Skojec: Francis's Validity "is Infallibly Certain," but "Infallibility appears to be Tautological at Best... Superstition at Worst"
One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec is giving me some good laughs.
Today, on Twitter, Skojec seriously wrote:
"[A] pope universally accepted upon his election is infallibly certain. A dogmatic fact."
"Francis was universally accepted. That's a dogmatic fact."
He is claiming that it is "dogmatic fact" that Francis's papal validity "is infallibly certain," but the funny thing is that he said on Twitter on September 3 that he believes the Vatican I infallible dogma of papal "infallibility appears to be tautological [meaningless circular reasoning or logical fallacy] at best and borders on superstition [a unfounded belief] at worst."
So, apparently, Skojec's "infallible certain" belief in the "dogmatic fact" of Francis's papal validity is meaningless circular reasoning or a logical fallacy "at best" or a unfounded belief "at worst."
Humor aside, the ironic thing is that when you really investigate Skojec's "universal acceptance" idea in it's totality it turns out to be based on unfounded beliefs and logical fallacy.
One quick example is the cornerstone theologian that Skojec relies on for the whole edifice of his idea: "universal acceptance" theologian John of St. Thomas.
He has to rely on him because he has no infallible dogma, Doctor of the Church teaching or even saint teaching to back up his idea.
But, even the non-saint and non-Doctor of the Church John of St. Thomas said "This man in particular LAWFULLY ELECTED and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff."
The central question to if a papacy is valid or invalid even according to the cornerstone of Skojec's entire idea says a UNLAWFULLY ELECTED pontiff even if "accepted" is a invalid pope or a antipope.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
Today, on Twitter, Skojec seriously wrote:
"[A] pope universally accepted upon his election is infallibly certain. A dogmatic fact."
"Francis was universally accepted. That's a dogmatic fact."
He is claiming that it is "dogmatic fact" that Francis's papal validity "is infallibly certain," but the funny thing is that he said on Twitter on September 3 that he believes the Vatican I infallible dogma of papal "infallibility appears to be tautological [meaningless circular reasoning or logical fallacy] at best and borders on superstition [a unfounded belief] at worst."
So, apparently, Skojec's "infallible certain" belief in the "dogmatic fact" of Francis's papal validity is meaningless circular reasoning or a logical fallacy "at best" or a unfounded belief "at worst."
Humor aside, the ironic thing is that when you really investigate Skojec's "universal acceptance" idea in it's totality it turns out to be based on unfounded beliefs and logical fallacy.
One quick example is the cornerstone theologian that Skojec relies on for the whole edifice of his idea: "universal acceptance" theologian John of St. Thomas.
He has to rely on him because he has no infallible dogma, Doctor of the Church teaching or even saint teaching to back up his idea.
But, even the non-saint and non-Doctor of the Church John of St. Thomas said "This man in particular LAWFULLY ELECTED and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff."
The central question to if a papacy is valid or invalid even according to the cornerstone of Skojec's entire idea says a UNLAWFULLY ELECTED pontiff even if "accepted" is a invalid pope or a antipope.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
Poor Steve. He's backed himself into a corner and has no way out....except to admit he just might be wrong. Pray for him.
8:09 AM
I agree with you, Debbie. It is the sort of thing that happens whenever
personal pride and place enter in and we feel the need to defend them
on their own merits. It is an enclosed space, personal ego, in which
limits are possible; reaching “a corner” is possible.
If we stand with God, there is never a “corner”. Because God is Truth, and that stands at the center of all things. Crucify ego, self, and look only to God which means (in this case) being willing, calmly and charitably, to look at and consider all possibilities for the sake of God and fellow Catholics, but not for self. Never that.
So, I am personally aware of the possibility of being in the “ego room”. God provides a door, there, to escape. We must get out quickly, back to God in the center, if we ever find “the walls closing in”. No matter how far in to the ego room we might be, we can always escape.
If we stand with God, there is never a “corner”. Because God is Truth, and that stands at the center of all things. Crucify ego, self, and look only to God which means (in this case) being willing, calmly and charitably, to look at and consider all possibilities for the sake of God and fellow Catholics, but not for self. Never that.
So, I am personally aware of the possibility of being in the “ego room”. God provides a door, there, to escape. We must get out quickly, back to God in the center, if we ever find “the walls closing in”. No matter how far in to the ego room we might be, we can always escape.
Thing is, Mr. Skojec has written some fairly plaintiff posts about the
struggle establishing his blog was for the financial security of his
wife & children. As it did finally achieve over a hundred grand/plus
annually, seems fair to observe recognizing the invalidity of BXVI's
abdication would likely have seriously threatened that security; so
that, whatever the sincerity of his current view, there's clearly a
vested interest in holding it. Not unlike numerous clerics who, in light
of what was done to Fr. Treco for far less, also have a material
interest, if perhaps not a wholly admirable one, in pretending a virtual
Bathhouse Madam is in fact also a pope.
