah,Jorge is "universally accepted! Period. The end. Case closed you ridiculous Benevacantists!"
and he passed that erroneous assertion off by selectively edited partial quotes from his Saintly authorities which skewed the entire context. And whats worse, Skojec implied then that:
F) Fred was too stupid to understand that original (revise) lie of Semantic Stevie's. All of which brings as to the most salient point about Juvenile Skojec:
G) He's a bomb-throwing thin-skinned juvenile punk who has an increasingly nasty habit of drawing first blood by insulting people who dare disagree with him. And he knee-jerk reacts with disparaging remarks and denigrating insinuations - while painting himself as some brilliant well-educated self-appointted theologian of True Catholicity - from Fankyican University of Stupdiville no less.
So while you're getting your selfrighteous holy knickers in a virtuous twist - you might want to go back and highlight Semantic Stevie's sins among your haughty disapproval of "these Christian" - lest someone might think you're just Stevie's little self-promoting sockpuppet. Which you probably are.
One would think far less than 1%"
There is no doctrine that defines "Universally Accepted" - so a counter-argument of majority percentages is a moot point.
Thank God for brave Athanasius and the 1% who held firm and true with him.
That said, and I am only speaking for myself, if I had contempt or hatred for the person of Steve and not for the sin he did I apologize. I spoke to a priest friend today and he said I should apologize for remarks about his mental capacity and other demeaning remarks I may have made. I apologize to Steve and everyone now. That said I still say the arguments made were valid.
I have been praying alot for Steve because it is obvious something is wrong there. But more importantly, I want all of you came who to my defense to know that I will start a novena today for you. Thank you, again.
what skojec(and his followers)can't seem to get through his(their)thick head is that Universal Acceptance isn't, and has never been The LAW, so using it as an argument either for or against a valid papacy is a ridiculous straw man.
as canon and civil law expert +Rene Henry Gracida, emeritus of Corpus Christi Texas, points out,Universi Dominici Gregis is the Only LAW which applies; and by This LAW only validly appointed, non-excommunicated, pre-conclave cardinals are the only interpreters in any dispute about This LAW's application to the "disputed bergoglio election and papacy" (not to mention the disputed "bifurcated" abdication.)
Phillip Campbell said "These goofy people often email me with some ridiculous thesis and then "dare" me to rebut it "if I am able" and then accuse me of being a coward for not responding to their random challenge--it's obvious these people who think others have time for this have no lives other than arguing on the internet."
Hypocritical Steve Skojec responded "It's their entire MO. Check out this ridiculousness. I told this Fred Martinez guy he could publish our entire (brief) email exchange. I encourage him to come up with a brief argument in favor of his thesis. Instead, this discursive, self-aggrandizing mess issued forth. And the people in the comments? Yeesh:"
And do note the irony of The Self-Aggrandizing Social-Media-Addict (Steve Skojec) projecting his own psychological dysfunctions onto us "goofy people" who apparently are the ones who have "no lives other than arguing on the internet."
Now just let that incredible hypocrisy of his settle in for a moment.
His entire FB thread on this matter is nothing but him and his little self-appointed arrogant empty-headed "scholars" sneering at all of us mouth-breathing rubes.
Meanwhile - I'm still waiting for Skojec and his ilk to actually START DEMONSTRATING THEIR FULL SUBMISSION TO THEIR HERETICAL ANTI-POPE whom they swear is a legitimate Holy Father. Because thus far I've seen no evidence of any sort of "submission" to him. Unless of course "submission" means clinging to the unfounded fantasy that Jorge's election was somehow licit - while waiting for some future Council in the year 2525 to finally declare him an antipope so we can all breathe a sigh of relief from Hell knowing that we played along with the antichrist's charade. Because...reasons.
So there's that.
I agree with your last post.
Whenever Christ is minimized and self is maximized, something is wrong.
So much of this cr** is merely ego driven desire to “win” and to look good for the peanut gallery. As I said elsewhere: all heat, no light.
The ego is a consuming fire. It must be nailed to one’s cross and then follow in the bloody path of Jesus. He left all of his heavenly glory behind and became one of us ... to show us the way. The bloody way. No room for ego and self promotion on the bloody walk to Calvary. Live like He did. And as His Mother, love only Him; promote only Him; live and die only for Him.
