Skip to main content

Infallibility: Is 1P5 Skojec a "Double Agent" who keeps Catholics "Confused... a Whining Bunch of Scandalmong[ers] rather than United in any Useful Purpose"?

- Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book "Magister Authority" shows that almost all Francis apologists be they liberal, conservative or traditionalist are "proximate to heresy":

"[T]reating ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in Vatican I... by essentially saying the pope is infallible regardless of conditions..."

"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)

- Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in "Si Papa":

"'Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to the task of having deviated from the faith. (Si Papa)'"

"Pope Innocent III: 'For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.' (propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judican)"
(The Remnant, "Answering a Sedevacantist Critic," March 18, 2015)

At times, I have found that the comments in the Catholic Monitor comment section are better than my post. This was true of the last post in which Jack wrote a deeply insightful comment that mirrored Fr. Rippinger's above explanation of Vatican I and Pope Innocent III's "in the matter of the faith I [and all popes and antipopes] could be judged by the Church" and he covered many other matters.

However, prior to getting to it, I want to thank all the loyal Catholic Monitor readers and commenters for their prayers especially Praypraypray and Therese who are prayer warriors and the vast majority of CM commenters for their wisdom.

Also, I want to say, unlike Jack, I am not inclined to think that One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec is a "double agent," but it appears to me that he does keep Catholics "confused... a whining bunch of scandalmong[ers] rather than united in any useful purpose."

Here is the great comment by Jack:

"People who imagine that Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility is circular, tautological, or otherwise redundant imagine that the dogma goes like this: "Solemn papal definitions are infallible, because the pope has the power of infallibility." Which is like saying, 'it's right because the pope says it's right.'"

"This would be to set up the pope as a kind of god, since only God is truly self-justifying like this, right simply because He is right, because He is Truth itself by His very essence."

"I think in the wake of liberalism and its undermining of all authority, Catholics rallied to the pope and after Vatican I made this kind of mistake, at least implicitly, that the pope is right because he is right. But this is just another human error, setting up a man in God's place, undermining authority in an even more subtle way."

"The pope is not right because he says he's right, and he's not infallible simply because he has the power of infallibility (although he is and he does). Vatican I is very clear. The pope is infallible BECAUSE Christ gave the keys to Peter and his Successors, and HE guaranteed by HIS divine power that the pope would never err in his solemn teaching capacity. This is perhaps a subtle distinction, but it makes a profound difference. It means that our faith is not centred on the person of the pope, but centred on Christ just has it has always been."

"So when we come across a pope who appears to be erring in doctrine, the first thing we should ask is whether he is really erring or not. And if he is erring, the next thing to ask is whether his papacy is legitimate or whether he's an antipope. But for people with a worldly mindset who are too willing to accept the world's opinions and maintain their public image, and who's faith is more centred on the person of the pope than on the person of Christ, they would rather deny Vatican I and become heretics than accuse a possible antipope (despite there having been many, many antipopes in history) and fall temporarily out of favour."

"To be honest at this point I would not be surprised if Skojec is a kind of double agent and 1p5 a false-opposition operation designed to keep potential critics of the regime confused and pigeonholed. Keep traditionalists as a whining bunch of scandalmongerers rather than united in any useful purpose."

Lastly, here is my simple post that hopefully helped inspire Jack in his exceptional comment:

It appears that One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec's infallible opinion that the Francis papacy cannot be invalid under any circumstances is leading him towards heresy.

Yesterday on Twitter, Skojec said to @JoshuaPotryus and @MikeJon:

"The problem is that infallibility appears to be tautological at best and borders on superstition at worst."

A example of a tautology is former Vice President Dan Quayle's:

"If we do not succeed, we run the risk of failure."

A possible Skojec tautology might go:

"If Francis is not a valid pope, we run the risk of Francis being a antipope" which may lead to this possible Skojec tautology:

"I believe Vatican I's papal infallibly teaching "appears... [to border] on superstition," so I accept as true that that infallible dogma "appears... [to border]" on being a unfounded belief."

