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
This leads us to think that Universi Dominici Gregis is like a single game to play; I see this game as chess because it requires strategy from the players on the board in order to reach a final victory.
And in this same game there is a chess move that represents the end of the game. In this move, the king cannot be covered by any other piece on the board and neither can he move it to another square without being taken by an opponent's piece on the same board. This move is called checkmate.
Pope Benedict XVI used this move when he used Canon 332.2 in the Code of Canon Law, according to Universi Dominici Gregis. Ratzinger did not move the munus piece, but the ministry piece. If he only used the sheikh, the king would only be threatened, the king could escape from him. But when he resorts to checkmate, the king is cornered and so the game has come to an end.
That totally cornered reign belongs to Pope Francis.
This means that this move is sufficient to affirm, without error, that the 2013 conclave is totally invalid. Because there is no longer any need to investigate whether there was another irregularity in this same conclave.
That is why it is not necessary for anyone to look for an alternative against this illegitimate pontificate of Bergoglio. Because that person would be against the prohibition that Pope Wojtila revealed to Bishop Gracida.
All that is needed is for the legitimate cardinals, before the 2013 conclave, to recognize this and act.