(CathInfo.com, "Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal," December 2, 2017)
Does that mean because the sedevacantists (who have been in existence far longer than have the Benevacantists and are undoubtedly more numerous ) do not accept any Pope since Pius XII that we have no Pope and haven't had a Pope since the death of Pius XII and we could not have any Pope in the future because no Cardinals created by the last living Pope are living to vote?
Of course not. The death of common sense is not a pleasant thing to witness.
One does not have to have "accepted universally" defined by the Church as it surely means moral universally not numerical universally.
"But if for a certain time, he was not accepted universally and truly by the Church, during that time then, the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at the death of a Pope.' 'Verita Della Fede', vol. VIII, p. 720.'"
(CathInfo.com, "Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal," December 2, 2017)
Define the length of "a certain time" Show me the official declaration in years. Because the Chair has been vacant for almost three years in the 13th century.
"One does not have to have "accepted universally" defined by the Church as it surely means moral universally not numerical universally."
Moral universality? So you've gone from citing a numerical percentage of accepted universality to a .... uhm what?
What the hell is "moral universality"? And where is that codified in Canon Law in relevance to the Papacy? Especially when you're applying it to this obvious heretical antipope who rules with the ruthless iron fist of a Soviet Dictator.
No, the death of commonsense is not a pleasant thing. And it smells most putrid when its dead bones are used as kindling for invented novelties of desperate deviance of the objective realities before us.
You know - like pope "emeritus" and "moral universality" and "liberation theology" and "ecumenicism" and changing the words of Our Lord's Prayer......
The Catholic Church has a Pope and his name is Francis.
Benedict XVI made it clear he resigned and he has publicly stated, more than once ,that any ideas contrary to that are absurd and so you are welcome to the absurdity of your-no-longer-Pope who abdicated.
When Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger dies, you and Mario Derksen (sedevcantist of Novus Ordo Blog) can have a cage match to determine who the next Pope will be.
It will be no more absurd than the Benevacantist movement but it will have the bonus of being amusing and entertaining.
No. I've never heard of "moral universally" validating the authenticity of a legitimate papacy - and neither have you.
And the current "Catholic Church" has a Pope *EMERITUS* AND a "Pope"
- now show me that in Sacred scripture and Sacred Tradition. Because it doesn't exist.
And no, BXVI only made it clear by his actions that he *partially* resigned: he resigned from ministry and NOT from the office. Which is why he still calls himself "Pope", dresses like the Pope, gives papal blessings, writes papal letters, and lives in Vatican City. Can you cite for me any other time in history where such a novelty occurred?
Meanwhile - you and Skojec can keep fapping your "commonsense" and "logic" against your inane reality where both of you are openly rejecting the obvious heresies of your criminal antipope, all the while awaiting some imaginary future Council from the Apocalyptic hereafter to formally declare then at that time - the reality you're currently living now. Which would mean you're currently declaring a living heretic "Pope" - whom a future Council will be forced to recognize later had in fact - *LOST HIS CHAIR* in our current time - which would mean the Chair will be ipso facto VACANT when BXVI dies - according to your OWN faulty premise.
So your own faulty paradigm is self-defeating. And it is left with the maddening supposition that an empty Chair is somehow much more damaging to "the faith" than a Chair occupied by an AntiPope of the AntiChrist misleading and raping The Bride of Christ from within.
Which leads us to the next question: IF your definition of "the gates of Hell will not prevail" is correct - then WHY did Christ clearly state the very real and probable Apocalyptic reality of the Church virtually disappearing?
"when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" ~ Luke 18:8...?
CORRECTION: which would mean the Chair IS CURRENTLY ipso facto VACANT even with BXVI alive- according to your OWN faulty premise.
What nobody at any point now , or ever in history, has demonstrated, is how "peaceful universal acceptance" will make a pope a non-pope. In other words, the appeal to "universal acceptance" applies only under conditions of "sede vacante" , not under conditions when there is a pope still reigning!!
Are we expected to believe that Christ must unbind Himself from the true Peter on the say-so of an invalid conclave?
