The Catholic Monitor received this request in the comment section from Steve Skojec, publisher of the website One Peter Five, to "feel free to post our entire correspondence" on our give-and take:
Please feel free to post our entire correspondence, Fred. I think the context would be informative for your readers, if you're done self-aggrandizing.
I, also, received a request from a new Catholic Monitor reader to give the whole background of the "tit for tat" between Skojec and the Monitor. I will post the latest correspondence between the One Peter Five publisher and the Monitor after the whole story is told about the give-and take which started in the beginning of this year:
The Catholic Monitor received a third comment from the former public relations and (apparent) semantics expert OnePeterFive publisher Steve Skojec that was puzzling.
But before I respond to it I want to say I pray for him. I am praying because I am worried about him and I am worried specifically about his increasing and multiplying of disparagements for what someone is calling the "Skojec Little Book of Insults."
Before I respond to his first and third comments (the second one isn't pertinent) it is important to look at the phenomena that has started to be called the "Skojec Little Book of Insults."
In 2016, the website AKA Catholic was the first to notice the phenomena:
"This morning, a friend called my attention to a post over at One Peter Five wherein Steve Skojec took the opportunity to denigrate the Remnant and Catholic Family News for what he condescendingly called 'excessive snark and polemics.'”
“'It’s unfortunate that trads can always be counted on to warm up the circular firing squad,' he wrote. 'It’s time for us to drop the snark and the sharp elbows and actually gather people in from this storm.'”
"This he offered in reference to the Remnant / CFN recently joint-published three part series: With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis."
"... The reason Skojec decided to take a poke at two of Catholicism’s finest publications isn’t a mystery; he made his motives entirely plain when he immediately went on to say:
"There are probably any number of reasons why 1P5 has, in just two years, become one of the top three mainstream traditional Catholic publications online (in terms of audience size), but I suspect our attempt to find balance in our approach and not treat those who don’t yet see the point we’re making as the enemy are a part of that."
"If there is anything amazing here, it’s the shamelessness and ease with which Skojec can engage in cringeworthy acts of self-promotion, and it’s nothing new."
"Neither is his willingness to exploit an opportunity to bash what he clearly sees as competition (not their ideas) for almighty “audience size” and the benefits presumably derived therefrom; even if it means launching a calculated attack against those who are clearly on the side of the true Faith and have always treated him with every kindness."
[https://akacatholic.com/proud-and-puffed-up-skojec-exposed/]
At the time, Chris Ferrara called the as yet unnamed "Skojec Little Book of Insults" a "circular firing squad":
Reply Chris Ferrara Steve Skojec • 3 years ago "Oh, I see. You get to belittle the Remnant for its excessive snark and polemics and boast of your own popularity because 1P5 is just so much more respectable, you see, and when I defend the newspaper I write for against your snide put-down this proves your point?"
"The only one who convened the circular firing squad here is you. We never said an unkind word about 1P5, and I have linked to it many times in articles for the Remnant."
Before I get to the first and third comments I believe I owe the Remnant a apology for the headline "Remnant & Skojec are Wrong in saying Francis is same as Benedict & John Paul II" because for the most part only two of its writers appear to take the extreme positions of the OnePeterFive publisher: Hilary White and Robert Siscoe.
Skojec's first comment at the Catholic Monitor puzzled me because he wrote "You know, Fred, research isn't that hard. I'm not claiming it as infallible. That would be absurd."
Here is what he wrote in the pertinent part of the post:
"This is why the Church teaches that it is infallibly certain that a pope universally accepted is the pope. Francis was universally accepted — as Robert Siscoe said, this isn’t mathematical unanimity, but practical universality. John of St. Thomas explains what universal acceptance consists of: 'All that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found?
I REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him.'"
"I am posting this today as a point of reference. I see a lot of argument over what “universal acceptance” means, but it’s much simpler than people think. And if the explanation of John of St. Thomas is correct — and I have no reason to believe that it isn’t — then we can see that Francis was universally accepted."
[https://onepeterfive.com/a-brief-word-on-universal-acceptance-of-a-pope/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Onepeterfive+%28OnePeterFive%29]
The problem is that Steve says "if the explanation of John of St. Thomas is correct" and he assumes it is correct thus infallible, but the only proof he gives is the John of St. Thomas quote.
Skojec in his post writes:
"This is why the Church teaches that it is infallibly certain that a pope universally accepted is the pope."
But then tells me at the Catholic Monitor:
"I'm not claiming it as infallible."
Why is he saying "the Church teaches that it is infallible" then saying "I'm not claiming it as infallible"? Now lets go to the third Skojec comment where he says "Fred, this thing where you misread and misrepresent me is starting to be a pattern. I didn't say they were the same." But on Twitter he said in answer to the question "You think he [Pope Benedict XVI] agreed with ANYTHING Francis has done?" Skojec said "Everything":
Skojec thinks Benedict "agreed" with "everything" that "Francis has done," but apparently for the sake of semantics thinks he has to say "Fred, this thing where you misread and misrepresent me is starting to be a pattern. I didn't say they were the same."
