5 Dubia Questions for 1P5's Steve Skojec & All faithful Catholics especially Francis is definitely Pope Cardinals, Bishops & pundits
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...
Comments
Here we show the necessity of analyzing the Universi Dominici Gregis in depth, although some see it superficially or reject it altogether.
This Apostolic Constitution of Pope John Paul II proves that Bergorglio is not a legitimate Pope. She herself clarifies this simply with this fact: if Pope Benedict XVI did not abdicate the Munus petrinum, then his direct successor does not have the Munus petrinum.
So this "for a good connoisseur, half a word is enough", according to a popular saying in my country. But let us continue to delve deeper into the same Constitution.
If the same Constitution is devoted to rules for the election of a legitimate Roman Pontiff, then the solution is an election of a legitimate Roman Pontiff; Bergoglio would suffer a proper canonical punishment because of it.
All this means that it is the only alternative to which divine providence has placed us in front of a possible lack of consensus on how to resolve this crisis that could take years of existence.
But let's dive deeper into this objectivity, which is clear.
Articles 76 and 77 clearly state that the acts are null and void of Benedict's right successor because there is no need, by confirmation of any high authority of Rome, not to obey this pontificate without Munus.
This leads us to think that it is an urgent appeal to which divine providence tries to show us.
It is something extraordinary beyond common understanding, for example:
1 - Which is found in Catechism 675 of the Church;
2 - That it is consistent that Bishop Fulton J. Sheen says that "there will be a mystical body of the antichrist that will be similar in all its external parts to the mystical body of Christ";
3 - Which corroborates the then Cardinal Wojtyla at the Eucharistic Congress in Philadelphia in 1976.
All of this recalls an important warning about the fate of the Church in the Marian apparitions of the last century in Fatima, Portugal.
Thus we understand more deeply what Sister Lucy meant when she said this: "Either we are with God, or we are with the Devil."
Universi Dominici Gregis means, in this context all presented here, whoever still remains in the other Church that reveals itself to be apostate, will be eternally condemned.
So there's no time for rambling.
The rest is to trust in the same divine providence that will once again be favorable to us