5 Dubia and/or Questions for Eric Sammons and all Francis Traditionalists also known as Trad Inc:
The Catholic Monitor asks all Catholics to confront these men on social media, in email and in person. Also share these questions with all who claim to find their arguments to be convincing.
The five questions are:
To make it really easy for them it has been formatted so that they only have 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 schismatic? 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 schismatic? 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 schismatics? Answer: yes or no.
5. Is Bishop Gracida really a Sedevacantist and schismatic 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.
The Catholic Monitor's rebuttal of their arguments are in these and many other articles:
- Why did Taylor Marshall Chicken Out in Questioning Bp. Schneider on the Bellarmine teaching on Heretical Popes Ceasing to be Pope?
- Is Bp. Schneider a “Flying Monkey” or another Type of Enabler?
- Why is Bp. Schneider spreading the Doubtful Propaganda of a possible Leftist British Operative?
- Schneider’s Opinion has next to Zero Merit when standing next to the Teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales
- Is Bishop Schneider a Pelagianist?
- Schneider’s Opinion vs. Cdl. Burke: ‘If a Pope would Formally Profess Heresy he would Cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s Automatic.”
- Doubtful Schneider vs. St. Bellarmine & Bp. Gracida: “A Doubtful Pope is no Pope”
- Bp. Schneider vs. Pope Innocent III, Trent & the Ancient Fathers
9. Why doesn't Taylor Marshall know about Antipope Anacletus II & his Pseudocardinals?
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.