Remember what semantics is:
"An argument, or a type of guarantee that the outcome of your statement can be taken in two or more ways which will benefit you in either way it’s perceived. The *careful* use of semantics can be applied to situations which allow you to be right in any reverse query."
Here is the semantically phrased comment of the OnePeterFive publisher:
"Fred, this thing where you misread and misrepresent me is starting to be a pattern. I didn't say they were the same. I said we don't arrive at Francis without JPII, and that their differences are more of degree than of kind."
"There are certainly incongruities between their teachings, but these are not irreconcilable. As I read somewhere last year, it's a Mensheviks/Bolsheviks situation. JPII, Benedict, and Francis are all revolutionaries, but the former two were significantly more moderate than the latter."
"As Benedict wrote in his manipulated, but later fully-published letter about the work of Pope Francis, 'The small volumes show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates, despite all the differences of style and temperament.'"
"The inner continuity is real. It doesn't make them all the same. It does mean they were all, to a greater or lesser degree, on the same team: modernism."
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/04/remnant-skojec-are-wrong-in-saying.html?m=1]
Sorry, Steve, but if Benedict "agreed" with "everything" that "Francis has done" then they are the same. Skojec sounds like Francis who said that diversity of religions is only God's permitted will to Bishop Athanasius Schneider, but on paper says it is God's positive will. That is why he is called the public relations pope because he know how to use semantics like a public relations expert.
Steve and his close collaborator Hilary White need to know that words are not semantic games we can play with without disaster such as the following:
Did White's 2017 Twit bring about this Skojec Twit: “I don’t care what that means for papal infallibility” which means that he doesn't care if "Bergoglio lacks the grace of office...[because of] perhaps some violation of conclave rule, or perhaps some deficiency in Bergoglio’s acceptance of the election."
The Roma Loluta Est website agrees with much that Steve says about Benedict not still being pope, but it admits that it is possible "granting arguendo that it is evident Bergoglio lacks the grace of office, etc., it does not necessarily follow that Benedict is still pope. That is to say, there might be other reasons that Bergoglio is not a valid pope, without assuming Benedict is still pope (e.g., perhaps some violation of conclave rule, or perhaps some deficiency in Bergoglio’s acceptance of the election":
"6. As Msgr. Henry Gracida argues on his blog, abyssum.org: If Christ did not accept the resignation of Benedict as valid, because the act itself was not canonically valid per canon 188, then Christ would be obliged in justice to deprive Bergoglio of grace, so that his lack of being pope be MOST EVIDENT to all with Faith, Hope and Charity. But it is MOST EVIDENT to everyone, even non Catholics, that he has NOT the grace of God in him or in his actions. Ergo, either Christ is unjust, or Christ is just. He cannot be unjust. Ergo, Bergoglio is not pope!”
"O’Reilly replies: The argument is fallacious. While it may be valid in logic to say that if we accept the premise (i.e., Christ did not accept Benedict’s resignation) as true, then it necessarily follows Christ would deprive Bergoglio of the grace of office, etc. However, the argument in reverse does not necessarily follow. That is to say. granting arguendo that it is evident Bergoglio lacks the grace of office, etc., it does not necessarily follow that Benedict is still pope. That is to say, there might be other reasons that Bergoglio is not a valid pope, without assuming Benedict is still pope (e.g., perhaps some violation of conclave rule, or perhaps some deficiency in Bergoglio’s acceptance of the election (see Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows?, etc)."[https://www.google.com/amp/s/romalocutaest.com/2018/11/25/against-the-arguments-]
This gets us to the second point of my article in which Steve claims with Robert Sisceo that it is a "infallible certain[ty]" that despite much evidence of a unlawful conclave election that Francis is a 100% for sure a valid pope the SAME as Benedict and Pope John Paul II.
The problem apparently is Siscoe, who is Skojec's mentor in the "universal acceptance" claim, is possibly either a poor scholar or possibly a bit disingenuous in his leaving out the second part of a quote by a Doctor of the Church.
He says "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election... Here is what [Doctor of the Church] St. Alphonsus taught":
'It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff.'"
(TrueorFalsePope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope," 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here]
The problem with Siscoe's quote is he leaves out the very next sentence:
"'But if for a certain time, he was not accepted universally and truly by the Church, during that time then, the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at the death of a Pope.' 'Verita Della Fede', vol. VIII, p. 720.'"
(CathInfo.com, "Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal," December 2, 2017)
Did Siscoe leave it out because he is a poor scholar or for some other reason or because it said "for a certain time"? What does "for a certain time" mean?
