Do Skojec & 1P5 think Athanasius was Wrong to Teach Jesus is God because "there [was] No Official Church Teaching on this Issue"?
Francis apologist Steve Skojec and his website, One Peter Five, have come to the defense of their beloved it is infallibly impossible that Pope Francis can be a antipope and, also, if he is a heretic, he can't be deposed anyway.
This time they didn't bring up the totally discredited "universal acceptance" argument, but presented laughable strawman arguments.
The One Peter Five article claims that a invalid papal conclave that elected a antipope can't happen during the time of Francis (which happened during the time of St. Bernard of Clairvaux) "because the underlying assumption is that Francis can't be the pope because Francis is a heretic."
(One Peter Five, "Is Francis the Pope?", October 29, 2019)
This is a laughable strawman argument because the supposed "pope" during St.Bernard's time wasn't a heretic, but was a invalidly elected antipope because his conclave didn't follow the conclave constitution of the previous pope.
(Whether the supposed "pope" was a heretic or not a heretic is beside the point. The main point is and was did the conclave follow the conclave constitution of the previous pope.)
By the way, Mr. Skojec, the main argument of Bishop Rene Gracida is that the Francis conclave didn't follow the conclave constitution of the previous pope.
Also, can someone get Skojec and his writers a Catholic history book?
The next laughable argument is a pope who is a heretic can't he deposed even though Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales explicitly states so because "there is no official church teaching on this issue" according to the One Peter Five piece.
According to Skojec's website, St. Athanasius was wrong to fight for the undefined teaching that Jesus is God because there it wasn't a "official church teaching" so, like the Francis apologists at One Peter Five, Athanasius should have sat on his hands and said Jesus isn't God because there is no "official church teaching" defining the teaching.
By the way, Mr. Skojec, there is no "official church teaching" that a heretic pope can't be deposed, but there is a Doctor of the Church who explicitly teaches that a heretic pope can be deposed.
St Francis de Sales declared:
"The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostlic See."
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
This time they didn't bring up the totally discredited "universal acceptance" argument, but presented laughable strawman arguments.
The One Peter Five article claims that a invalid papal conclave that elected a antipope can't happen during the time of Francis (which happened during the time of St. Bernard of Clairvaux) "because the underlying assumption is that Francis can't be the pope because Francis is a heretic."
(One Peter Five, "Is Francis the Pope?", October 29, 2019)
This is a laughable strawman argument because the supposed "pope" during St.Bernard's time wasn't a heretic, but was a invalidly elected antipope because his conclave didn't follow the conclave constitution of the previous pope.
(Whether the supposed "pope" was a heretic or not a heretic is beside the point. The main point is and was did the conclave follow the conclave constitution of the previous pope.)
By the way, Mr. Skojec, the main argument of Bishop Rene Gracida is that the Francis conclave didn't follow the conclave constitution of the previous pope.
Also, can someone get Skojec and his writers a Catholic history book?
The next laughable argument is a pope who is a heretic can't he deposed even though Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales explicitly states so because "there is no official church teaching on this issue" according to the One Peter Five piece.
According to Skojec's website, St. Athanasius was wrong to fight for the undefined teaching that Jesus is God because there it wasn't a "official church teaching" so, like the Francis apologists at One Peter Five, Athanasius should have sat on his hands and said Jesus isn't God because there is no "official church teaching" defining the teaching.
By the way, Mr. Skojec, there is no "official church teaching" that a heretic pope can't be deposed, but there is a Doctor of the Church who explicitly teaches that a heretic pope can be deposed.
St Francis de Sales declared:
"The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostlic See."
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
Comments
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html
*Note use of Munus in paragraph 1; Ministerium in paragraph 2. Munus is the Office. Ministerium is contained within, flows from it.
“(1) Having explored my conscience again and again before the Lord, I have arrived at certain recognition that with my advancing age my strengths are no longer apt for equitably administering the Petrine Office [munus Petrinum] ……. (2) On which account, well aware of the weightiness of this act, I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of the Bishop of Rome.”
He retained the Munus (in his original Latin pen). He delegated the Ministerium.
And ..... no, he cannot, before God, do such a thing. It is game over, right there. The Office is not his, but God’s alone. It is all invalid - Conclave, Election, and all the vile heresy that resulted thereby.
Pope Benedict XVI still reigns. And Bergoglio do what antipopes do.
I'm just curious, however: What happens if he predeceases Francis/aka Jorge Maria Bergoglio? Is the See of Peter vacant until another conclave is held? Would a pope who was elected at such a conclave but who recognized Francis's election (and thus, all of his acts) be a valid pope, or an antipope?