Ha! A Bathhouse Madam ‘Pope!’ That is pure poetry! Unknown you should not be!
We need Bones to do a parody video targeting Skojec, based on the song, "That's My Story, and I'm Stickin' To It!"
On a more serious note, there is something insidious about the truncated
version of "universal acceptance" being peddled over at 1P5. Cut off,
as this blog post correctly and vitally notes, from the concept of a
valid election, "universal acceptance" can only mean ecclesial democracy
of the crassest kind. What if, for example, a woman were to usurp the
Petrine office next? If enough people decided to recognize her and the
Skojecs of this world succeeded in silencing all criticism, would that
make her the Pope?
Now Steve, were he here to defend himself, would probably point out that he would not attempt to silence the critics in such a case, but rather, would join them--which only goes to affirm that the concept of "universal acceptance" cannot be treated as unconditional. The individual in question, in fact, has to be eligible to assume the office in the first place, which may not pertain in the case of a certain heretical Jesuit, undispensed from his vows and conniving in violation of Canon and other law with a long-established group of lobbyists for his own election, at a conclave that should never have taken place in the absence of any authoritative determination that the See was actually vacant to begin with. (Just sayin'.) But back to the concept of "universal acceptance" itself.
The term "acceptance" is not without its cultural overtones. Like "choice" or "diversity" or "inclusion," it doesn't always mean what we think it means. Who, in fact, tends to say "acceptance," as a buzzword for the totality of their own worldview? Why, the "free and accepted" Masons, of course.
So Steve is treading on some seriously thin ice here. What John of St. Thomas meant by the term, and what Bergoglio's rabid defenders are trying to twist it into, may be two very different things. I would say that somebody ought to warn Mr. Skojec about this, except that many of us have done so already, getting ridiculed, maligned, banned and blocked for our pains.
Now Steve, were he here to defend himself, would probably point out that he would not attempt to silence the critics in such a case, but rather, would join them--which only goes to affirm that the concept of "universal acceptance" cannot be treated as unconditional. The individual in question, in fact, has to be eligible to assume the office in the first place, which may not pertain in the case of a certain heretical Jesuit, undispensed from his vows and conniving in violation of Canon and other law with a long-established group of lobbyists for his own election, at a conclave that should never have taken place in the absence of any authoritative determination that the See was actually vacant to begin with. (Just sayin'.) But back to the concept of "universal acceptance" itself.
The term "acceptance" is not without its cultural overtones. Like "choice" or "diversity" or "inclusion," it doesn't always mean what we think it means. Who, in fact, tends to say "acceptance," as a buzzword for the totality of their own worldview? Why, the "free and accepted" Masons, of course.
So Steve is treading on some seriously thin ice here. What John of St. Thomas meant by the term, and what Bergoglio's rabid defenders are trying to twist it into, may be two very different things. I would say that somebody ought to warn Mr. Skojec about this, except that many of us have done so already, getting ridiculed, maligned, banned and blocked for our pains.
Nicely stated Justina. I do truly feel sorry for Steve. He's blocked me
at 1P5 and FB and now today Twitter too. Prayers for him.
Too bad about Twitter (although likely best to give that up completely).
I have followed your exchanges with him via Canon212 links. You have always been respectful, courteous. The contrast is obvious.
Manners really shine, especially in the midst of social media rudeness and anger. They greatly assist the point you (or anyone) are trying to make.
There was a time when Steve S was really good at that. He could roll with most anything, and his forums were similarly diverse and helpful. Now ... no more. Don’t even feel,the need to pile on any more. It’s more of a warning to me. Set the argument aside sometimes, and ensure courtesy, Charity, manners. And understand the spiritual, personal stress brothers and sisters are experiencing.
Being right is important. Being good is also just as important. Being merciful to the ignorant and suffering to help them along with oneself, also important. And being humble, in recognition nothing comes from us, but by Grace.
I have followed your exchanges with him via Canon212 links. You have always been respectful, courteous. The contrast is obvious.
Manners really shine, especially in the midst of social media rudeness and anger. They greatly assist the point you (or anyone) are trying to make.
There was a time when Steve S was really good at that. He could roll with most anything, and his forums were similarly diverse and helpful. Now ... no more. Don’t even feel,the need to pile on any more. It’s more of a warning to me. Set the argument aside sometimes, and ensure courtesy, Charity, manners. And understand the spiritual, personal stress brothers and sisters are experiencing.
Being right is important. Being good is also just as important. Being merciful to the ignorant and suffering to help them along with oneself, also important. And being humble, in recognition nothing comes from us, but by Grace.