Is that "certain time" immediately at the conclave or is it a few years after the conclave?
Does this possibly mean that since Francis "afterwards... for a certain time... was not accepted universally... then, the pontifical see would be vacant"?
Francis is not "accepted universally."
I am honored to know a successor of the Apostles, Bishop Rene Gracida, who questions the validity of Francis and is calling for the cardinals to investigate if he was "lawfully elected."
Moreover, Siscoe can't have it both ways in his quotes when they apparently contradict each other.
In the above same article he quotes John of St. Thomas saying:
"[T]his man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff."
(TrueorFalsePope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope," 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here]
This quote of John of St. Thomas agrees with renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll's declaration about valid popes having to be "lawfully elected":
Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not what some theologians say, canon law or how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the "election procedures... [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope":
"Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope)."
"During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals."
"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."
"Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims."
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]
But getting back to Siscoe's selective quote of St. Alphonsus, a good place to go to find out what the Doctor of the Church really meant is to go to a scholar who quotes him in full.
This is Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira who Siscoe respects as shown by his website:
"'Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira's Endorsement of 'True or False Pope?'" Note: Having recently learned of the passing of the great Brazilian scholar, Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, we are publishing a portion of his endorsement of True or False Pope?, which will appear in the upcoming second edition. (1-8-2019)" [http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/?m=1]
There is good reason to respect de Silveira's scholarship has he himself explained:
"In the 1970 Brazilian edition of my study of the heretical Pope, in the French edition of 1975 and in the Italian in 2016, I stated that on the grounds of the intrinsic theological reasons underpinning the Fifth Opinion I considered it not merely probable but certain. I chose not to insist on the qualification 'theologically certain' for an extrinsic reason, namely, that certain authors of weight do not adopt it.43 This was also the opinion of the then Bishop of Campos, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, as expressed in a letter of 25th January 1974, when he sent my work to Paul VI, asking him to point out any possible errors (which never took place), expressly stating that he referred to the study 'written by lawyer Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, with the contents of which I associate myself .'”
Here is what de Silveira say in his book "Implications Of New Missae And Heretic Popes":
"On this same sanatio in raclice by virtue of the acceptance of the Pope by the whole Church,
Saint Alphonse of Liguori writes, in less heated but perhaps even more incisive terms:
“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession
of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope,
since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not
been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been
vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff’ (2).
"4. The Election of a Person who Cannot Be Pope
"The designation, as Pope, of a person who cannot occupy the charge, would constitute a special
case of dubious election. For it is a common opinion (3) that the election of a woman, of a child, of a
demented person and of someone who were not a member of the Church (a person not baptized, a
heretic, an apostate, a schismatic) would be invalid by divine law.
"Among these causes of invalidity it seems to us that it would be necessary to distinguish those
which would admit of a “sanatio in radice” from those which would not. A woman could not become
Pope under any hypothesis. But the same thing would not apply with a demented person, who could be
cured; with a child, who could grow; with a non-baptized person, who could be converted.
"This being laid down, we ask: in the hypotheses of invalidity which admits of sanatio in radice ,
would the eventual acceptation by the whole Church of the invalidly elected Pope remedy the vices of
the election?
"A complete answer to this question would require a detailed analysis of each of the cases of
invalidity. And this would exceed the objectives which we have set for ourselves.
"Such being the case, we shall only consider the hypothesis which is most relevant to the
perspective in which we place ourselves: The election of a heretic to the Papacy. What would happen if
a notorious heretic were elected and assumed the Pontificate without anyone having contested his
election?
(1) Billot , Tract de Eccl. Christi, tom. I, pp. 612-613.
(2) Saint Alphonse de Liquori , Verita della Fede, in “Opera...”, vol. VIII. P. 720, n. 9.
(3) See: Ferreres , Inst. Canonicae, tom. I, p. 132; Coronata , Inst, luris Canonici, vol. I, p. 360; Schmalzqrueber ,
lus Eccl. Univ., tom. I, pars II, p. 376, n. 99; Caietan , De Auctoriatate..., cap. XXVI, n. 382, pp. 167-168.
187
"At first sight, the answer to this question is, in theory , very simple: since God cannot permit that
the whole Church err about who is her chief, the Pope peacefully accepted by the whole Church is the
true Pope (1). It would be the duty of the theologians, on the basis of this clear theoretical principle, to
resolve the concrete question which would then be put: either proving that in reality the Pope had not
been a formal and notorious heretic at the moment of election; or showing that afterwards he had been
converted; or verifying that the acceptation by the Church had not been pacific and universal; or
presenting any other plausible explanation.
"A more attentive examination of the question would reveal, nevertheless, that even on purely
theoretical grounds, an important difficulty arises, which would consist in determining precisely what is the concept of pacific and universal acceptation by the Church.
