THE CATHOLIC MONITOR
Thursday, September 05, 2019
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.