Why the Skojec-Martinez Debate Happened? & Might Dr. Kwasniewski & other Francis Trads be in a "Culture of Fear" that makes them have to think it's an Infallible Dogma that Francis can't be an Antipope?
It appears that some people may think I've been unfriendly to Francis Traditionalists such as Steve Skojec (and Eric Sammons). Both of whom are in my prayers. I hope they pray for me. I don't know Sammons, but I knew Skojec through a friendly email correspondences.
That friendly exchange of emails ended in 2019 shortly after I wrote the post "How many Dr. Kwasniewskis does it take to Change a Light Bulb?":
How many Dr. Kwasniewskis does it take to change a light bulb?
Two: One to change the light bulb and one to change it back.
How many thought polices does it take to screw a light bulb?
None: There never was any light bulb.
In the serious side, please pray for Dr. Peter Kwasniewski. I consider him to be a man of great learning and courage especially for signing the Open Letter.
One can only imagine the culture of fear that surrounds him which caused him to change a short Amazon review at least three times on Antonio Socci's book which just presents evidence that Pope Francis may be a Antipope.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for Dr. Kwasniewski. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/05/how-many-dr-kwasnieskis-does-it-take-to.html]
At the time I was working full-time and posting as best I could for The Catholic Monitor (which may happen again in 2022 because a source of income for the last two years has recently disappeared which allowed me to devote a full-time effort to my website, writing, study and research during that time).
Anyway, after I posted the above piece, I soon received a series of emails from the then publisher of One Peter Five (1P5), Skojec, who was apparently unhappy with it. We got into a discussion on my website that is now called the Skojec-Martinez Debate.
In The Catholic Monitor comment section, during the debate, the former 1P5 publisher said "I invited you to publish the whole [email] correspondence we had TODAY. This is one of the most convoluted and excessively discursive things I've seen from you, Fred." [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/monitor-be-man-admit-that-your-theory.html]
This invitation is brought up because I want to post the email conversation I had with him by his permission and to see if others find that he seemed to be a bit sensitive about my bringing up the seeming "culture of fear that surround[ed]" Dr. Kwasniewski.
Here's the exchange:
Steve Skojec (email@example.com): 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.
You are the one calling him a liar.
You need to be a man.
You need to come out about it and admit that your theory about "universal acceptance" is a fraud or counter what we have thrown in your face.
Be a man about it and don't run away hiding from everything Bishop Gracida and I presented to you. I dare you to do a piece countering us point by point on IP5.
PS- It appears you didn't get the sarcasm in the reply I send you on your email to me on Dr. Kwasniewski.
Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android deviceOn Jun 2, 2019 7:17 PM, Steve Skojec <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:You should just come right out and call him a liar. At least be a man about it.On Sun, Jun 2, 2019, 5:33 PM Fred Martinez wrote:
I agree. Dr. Kwasniewskis expressed himself very clearly in his revision from "who have proved in detail" to "who argue" and from "persuaded me otherwise" to "gave me much to think about."
Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android deviceOn Jun 1, 2019 7:03 AM, Steve Skojec <email@example.com> wrote:
Culture of fear, eh?Has it occurred to you, Fred, that perhaps Dr. Kwasniewski is simply concerned about expressing his mind clearly? As someone who publishes him on a regular basis, I can tell you he makes iterative revisions to many of his pieces, sometimes even after they're published. He's a very particular thinker, and wants to get things right.On a topic this important, I think that's an admirable trait.
I could be wrong, but this exchange still makes me think that it is possible that Dr. Kwasniewski and other Francis Traditionalists may be in a "culture of fear" that makes them have to think it's an infallible dogma that Francis can't be an antipope.
One more thing, I want to say in some ways I admire Steve Skojec because unlike most of the other Francis Trads he was willing to argue about his ideas whereas almost all the rest run away to their high Catholic media towers without giving a fight. I also thought he came up with some funny lines such as calling me a "rambler" at one point because of my sometimes "excessively discursive" posts. I loved it. At the time, I remember singing my new theme song "Rambling Fred" to the tune of the 1960s hit song "Rambling Rose."
Lastly, Skojec forced me to put my argument in an "elevator pitch" when he said "Can any of you actually make an elevator pitch for your thesis that is compelling?" I'll end with my "elevator pitch" to him:
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 .[5 Dubia Questions for 1P5's Steve Skojec - The Catholic Monitor]