For such acceptation to have been
pacific and universal would it be enough that no Cardinal had contested the election?
Would it be
enough that in a Council, for example, almost the totality of the Bishops had signed the acts, recognizing
in this way, at least implicitly, that the Pope be the true one?
Would it be enough that no voice, or
practically no voice had publicly given the cry of alert?
Or, on the contrary, would a certain very
generalized though not always well defined distrust be sufficient to destroy the apparently pacific and
universal character of the acceptance of the Pope?
And if this distrust became a suspicion in numerous
spirits, a positive doubt in many, a certainty in some, would the aforementioned pacific and universal acceptance subsist?
And if such distrusts, suspicions, doubts and certainties cropped out with some
frequency in conversations or private papers, or now and again in published writings, could one still
classify as pacific and universal the acceptance of a Pope who was already a heretic on the occasion of
his election by the Sacred College?" [https://archive.org/stream/ SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissa eAndHereticPopes/Silveira% 20Implications%20of%20New% 20Missae%20and%20Heretic% 20Popes_djvu.txt]
It is obvious that the renowned theologian de Silveira does not think that St. Alphonsus taught what Siscoe claims he taught that "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election... Here is what [Doctor of the Church] St. Alphonsus taught": 'It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff. [The rest of the quote of St. Alphonsus is left out.]'"
(TrueorFalsePope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope," 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here]
Does Siscoe think that "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election" includes "curing" such "defects" as:
- "a special case of dubious [unlawful] election. For it is a common opinion (3) that the election of a woman, of a child, of a demented person and of someone who were not a member of the Church (a person not baptized, a heretic, an apostate, a schismatic) would be invalid by divine law."
- Renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not what some theologians say, canon law or how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the "election procedures... [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope."
"... But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."
On top of all the evidence above even if in a parallel universe "universal acceptance" was infallible or certain then it still doesn't work. Francis is not "accepted universally."
I am honored to know a successor of the Apostles, Bishop Gracida, who denies the "universal acceptance" of Francis, questions the idea of "universal acceptance" and is calling for the cardinals to investigate if he was "lawfully elected." Bishop Gracida declared:
"I am in receipt of an email from Steve Skojec, publisher of the website OnePeterFive in which he defends his posts in which he argues for the validity of the election of Francis the Merciful on the basis of the 'universal acceptance' of Francis’ election by the world’s Catholic population."
"The idea of “universal acceptance” of the election of popes of the past may have had it’s origin in the first centuries of the Church when popes were chosen by acclamation of the assembled citizens of Rome, and perhaps later when the princes and kings of Europe decided on the legitimacy of papal contestants in the time of the Avignon captivity of the papacy."
"But the idea of “universal acceptance” as the principle determining the validity of Francis’ claim to the Chair of Peter is absurd in this day of instant electronic communication. There is not a world-wide Pew or Gallup poll that can determine the degree of “acceptance” of the Bergolian regime as valid by the world’s Catholic population."
"From the moment that Francis appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica improperly dressed and accompanied by men of known or suspected homosexual orientation many Catholics besides myself were shocked and dismayed."
"Almost immediately almost every word publicly uttered by Francis shocked Catholic sensibilities, such as telling the woman with several children to “stop breeding like rabbits.” Many Catholics withheld their “acceptance” and adopted a wait-and-see attitude."
"Then the Amoris Laeticia debacle unfolded and now an even larger percentage of Catholic around the world began to express reservations about the ‘papacy’ of Francis the Merciful. There was never universal acceptance of the validity of Jorge Bergolio." [https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/ ]
Francis is not "accepted universally." But, even more important, it is obvious that besides "acceptance" a valid pope needs to be "lawfully elected."
Finally, I ask Siscoe and Steve to specifically answer if Francis was not "lawfully elected" then does a "peaceful and universal acceptance" overturn a unlawful election?
More importantly, why are Siscoe and Skojec apparently so afraid of a investigation by cardinals since they continually ignore or avoid addressing the subject by the "universal acceptance" mantra?
I ask both to please give a specific answer to why they are apparently so afraid of a investigation. Now, finally, for the latest correspondence which started because of this article "How many Dr. Kwasniewskis does it take to Change a Light Bulb?':
How many Dr. Kwasniewskis does it take to change a light bulb?
Two: One to change the light bulb and one to change it back.
How many thought polices does it take to screw a light bulb?
None: There never was any light bulb.
In the serious side, please pray for Dr. Peter Kwasniewski. I consider him to be a man of great learning and courage especially for signing the Open Letter.
One can only imagine the culture of fear that surrounds him which caused him to change a short Amazon review at least three times on Antonio Socci's book which just presents evidence that Pope Francis may be a Antipope. [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/05/how-many-dr-kwasnieskis-does-it-take-to.html?m=1]
After this piece was posted began the recent email correspondence between Skojec and myself:
On Jun 1, 2019 7:03 AM, Steve Skojec wrote:
Culture of fear, eh?
