Monday, June 03, 2019
Monitor: “[B]e a Man… [A]dmit that your Theory about “Universal Aceptance” is a Fraud or Counter” vs. Skojec: “[C]all him a Liar. At least be a Man about it.”
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.”
At the time, Chris Ferrara called the as yet unnamed “Skojec Little Book of Insults” a “circular firing squad”:
Reply Chris FerraraSteve 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.””That proves MY point.” [https://onepeterfive.com/remnant-cfn-accuse-pope-francis/#comment-2915319150]
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.”
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”?[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/03/why-are-siscoe-and-skojec-apparently-so.html?m=1]
Now let 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”:
|Steve Skojec@SteveSkojec Replying to @TheCrushedBones @dhgyapong and 2 others|
|No. I think BXVI could not care less. And I resent him for it. 1:23 PM – 7 Dec 2018|
|Laurence England |
|Replying to @SteveSkojec @dhgyapong and 2 others You think he agreed with ANYTHING Francis has done?|
|View conversation ·|
|Steve Skojec |
|Replying to @TheCrushedBones @dhgyapong and 2 others Everything. [To:you Details |
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.”
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 meansfor 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-]
In the post “Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows? (See: Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows?)” the Roma Loluta Est website makes the strong case that Bergoglio possibly might not be pope because it appears no one dispensed him of his Jesuit vows.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.
Why didn’t he bring this up in his third comment?
Maybe because he apparently knows his “universal acceptance” claim is falling apart. That may be the reason he seems afraid to argue against all the evidence that his idea is wrong (See: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/03/1p5-skojec-claims-that-pope-universally.html?m=1).
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.”
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 .’”[https://www.scribd.com/document/374434852/Arnaldo-Vidigal-Xavier-Da-Silveira-Replies-to-Fr-Gleize-on-Heretical-Pope]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
“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
(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.
“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.”[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]
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.[https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/04/are-skojecs-fear-of-cardinal.html?m=1]
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 SkojecPublisher & 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.
Publisher & Executive Director
Fred Martinez To:Steve Skojec Details
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 SkojecPublisher & Executive DirectorOnePeterFive.com
Fred Martinez To:Steve Skojec Details
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. [ see: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/05/communion-for-adulterers-mirus-shrieks.html?m=1]
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.
- Steve Skojec10:49 PMI invited you to publish the whole correspondence we had TODAY. This is one of the most convoluted and excessively discursive things I’ve seen from you, Fred.
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.ReplyReplies
- P.M.LADUCA9:18 AMYou have no room to critique, Steve. You’ve painted yourself into this corner.
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.
- P.M.LADUCA9:18 AMYou have no room to critique, Steve. You’ve painted yourself into this corner.
- Steve Skojec10:51 PMAlso, this should put to rest any ridiculous notion that I was trying to physically intimidate you, or invite you to a stabbing contest, or whatever else it was you were implying in your bravado-laden post.
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. Reply
- Fred Martinez12:37 AMSorry, I have a real job. I didn’t see your last email. Thanks for adding it. It proves my point. You are all semantics. You’re just like Francis in that you says alot of words and beat around the bush, but don’t answer the questions.
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.
- Steve2:00 AMTruth is a matter of semantics, Fred. That’s one of the first things they teach you in theology class.
Get back to me when you all have a real argument. Until then, have fun tilting at windmills. Reply
- Fred Martinez6:19 AMSteve, I feel sorry for you.
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.Reply
- Lazarus Gethsemane7:33 AMSkojec said: “Truth is a matter of semantics, Fred. That’s one of the first things they teach you in theology class.”
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.
- Lazarus Gethsemane7:56 AMBTW – The Skojec of Short Simple Truthiness completely obliterated his own axiom on this very website last March 21 2019 when he was forced to defend his not so simple or concise premise “that a Pope Universally Accepted *IS* Infallibly Certain”
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.