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
And the argument for a “universal acceptance” among Catholics, because with this probable heretical man, who would occupy the Chair of St. Peter, as the article correctly shows, would obviously come to an end.
Therefore, in the case of Bergoglio, he clearly demonstrates that he is not Pope and has appointed 130 cardinals, 92 of whom have the right to vote in the next conclave.
But the "Universi Dominici Gregis" makes it clear that nothing can be changed in Rome after the death of the Roman Pontiff, in the example of the appointment of cardinals, which is inferred, in a situation also of total impediment to the office of the legitimate Pope, in articles 76 and 77; because Benedict XVI does not abdicate the office (“munus petrinum”) makes it clear that the conclave of 2013 was invalid.
It follows that the problem is not so much this usurper in the Chair of St. Peter who utters continual heresies, for he is only the consequence of a cause of an invalid election, but a probable non-continuity of a legitimate pontificate that he is going to provoke.
Because Catholics, especially legitimate cardinals, must understand that if there is no faith in Rome, then the cause was not the legitimate popes with doctrinal errors, but the cause is a clear occupation within Rome, which caused the apex with Bergoglio, in a planning that was finally completed.
Thus the Church would be in danger of no longer electing popes (something will not happen), with the necessary cardinals from the last legitimate pontificates, for valid conclaves.
Wouldn't this be their main intention with this (Bergoglio plans a successor who already calls him "John XIV"), to replace the Church with a world religion, according to these latest heresies uttered by him?