It appears that Skojec's logic goes something like the following:

"Francis's papal validity is a 100% infallible belief and if anyone doubts it they are a schismatic therefore Vatican I's infallible teaching on papal infallibly "appears to be a tautological at best and borders on superstition at worst."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.


Therese said…
Jack's comment is a great one and deserves wide distribution. Every Catholic ought to read it; this alone could save us a lot of trouble.

I'd like to put in a good word for M. Matt's call for 'uniting the clans'; he's received a healthy amount of criticism for this idea. The one thing he's NOT calling for is dialogue, thanks be to God. Rather he seems to be observing a common wartime phenomenon: when faced by an enemy, many people tend to separate the wheat from the chaff fairly quickly--they ditch their cherished ideology in favor of what is real. I won't say the result is pretty or even lasting (the example of the partisans at the end of WWII comes to mind). But it can happen, and given the ugliness of what's upon us, I do believe it will.
Fred Martinez said…
Dear Therese,

Thank you for your prayers, wisdom and your charitable presence at the Catholic Monitor.
Praypraypray said…
Thank you very much for the Catholic Monitor. I’ve enjoyed reading many, many articles.
It struck me when you noted that the commentators comments are, at times, better than your posts. It takes a grounded, humble man to write that.
I pray for all of the people who are still trying to figure out Francis. It seems that a lot of people are poorly catechized and so they are fearful and don’t know what to think, say, or do. I pray that God exposes the truth and helps everyone to clearly see it and follow through from there.
Many years ago, before I had the chance to pro-life sidewalk counsel, I used to think that if I just told people the truth and explained the facts, they would all of a sudden realize it and turn against abortion and walk away from the abortion mill. When I started actually sidewalk counseling, I realized that it is very much a spiritual battle waged against mankind by the devil and his minions bent on the destruction of the body and soul.
When I explained that “fetus” means little one and it is a human baby with human DNA and not just a blob of cells or the woman’s body, since the child has separate DNA, many of those who are fearful or angry and bent on abortion, still go through with the killing of the babies. Often, I repeat the old saying, “No man is so blind as he who refuses to see.”
I try to figure out Why they refuse to see... Some refuse to see, because they are caught up in a lot of terrible evil, such as the people working at or for the abortion mills. Other people are very selfish and seem to be only concerned with their own happiness. However, it seems that a great deal of those going for abortion are frightened or fearful. They are so blinded by fear, that they refuse to see. They want to keep their eyes closed or put their heads in the sand, because they themselves, with what knowledge they have, cannot compute. They’re so scared that they walk right past any true help on their hurried way to get the deed done. The evil one and his minions are behind that fear and the push for them to do evil. Of course, after they do the evil acts, the evil one is right there to accuse them of the acts. He’d be pleased to cause them to commit suicide over their guilt.
I tell the post-abortive women that the devil is the accuser, but Jesus is our advocate. I tell
them that we are not against them, but we are against abortion and we are there for them and praying for them. We tell they should talk/pray to God and make their peace with Him.
One of my dear friends is post-abortive and she comes out to sidewalk counsel other women so they don’t do what she did and do not go through what she has gone through and still goes through, as she thinks about her baby daily. She’s a courageous Christian woman who inspires so many people and helps to save many lives and families.
I pray that God lifts the veil for people to truly see and believe the truth and think, talk, and act accordingly. It seems that we are in a terrible spiritual battle concerning Francis and the Vatican. Another old notation that often comes to mind was from a prophecy, that, “...even the elect will be fooled.” I pray that people wake up to the truth and that God helps them to think, say, and do the right thing, even if it’s the hardest choice. Of course, we know that verse, “The Truth will set you free.”
Aqua said…
PrayPrayPray: you have seen evil up close and can testify to the power of demons to bind a soul to their will. They truly are what we are up against. Not lack of knowledge. But evil. Demons in battle array. This is what Pope St. Leo XIII saw in his vision that caused him to faint - what had been loosed from hell into the world.

