Fred Martinez HAS IT RIGHT !!!

Thursday, June 06, 2019

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

5 Dubia Questions for 1P5’s Steve Skojec

Here are five really short and easy to answer dubia questions which hopefully aren’t too complicated for Steve Skojec, publisher of the One Peter Five website, to answer.

To make it really easy for the publisher of One Peter Five it has been formatted so that he only has to answer: yes or no.

1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said “The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See.” Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.

4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:

“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… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”

Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.

5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and notorious “Sedevacantist and Benevacantist” mastermind Ann Barnhardt for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no.

Please feel free to answer these dubia questions in any manner you decide, Mr. Skojec, except for the following ways:

1. Do not answer the dubia questions by posting a comment in the Catholic Monitor comment section because you are banned until you allow a free forum for debate on these dubia questions on the One Peter Five comment section.

If you attempt to post on the Catholic Monitor comment section before you allow a free forum at your website your post will be deleted.

2. Do not answer the dubia questions by emailing the publisher of the Catholic Monitor until you allow a free forum for debate on these dubia questions on the One Peter Five comment section.

If you attempt to email me before allowing a free forum at your website your email will be deleted and unread.

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

Fred Martinez at 10:07 PM

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Fred Martinez HAS IT RIGHT !!!

  1. Amatuer Brain Surgeon says:

    https://vermontcrank1.blogspot.com/2019/06/pope-francis-solicited-prayers-for.html

    It’d be nice to see the not canon lawyer provide any probative evidence.

    She does dogmatically insist that these various men intended thus and such but her assertions are entirely of her own interpretation.

    Where is a single word of the Bishop Ratzinger that he was in favor of a bi-furcated papacy and what in the world of Carmen San Diego does the idea of Avery Cardinal Dulles have to do with Bishop Emeritus Ratinger’s putative plan to only half quit.

  2. kono says:

    Poor Steve had gone off the rails. Pray for him.

  3. Nandarani33 says:

    Well, all I have to say is, thank you canon212 for introducing me to ‘so many’ wonderful people, individuals is more like it, including especially the individual behind this site in the moment I am writing. Thank you for being there; your post was the perfect way to handle a situation like the baptism of blood vs. desire situation, which was the last time I ever found someone simply able to claim victory just through the use of “True” or “False” or, “Yes” or “No.”

  4. dis posable says:

    I had say and I say it again:
    Skojec WILL NOT answer this kind of questions BECAUSE his “job” its to provide a ‘PLAUSIBLE DENIAL or ‘escape hatch’ in order to preserve the power and influence of the mega-heretics
    his JOB is to PROTECT THEM, make damege control to guys like him or ‘bp schnider’ or guys like that… their jobs is to preserve the influence and to prevent a disband of the ones that think the evidence by themselves

  5. jmarrenjr says:

    Thank you for printing this.

    As far as I can determing Mr. Skojec has not taken this challenge to heart and so far has not responded….says a lot about his intellectual honesty.

    Steve ridiculed Ann Barnhardt for her use of the term ARSH to designate our time period…Ann responded with a defense / teaching moment. Ann’s reply to Steve’s ridiculing is copied below.

    Three times I solicited an apology from Steve for ridiculing Ann….to date Steve has not responded.

    So….don’t hold your breath for a response to the abbreviated DUBIA questions.

    Even if Steve is busy rumor has it the salary he draws in in the $150,000 range – he could hire someone to reply to the questions.

    JM

    Q: Ann, is the “ARSH” prefix you use “ridiculous”? Did you just make it up?

    Q: Is the ARSH prefix you use on dates “ridiculous”? Did you just make it up? It was referred to as “ridiculous” recently, and I can’t figure out why.

    A: Great question! And a great point of departure to start thinking about the Great Feast of the Annunciation, coming up in less than two weeks (!!)

    The abbreviated date prefix ARSH stands for:

    Anno Reparatae Salutis Humanae

    This means, “in the Year of the Reparation of Human Salvation”.

    There are several forms of this wonderfully and beautifully Christian prefix to dates. The most common, which we are all familiar with, is “A.D.”, which of course stands for “Anno Domini”, which means, “the Year of The Lord”. BUT, there are actually FIVE more forms which one sees in books and inscriptions (most commonly funerary monuments and plaques):

    A.S. = Anno Salutae = “The Year of Salvation”

    A.N.S. = Anno Nostrae Salutis = “The Year of Our Salvation”

    A.S.H. = Anno Salutis Humanae = “The Year of Human Salvation”

    A.R.S. = Anno Reparatae Salutis = “The Year of Salvation Accomplished/Reparated”

    And finally, the most florid and most glorious:

    A.R.S.H. = Anno Reparatae Salutis Humanae = “The Year of the Reparation of Human Salvation”

    This “moment zero” from which all dates are counted is, of course, the Annunciation, when Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Triune Godhead, became incarnate in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary at her words, “Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum,” that is, “Be it done to me according to thy word.” This is why up until not too terribly long ago in Christendom, March 25, NOT January 1, marked the beginning of a new year, and was when the date rolled over. Hence, March 24, ARSH 1514 was followed the next day by March 25, ARSH 1515.

    This event is so massively incomprehensible in its infinite love for mankind that we bend the knee TWICE at Mass when it is mentioned: the first instance is when the Creed is recited. All should kneel at the words, “*Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine: Et homo factus est,*” that is in English, “And became incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary: and was made man.”

    The second instance is at the Last Gospel, recited at the end of almost every Mass, all genuflect at the words, “Et Verbum caro factum est,” which is, “And the Word was made flesh.”

    And so, years and years ago, in fact, when I was sixteen years old and got my first checking account, I started always putting “A.D.” beside the date when I wrote checks, just as a little way of working a witness to the Incarnation into daily life. Later, when I launched Barnhardt.biz, I asked my website developer to write into the code that all timestamps would include “A.D.” THEN, several years ago, after visiting Rome on pilgrimage, the abbreviation ARSH was suggested to me as the “ultimate” date prefix. I was sold, because with me, it’s “go big or go home”. And there are no words adequate to declare the awesome loving miracle of God incarnating as Man so that we might be saved.

    The person above who referred to the ARSH date prefix as “ridiculous” is clearly suffering tremendously, like so many others, from the scandal of the Bergoglian Antipapacy, and desperately needs our prayers. I will leave it at that.

    Here are some pics of ARSH used in various places:

    An inscription from Naples, Italy. Not ridiculous. From a Hungarian text. Not ridiculous. From a French text, in fact explaining Latin abbreviations. Not ridiculous. This entry was posted in Uncategorized on March 12, ARSH 2019 by Ann Barnhardt .

    On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 11:46 PM ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP wrote:

    > abyssum posted: ” Thursday, June 06, 2019 THE CATHOLIC MONITOR 5 Dubia > Questions for 1P5’s Steve Skojec Here are five really short and easy to > answer dubia questions which hopefully aren’t too complicated for Steve > Skojec, publisher of the One Peter Five website,” >

Comments are closed.