Has it occurred to you, Fred, that perhaps Dr. Kwasniewski is simply concerned about expressing his mind clearly? As someone who publishes him on a regular basis, I can tell you he makes iterative revisions to many of his pieces, sometimes even after they're published. He's a very particular thinker, and wants to get things right.
On a topic this important, I think that's an admirable trait.
Steve Skojec
Publisher & Executive Director
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019, 5:33 PM Fred Martinez wrote:
Steve,
I agree. Dr. Kwasniewskis expressed himself very clearly in his revision from "who have proved in detail" to "who argue" and from "persuaded me otherwise" to "gave me much to think about."
Best,
Fred
On Jun 2, 2019 7:17 PM, Steve Skojec wrote:
You should just come right out and call him a liar. At least be a man about it.
Fred Martinez To:Steve Skojec
You are the one calling him a liar.
You need to be a man.
You need to come out about it and admit that your theory about "universal acceptance" is a fraud or counter what we have thrown in your face.
Be a man about it and don't run away hiding from everything Bishop Gracida and I presented to you. I dare you to do a piece countering us point by point on IP5.
PS- It appears you didn't get the sarcasm in the reply I send you on your email to me on Dr. Kwasniewski.
On Jun 3, 2019 11:38 AM, Steve Skojec wrote: Wait until you find out how Taylor Marshall really feels about Benevacantism.
Steve Skojec
Publisher & Executive Director
Fred Martinez To:Steve Skojec
One name on his whole sedevacantist stuff: St. Francis de Sales. It was a chance to go after Mirus and his [Marshall's] historical book has value.
And as they say that's the whole story or what it is was all about.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church, for Skojec and the Catholic Monitor.
Comments
And with all of that, you left off my last email, which makes the point you've demonstrated here: brevity eludes you.
That last email, for the record, says this:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Steve Skojec
Date: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: How many Dr. Kwasniewskis does it take to Change a Light Bulb?
To: Fred Martinez
I'm not calling him a liar. I'm saying he recognized he wasn't sufficiently clear. He told me from the outset he wasn't 100% convinced, even though he thought Socci made a persuasive case. He realized after I asked him about it that he hadn't been as clear as he meant to be. But now everyone in Benevacantism land is accusing him of dishonesty driven by fear. Peter doesn't just work with me, he's a friend. I don't take kindly to these attacks on my friends.
Universal Acceptance is a long-established understanding of the Church that enjoys a consensus of theologians. It's not "my theory". And it's certainly not a fraud.
You mistake the fact that your arguments don't merit as much attention as you want them to have for fear. I have no fear of an investigation, I have no fear that your theory will ever be proven correct. You're on the wrong side of history, and I have faith that this will be proven in time.
As for daring me, what are you, a child? How about instead of making dares, you find a way to write a succinct, point-by-point iteration of your thesis, along with documentary evidence. Make an attempt to prove your case in less than a thousand words. Use bullet points or numbers. Give your critics an opportunity to respond to something less meandering than post after post of conjecture, or two-hour long rants from Ann, etc. Can you actually make the case? If you did, I'd consider a refutation. I'm not going to do the work of tidying up a bunch of sloppy thinking to offer a rebuttal that you'll only dismiss out of pure confirmation bias. Let's deal in facts instead.
Can any of you actually make an elevator pitch for your thesis that is compelling? I highly doubt it.
My "be a man" was in direct reference to your passive aggressive statements about Peter K. Don't beat around the bush if you're going to call a man a liar. Come right out and say it.
As I said before, misrepresentation seems to be a habit of yours.
Everyone can see that you didn't or can't answer the problems with your theory.
If you can't follow the arguments made in this post I honestly feel sorry for you.
I feel sorry for you, also, because you have Ann in the brain. It seems like she is haunting your brain. You have lost your mind if you think Bishop Gracida and I are following the mastermind Ann's talking points.
Anyone with half a brain can see the difference.
In the streets I grew up in what you did was called "disrespecting."
It got my old bad instincts up and I apologize for overreacting.
I hate to say this to you, but you don't have the ability to physically intimidate me.
You remind me of punks that I knew growing up who had big mouths and no backbone that sometimes needed to be taught a lesson.
My "be a man" was in direct reference to the "disrespect" you have shown to a Successor of the Apostles Bishop Gracida in refusing to answer him. I am nothing. I am only representing him. If he told me to stop writing. I would stop in a second.
As I said before, semantics and refusing to answer the numerous problems in your theory is a habit of your.
Your other habit is being a coward unless you don't have the mental ability to understand the questions.
If you can't understand the post above then find find someone to slowly walk you through it and stop being like Francis who, also, is afraid to answer the 5 questions or Dubias.