And against that, against demons loosed in the world for a time, wisdom and knowledge and facts and dogma will not prevail. The only solution is contained in your chosen name. Pray. Pray. Pray. The victory belongs to God. And we should, while acting as we can, call on His name.

By the way, thank you for your defense of the unborn children. May God bless your work, and produce many more penitents like your friend.
Fr. VF said…
Not a single statement of Bergoglio's is infallible, because he carefully refrains from making a statement with the FORM required for infallibility. When it comes to the content of his various pronouncements, they are, some of them, heretical. That is, they contradict the church's teaching. But he contradicts himself on occasion, and in general, speaks with great indirection and ambiguity, carefully choosing words that are not Terms of Art in theology, such as "inadmissible." And he spreads his heresies through his stooges, most of the time. Thus, he can weasel out of the charge of "contradicting" the Church's teaching.

The whole subject of infallibility is a diversion. Discussing it is a waste of time because Bergoglio carefully avoids any statement that could be described as a formal, solemn definition of anything.
Fred Martinez said…

It is good to have you back. I was a bit worried about you because we hadn't heard from you in so long. As always thank you for your kindness and wisdom. Please continue to pray for the Catholic Monitor and me. I will pray for you and your baby saving work.
Aqua said…
Fr. VF: What you describe is true and is the nature of devious Jesuits.

The Dubia, however, cannot be any more clear: Precise formulations of Dogma. By definition, not answering them, as Pope, when formally asked, is to admit their opposite. And that is heresy.

Asked. Answered. Case closed as far as I’m concerned. No Jesuitical wiggle room there.
Therese said…
"Not a single statement of Bergoglio's is infallible, because he carefully refrains from making a statement with the FORM required for infallibility." Father, I have noticed it too. This wickedness is deliberate--he's not merely ignorant, as some have claimed.

Thank you, Mr. Martinez. I comment almost nowhere else.
Fred Martinez said…
Fr. VF,

You're right about Francis, but all the apparently ignorant liberal, conservative, and traditionalist Francis apologists are pushing the "proximate to heresy" lie that everything a pope or possibly invalid papacy says is "infallible" including outright heresy and mortal sin putting in danger their eternal salvation and all who listen to them.
2:15 PM              



Popular posts from this blog

Mainstream Media: "Is America the Real Victim of Anti-Russia Sanctions?" & "Biden's arrogant anti-Russian sanctions have amounted to a price hike on working class Americans that have so far failed to weaken the Russian economy"

  Mainstream Media Acknowledges Biden’s “Arrogant” Sanctions On Russia Are Damning Americans:     @MaxBlumenthal Biden's arrogant anti-Russian sanctions have amounted to a price hike on working class Americans that have so far failed to weaken the Russian economy. His neocon policy accelerates the process of de-dollarization, diplomatic isolation & imperial decline. The mainstream new outlet asked "Is America the Real Victim of Anti-Russia Sanctions?": Remember the claims that Russia’s economy was more or less irrelevant, merely the equivalent of a small, not very impressive European country? “Putin, who has an economy the size of Italy,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in 2014 after the invasion of Crimea, “[is] playing a poker game with a pair of twos and winning.” Of increasing Russian diplomatic and geopolitical influence in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, The Economist asked in 2019, “How did a country with an economy the size of Spain … ach

Book Review: The Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church by Dr. Geoffrey Hull (minor update) Book Review: The Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church by Dr. Geoffrey Hull (minor update) Dr Geoffrey Hull source: Once every now and then one finds an author capable of approaching a daunting subject with remarkable clairvoyance, not muddling himself among polemics or minutiae. Dr. Geoffrey Hull is one such author. His  The Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church  recalls that old saying that the truth is not between two positions, but rather above them. Hull examines the roots of the twentieth century liturgical overhaul by rising above the disputes between liberals and traditionalists that have raged on for five decades and taking a long, far-sighted look back centuries more, to the late first millennium, when the Roman liturgy was maturing, the Roman patriarchate was expanding its missionary presence in Western and Eastern Europe, and the