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
The pontificate of Pope Francis, if he recognizes himself as a legitimate Roman Pontiff, must have a definitive sentence on the part of the Church, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, in order to be pointed out as a heretic: "In fact, heretics, schismatics and excommunicated persons are deprived of the exercise of their powers by a sentence of the Church (Summa Theologiae, Tertia Pars, Quaestio 82, Articulus 9, co.)".
Therefore, if some believe that this Pope is a heretic, but is a Pope, then one must still expect such a sentence. Unfortunately, they must continue in due "obedience to the Roman Pontiff" (Code of Canon Law, 751). That is, they must abide, for example, to "Amoris Laetitia". No one has the authority to judge him or disobey him, for that would be an act of schism against a Pope. Because that would prove to be rebellion and an unchristian attitude.
But this also reveals another big problem. The Church has defined papal infallibility, a definitive dogma by Pope Pius IX, and if Bergoglio is sentenced as a stubborn heretic, this would obviously be contradictory to this dogma; The article, however, does not have this problematic possibility.
The solution to get out of these impasses, in what was defined by the Church, is in the Declaration of Benedict XVI. And Bergoglio does not have the munus (office) obviously. Therefore it should be noted that what is written in the "Universi Dominici Gregis", in its articles 76 and 77. Because these articles authorize Catholics not to obey this non-legitimate Pope, since it is said that it is not necessary for a sentence from the Church.
The problem itself is not heresies of this pontificate, but that this pontificate has never been legitimate from the beginning. The solution proposed by the article is inconsistent, as it should be logical. All possibilities must be coherent in the face of a legitimate and real good Christian conscience, because all this must be addressed so that there is coherence with the truth.