You either can't make a "refutation" of the questions because you don't have the mental ability or you're afraid to answer the questions.
Get back to me when you all have a real argument. Until then, have fun tilting at windmills.
Truth is Jesus Christ.
Get back to me when you find someone to help you understand simple arguments or overcome you fear.
Until then, have fun running away.
Now this is the SAME Skojec who keeps fapping the axiom of: Truth = Simplicity:
"If it can't be explained simply in this space, then the theory is too complex to be of any use. Truths don't take long exposition to state. They're usually able to be expressed in straightforward propositions." ~ Steve Skojec (Twitter 5:18 AM - 19 Feb 2019)
So now Skojec has gone from simple spoken "Truthines" to his current complex convoluted pedantic semantics. So now ole Salesman Stevie (theology expert extraordinaire) has gone from the simplicity of a few words in a simple phrase - to the complexity of parsing out a selective (distorted) meaning to each word. In other words - Skojec is all about the "elevator pitch" of marketing his version of "truthiness" and within that simplistic short pitch - lies the devil in the details of the words themselves. So Skojec simply vacillates between the simplistic and pedantically complex of convoluted BS according to whichever corner he's painted himself into. And THIS my friends is a what PR bullshit artist does. They sell their version of "truth".
Ah to be so learned and wise after "theology" classes at Franciscan University in Stupidville.... Skojec is all things to all suckers.
Behold his longwinded two-part screed in the comments section as he twists himself into knots with his analysis paralysis of his pedantic semantics of sloppy convoluted bullshit- and all it amounts to is his reluctance to admit that his premise was wrong: there is no "formal definition" from the Church that a pope universally accepted *IS* infallibly certain. To which Stevie then restates - that it most certainly IS an absolute infallible certainty - even though no one in the Church has ever defined the *SEMANTICS* of the terms of that baseless assertions - much less the accuracy of its basic premise. LOL
Semantic Stevie - Marketing "Truthiness" by baffling with bullshit. Because the Devil is in the details of every sales that begins with an elevator pitch.
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/03/why-are-siscoe-and-skojec-apparently-so.html?m=1
I suspect what you highly doubt is your ability to counter the actual argument so you blow smoke -- maybe that's why you're so hot on the cigar pics. But it's clear as day that you're projecting your own issues/shortcomings -- AGAIN.
LoL.
(CathInfo.com, "Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal," December 2, 2017)
++++++++++
One assumes that "universally" does not mean every single Catholic - more than a billion. The vast majority of Catholics think Franciscus is Pope. How many catholics are there who do not think Franciscus is Pope?
One would think far less than 1%
You seem to have omitted the details where
A) Skojec originally tried to pass off his "universally accepted" farce as some sort of irreproachably defined formally infallible doctrine of the Church - and when called on that fallacy - he then tried to
B) Pass off a *new* premise of amateur bullshittery with "I am not claiming that John of St. Thomas's definition of Universal Acceptance was infallible, I *AM* claiming that a pope universally accepted *IS* infallibly certain." - Now try wrapping your head around that sophistry of double-speak self-defeating sale-pitch of semantic manure: Which is nothing more than saying
C) A pope "universally accepted" *IS* infallibly certain - even though there IS NO formal (much less infallible) definition of "universally accepted" - Now, see how Semantic Stevie can't stop lying with his 14 levels of semantic bullshit? Especially when he's been clearly busted? And
D) THIS is the same Simplistic Stevie who says all Truthiness should be expressed only in short simple language - or else it's less than truthiness. But back to his revised definition of "Universally Accepted" - it was
E) NEVER lying-Skojec's original point - which was "Yah,Jorge is "universally accepted! Period. The end. Case closed you ridiculous Benevacantists!"
and he passed that erroneous assertion off by selectively edited partial quotes from his Saintly authorities which skewed the entire context. And whats worse, Skojec implied then that:
F) Fred was too stupid to understand that original (revise) lie of Semantic Stevie's. All of which brings as to the most salient point about Juvenile Skojec:
G) He's a bomb-throwing thin-skinned juvenile punk who has an increasingly nasty habit of drawing first blood by insulting people who dare disagree with him. And he knee-jerk reacts with disparaging remarks and denigrating insinuations - while painting himself as some brilliant well-educated self-appointted theologian of True Catholicity - from Fankyican University of Stupdiville no less.
So while you're getting your selfrighteous holy knickers in a virtuous twist - you might want to go back and highlight Semantic Stevie's sins among your haughty disapproval of "these Christian" - lest someone might think you're just Stevie's little self-promoting sockpuppet. Which you probably are.
One would think far less than 1%"
There is no doctrine that defines "Universally Accepted" - so a counter-argument of majority percentages is a moot point.
Thank God for brave Athanasius and the 1% who held firm and true with him.
