Flashback: Has Rorate Caeli become the New Skojec that is "Skojec [who is]... a kind of Double Agent and 1P5 a False-Opposition Operation" who keeps Catholics "Confused... rather than United in any Useful Purpose"?
Roberto de Mattei: Is the COVID vaccine morally licit for ...
Rorate-Caeli: The COVID-19 Vaccination Debate: Professor De Mattei...
The real Traditionalist website The Okie Traditionalist disagrees them:
It is refreshing for a traditional Catholic Archbishop such as Vigano, perhaps the only one doing this, to lay it all out publicly. A man once entrusted as representing the See of St. Peter as nuncio over all the American bishops.
He talks about the need for negotiations to prevent world war, to admit to violations of rights, to ensure rights on all sides. He points his finger at the globalist elites violating Russia's rights, and trying to take over all Europe since 1990, forcing contemporary Western values (abortion, LGBTQ, etc) on the world. He laments the hypocrisy of the West controlling eastern Europe for its own power and gain, while condemning Putin for protecting his own sovereignty and border. It spells out the Ukraine 2014 coup engineered by NATO, and how Zelensky is nothing more than a liberal globalist comedian, bought and paid for with corrupt money, used to start war with Russia. And how Soros has sponsored a color revolution of truly neo-Nazi institutions supported by the NATO-controlled, installed Ukrainian government. The facts speak for themselves.
This is a good read, but long. Yet it spells out the "true narrative" that nobody will get from mainstream Western media with its false narrative of "a dictator Putin trying to expand Russian territory at the expense of killing innocent citizens." Which many can now see is a load of B.S. Zelensky refuses to be NATO neutral; for that reason he is plunging us all into a world war. [http://okietraditionalist.blogspot.com/2022/03/archbishop-vigano-speaks-on-russia.html]
I'm starting to wonder if Rorate Caeli has become the new One Peter Five Steve Skojec who was possibly a kind of "false-opposition operation." Here is a post on that subject:
- Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book "Magister Authority" shows that almost all Francis apologists be they liberal, conservative or traditionalist are "proximate to heresy":
"[T]reating ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in Vatican I... by essentially saying the pope is infallible regardless of conditions..."
"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)
At times, I have found that the comments in the Catholic Monitor comment section are better than my post. This was true of the last post in which Jack wrote a deeply insightful comment that mirrored Fr. Rippinger's above explanation of Vatican I and Pope Innocent III's "in the matter of the faith I [and all popes and antipopes] could be judged by the Church" and he covered many other matters.
However, prior to getting to it, I want to thank all the loyal Catholic Monitor readers and commenters for their prayers especially Praypraypray and Therese who are prayer warriors and the vast majority of CM commenters for their wisdom.
Also, I want to say, unlike Jack, I am not inclined to think that One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec is a "double agent," but it appears to me that he does keep Catholics "confused... a whining bunch of scandalmong[ers] rather than united in any useful purpose."
Here is the great comment by Jack:
"People who imagine that Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility is circular, tautological, or otherwise redundant imagine that the dogma goes like this: "Solemn papal definitions are infallible, because the pope has the power of infallibility." Which is like saying, 'it's right because the pope says it's right.'"
"This would be to set up the pope as a kind of god, since only God is truly self-justifying like this, right simply because He is right, because He is Truth itself by His very essence."
"I think in the wake of liberalism and its undermining of all authority, Catholics rallied to the pope and after Vatican I made this kind of mistake, at least implicitly, that the pope is right because he is right. But this is just another human error, setting up a man in God's place, undermining authority in an even more subtle way."
"The pope is not right because he says he's right, and he's not infallible simply because he has the power of infallibility (although he is and he does). Vatican I is very clear. The pope is infallible BECAUSE Christ gave the keys to Peter and his Successors, and HE guaranteed by HIS divine power that the pope would never err in his solemn teaching capacity. This is perhaps a subtle distinction, but it makes a profound difference. It means that our faith is not centred on the person of the pope, but centred on Christ just has it has always been."
"So when we come across a pope who appears to be erring in doctrine, the first thing we should ask is whether he is really erring or not. And if he is erring, the next thing to ask is whether his papacy is legitimate or whether he's an antipope. But for people with a worldly mindset who are too willing to accept the world's opinions and maintain their public image, and who's faith is more centred on the person of the pope than on the person of Christ, they would rather deny Vatican I and become heretics than accuse a possible antipope (despite there having been many, many antipopes in history) and fall temporarily out of favour."
"To be honest at this point I would not be surprised if Skojec is a kind of double agent and 1p5 a false-opposition operation designed to keep potential critics of the regime confused and pigeonholed. Keep traditionalists as a whining bunch of scandalmongerers rather than united in any useful purpose."
Lastly, here is my simple post that hopefully helped inspire Jack in his exceptional comment:
It appears that One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec's infallible opinion that the Francis papacy cannot be invalid under any circumstances is leading him towards heresy.
"I believe Vatican I's papal infallibly teaching "appears... [to border] on superstition," so I accept as true that that infallible dogma "appears... [to border]" on being a unfounded belief."
"Francis's papal validity is a 100% infallible belief and if anyone doubts it they are a schismatic therefore Vatican I's infallible teaching on papal infallibly "appears to be a tautological at best and borders on superstition at worst."