That is so true. This is not about scoring debate points and “winning” against a fellow Catholic.
This is about exposing a disaster at the center of our Church, working to expunge it and restore peace.
Exactly. And your salient point goes to the very heart of the evil that this Hellish assault on the papacy was intended to instigate: Strike the Shepherd and the flock will scatter. And that scattering can only be caused by the divisions of stubborn personal pride that stems from the looming fears that the Petrine Office might not quite be what the centuries of political motives and arrogance of power have construed it to be. It is clear that the Church could not have come to this insane paradigm without the assistance of some serious errors from previous Councils that sowed the seeds of this Diabolic confusion long ago.
But what is most insufferable, is this rise of the Catholic pharisees; the self-appointed Sanhedrin of the "intellectual" superior class. The all wise, all knowing, insufferably arrogant narcissistic Light-bearers who look in the mirror each day - and think to themselves:
"Who is like me? Just look at my academic achievements! Just look at how they document my supreme intellectual authority! Just look at the number of subscribers I have to my website! Just look at the number of books I've sold! Just look at my awesome powers of persuasion to make fame and fortune from my supreme gift of intelligence!"
And before they know it - "the Truth" has become for them - whatever they can persuade the greatest number of people to believe. And the entire paradigm is like an intoxicating drug of self-confirming spiritual masturbation for them. It's a shallow form of public self-love. And before they know it - somehow, their motives have morphed - IF they weren't already bastardized from the onset. Suddenly, humility has become their greatest fear. To possibly be wrong would mean for them that *their* credibility is a lie - a fate worse than death itself for the haughty, and not that they are even concerned that Truth itself might suffer - but that their own petty pride would suffer. After all, who would want to buy into a pharisee who wasn't cocksure of his absolute moral certitude in his own specially appointed leadership from the Divine?
This is the class of Catholics who know all the references and stare aghast at those of us who haven’t read and know everything.
But, Catholics were never required ... to know everything. Faith. Hope. Love. Jesus Christ. The Sacraments that connect us to Him. Simple enough for the simplest hard working laborer.
One thing this crisis has taught me, through it all, in a purgatorial kind of way,over years now, is to recognize the low worth of human achievement (we all do this “Sanhedrin” sort of thing in our own unlearned way) and turn to Christ; only Christ. I see myself with the Blessed Mother and with the apostle John, following in Christ’s bloody footsteps. I train myself, gradually, every day for that purpose. That is the only place I wish to be until the end of life. There is no room for blog argument “victories” there. Perspective and relief from my own insufferable ego is there on Via Crucis.
And with all of that, you left off my last email, which makes the point you've demonstrated here: brevity eludes you.
That last email, for the record, says this:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Steve Skojec
Date: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: How many Dr. Kwasniewskis does it take to Change a Light Bulb?
To: Fred Martinez
I'm not calling him a liar. I'm saying he recognized he wasn't sufficiently clear. He told me from the outset he wasn't 100% convinced, even though he thought Socci made a persuasive case. He realized after I asked him about it that he hadn't been as clear as he meant to be. But now everyone in Benevacantism land is accusing him of dishonesty driven by fear. Peter doesn't just work with me, he's a friend. I don't take kindly to these attacks on my friends.
Universal Acceptance is a long-established understanding of the Church that enjoys a consensus of theologians. It's not "my theory". And it's certainly not a fraud.
You mistake the fact that your arguments don't merit as much attention as you want them to have for fear. I have no fear of an investigation, I have no fear that your theory will ever be proven correct. You're on the wrong side of history, and I have faith that this will be proven in time.
As for daring me, what are you, a child? How about instead of making dares, you find a way to write a succinct, point-by-point iteration of your thesis, along with documentary evidence. Make an attempt to prove your case in less than a thousand words. Use bullet points or numbers. Give your critics an opportunity to respond to something less meandering than post after post of conjecture, or two-hour long rants from Ann, etc. Can you actually make the case? If you did, I'd consider a refutation. I'm not going to do the work of tidying up a bunch of sloppy thinking to offer a rebuttal that you'll only dismiss out of pure confirmation bias. Let's deal in facts instead.
Can any of you actually make an elevator pitch for your thesis that is compelling? I highly doubt it.