That said, and I am only speaking for myself, if I had contempt or hatred for the person of Steve and not for the sin he did I apologize. I spoke to a priest friend today and he said I should apologize for remarks about his mental capacity and other demeaning remarks I may have made. I apologize to Steve and everyone now. That said I still say the arguments made were valid.
I have been praying alot for Steve because it is obvious something is wrong there. But more importantly, I want all of you came who to my defense to know that I will start a novena today for you. Thank you, again.
what skojec(and his followers)can't seem to get through his(their)thick head is that Universal Acceptance isn't, and has never been The LAW, so using it as an argument either for or against a valid papacy is a ridiculous straw man.
as canon and civil law expert +Rene Henry Gracida, emeritus of Corpus Christi Texas, points out,Universi Dominici Gregis is the Only LAW which applies; and by This LAW only validly appointed, non-excommunicated, pre-conclave cardinals are the only interpreters in any dispute about This LAW's application to the "disputed bergoglio election and papacy" (not to mention the disputed "bifurcated" abdication.)
Phillip Campbell said "These goofy people often email me with some ridiculous thesis and then "dare" me to rebut it "if I am able" and then accuse me of being a coward for not responding to their random challenge--it's obvious these people who think others have time for this have no lives other than arguing on the internet."
Hypocritical Steve Skojec responded "It's their entire MO. Check out this ridiculousness. I told this Fred Martinez guy he could publish our entire (brief) email exchange. I encourage him to come up with a brief argument in favor of his thesis. Instead, this discursive, self-aggrandizing mess issued forth. And the people in the comments? Yeesh:"
https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/.../monitor-be-man...
And do note the irony of The Self-Aggrandizing Social-Media-Addict (Steve Skojec) projecting his own psychological dysfunctions onto us "goofy people" who apparently are the ones who have "no lives other than arguing on the internet."
Now just let that incredible hypocrisy of his settle in for a moment.
His entire FB thread on this matter is nothing but him and his little self-appointed arrogant empty-headed "scholars" sneering at all of us mouth-breathing rubes.
Meanwhile - I'm still waiting for Skojec and his ilk to actually START DEMONSTRATING THEIR FULL SUBMISSION TO THEIR HERETICAL ANTI-POPE whom they swear is a legitimate Holy Father. Because thus far I've seen no evidence of any sort of "submission" to him. Unless of course "submission" means clinging to the unfounded fantasy that Jorge's election was somehow licit - while waiting for some future Council in the year 2525 to finally declare him an antipope so we can all breathe a sigh of relief from Hell knowing that we played along with the antichrist's charade. Because...reasons.
So there's that.
I agree with your last post.
Whenever Christ is minimized and self is maximized, something is wrong.
So much of this cr** is merely ego driven desire to “win” and to look good for the peanut gallery. As I said elsewhere: all heat, no light.
The ego is a consuming fire. It must be nailed to one’s cross and then follow in the bloody path of Jesus. He left all of his heavenly glory behind and became one of us ... to show us the way. The bloody way. No room for ego and self promotion on the bloody walk to Calvary. Live like He did. And as His Mother, love only Him; promote only Him; live and die only for Him.
(CathInfo.com, "Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal," December 2, 2017)
Does that mean because the sedevacantists (who have been in existence far longer than have the Benevacantists and are undoubtedly more numerous ) do not accept any Pope since Pius XII that we have no Pope and haven't had a Pope since the death of Pius XII and we could not have any Pope in the future because no Cardinals created by the last living Pope are living to vote?
Of course not. The death of common sense is not a pleasant thing to witness.
One does not have to have "accepted universally" defined by the Church as it surely means moral universally not numerical universally.
"But if for a certain time, he was not accepted universally and truly by the Church, during that time then, the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at the death of a Pope.' 'Verita Della Fede', vol. VIII, p. 720.'"
(CathInfo.com, "Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal," December 2, 2017)
Define the length of "a certain time" Show me the official declaration in years. Because the Chair has been vacant for almost three years in the 13th century.
"One does not have to have "accepted universally" defined by the Church as it surely means moral universally not numerical universally."
Moral universality? So you've gone from citing a numerical percentage of accepted universality to a .... uhm what?
What the hell is "moral universality"? And where is that codified in Canon Law in relevance to the Papacy? Especially when you're applying it to this obvious heretical antipope who rules with the ruthless iron fist of a Soviet Dictator.
No, the death of commonsense is not a pleasant thing. And it smells most putrid when its dead bones are used as kindling for invented novelties of desperate deviance of the objective realities before us.
You know - like pope "emeritus" and "moral universality" and "liberation theology" and "ecumenicism" and changing the words of Our Lord's Prayer......
The Catholic Church has a Pope and his name is Francis.
Benedict XVI made it clear he resigned and he has publicly stated, more than once ,that any ideas contrary to that are absurd and so you are welcome to the absurdity of your-no-longer-Pope who abdicated.
When Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger dies, you and Mario Derksen (sedevcantist of Novus Ordo Blog) can have a cage match to determine who the next Pope will be.
It will be no more absurd than the Benevacantist movement but it will have the bonus of being amusing and entertaining.
No. I've never heard of "moral universally" validating the authenticity of a legitimate papacy - and neither have you.
And the current "Catholic Church" has a Pope *EMERITUS* AND a "Pope"
- now show me that in Sacred scripture and Sacred Tradition. Because it doesn't exist.
And no, BXVI only made it clear by his actions that he *partially* resigned: he resigned from ministry and NOT from the office. Which is why he still calls himself "Pope", dresses like the Pope, gives papal blessings, writes papal letters, and lives in Vatican City. Can you cite for me any other time in history where such a novelty occurred?
Meanwhile - you and Skojec can keep fapping your "commonsense" and "logic" against your inane reality where both of you are openly rejecting the obvious heresies of your criminal antipope, all the while awaiting some imaginary future Council from the Apocalyptic hereafter to formally declare then at that time - the reality you're currently living now. Which would mean you're currently declaring a living heretic "Pope" - whom a future Council will be forced to recognize later had in fact - *LOST HIS CHAIR* in our current time - which would mean the Chair will be ipso facto VACANT when BXVI dies - according to your OWN faulty premise.
So your own faulty paradigm is self-defeating. And it is left with the maddening supposition that an empty Chair is somehow much more damaging to "the faith" than a Chair occupied by an AntiPope of the AntiChrist misleading and raping The Bride of Christ from within.
Which leads us to the next question: IF your definition of "the gates of Hell will not prevail" is correct - then WHY did Christ clearly state the very real and probable Apocalyptic reality of the Church virtually disappearing?
"when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" ~ Luke 18:8...?
CORRECTION: which would mean the Chair IS CURRENTLY ipso facto VACANT even with BXVI alive- according to your OWN faulty premise.
You win.
Adios
What nobody at any point now , or ever in history, has demonstrated, is how "peaceful universal acceptance" will make a pope a non-pope. In other words, the appeal to "universal acceptance" applies only under conditions of "sede vacante" , not under conditions when there is a pope still reigning!!
Are we expected to believe that Christ must unbind Himself from the true Peter on the say-so of an invalid conclave?
That is so true. This is not about scoring debate points and “winning” against a fellow Catholic.
This is about exposing a disaster at the center of our Church, working to expunge it and restore peace.
Exactly. And your salient point goes to the very heart of the evil that this Hellish assault on the papacy was intended to instigate: Strike the Shepherd and the flock will scatter. And that scattering can only be caused by the divisions of stubborn personal pride that stems from the looming fears that the Petrine Office might not quite be what the centuries of political motives and arrogance of power have construed it to be. It is clear that the Church could not have come to this insane paradigm without the assistance of some serious errors from previous Councils that sowed the seeds of this Diabolic confusion long ago.
But what is most insufferable, is this rise of the Catholic pharisees; the self-appointed Sanhedrin of the "intellectual" superior class. The all wise, all knowing, insufferably arrogant narcissistic Light-bearers who look in the mirror each day - and think to themselves:
"Who is like me? Just look at my academic achievements! Just look at how they document my supreme intellectual authority! Just look at the number of subscribers I have to my website! Just look at the number of books I've sold! Just look at my awesome powers of persuasion to make fame and fortune from my supreme gift of intelligence!"
And before they know it - "the Truth" has become for them - whatever they can persuade the greatest number of people to believe. And the entire paradigm is like an intoxicating drug of self-confirming spiritual masturbation for them. It's a shallow form of public self-love. And before they know it - somehow, their motives have morphed - IF they weren't already bastardized from the onset. Suddenly, humility has become their greatest fear. To possibly be wrong would mean for them that *their* credibility is a lie - a fate worse than death itself for the haughty, and not that they are even concerned that Truth itself might suffer - but that their own petty pride would suffer. After all, who would want to buy into a pharisee who wasn't cocksure of his absolute moral certitude in his own specially appointed leadership from the Divine?
This is the class of Catholics who know all the references and stare aghast at those of us who haven’t read and know everything.
But, Catholics were never required ... to know everything. Faith. Hope. Love. Jesus Christ. The Sacraments that connect us to Him. Simple enough for the simplest hard working laborer.
One thing this crisis has taught me, through it all, in a purgatorial kind of way,over years now, is to recognize the low worth of human achievement (we all do this “Sanhedrin” sort of thing in our own unlearned way) and turn to Christ; only Christ. I see myself with the Blessed Mother and with the apostle John, following in Christ’s bloody footsteps. I train myself, gradually, every day for that purpose. That is the only place I wish to be until the end of life. There is no room for blog argument “victories” there. Perspective and relief from my own insufferable ego is there on Via Crucis.