Saturday, June 08, 2019

5 Dubia Questions for Benedict XVI

On Thursday night, the Catholic Monitor posted 5 dubia questions for One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec to answer and like Francis he has refused to answer.

Also, on Thursday, Skojec was banned from posting in the Monitor comment section until he allowed a free forum for debate on these dubia questions on the One Peter Five website comment section.

As far as we can see, there is still no freedom to debate at that website, but a priest and others banned there as well as a Italian canon law expert and supporters of Skojec (one of the 1P5 publisher supporters is a well known blogger) have been carrying on a debate for two days that still continues.

It is beautiful to see honest debate.

Today in the debate, Jonathan D'Souza posted a "Dubia for Benedict." Please go to the post before this to read it.

I loved the idea so here are the Catholic Monitor's 5 dubia questions for Benedict XVI.

But, before we get to the dubia questions, I want to say that I totally agree with D'Souza that Benedict has to "come out to our faces in the public and answer in a press conference once and for all... and [be] drilled by lawyers and reporters in more detail, allow[ing] no room for escape."

Moreover, as he said "we don't want any more bogus press releases from the Vatican."

Francis and the Vatican as he said "can't be trusted" as proven by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Lettergate, the Chinese Vatican betrayal deal, the Bergoglio Argentine sex-abuse cover-ups dating to when he was a archbishop to the present Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta case and I could keep going, but you get the idea.

Finally, here are the 5 dubia questions for Benedict:

1. Viganò and the evidence has proven that Francis covered-up for ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick's sex abuse. Do you demand with Viganò that Francis resign? Answer: yes or no.

2. In reference to the possibility of Francis resigning, Cardinal Walter Kasper and canon law expert Nicholas Cafardi said "a political faction" attempting "a forced resignation would be invalid."

It is known that three Cardinals made a "300 page dossier" of Vatican sexual homosexual deviancy that was paired with financial irregularities tied to Vatileaks orchestrated by the allied financially corrupt Vatican Old Guard diplomats and the Vatican sexually corrupt Gay Lobby that led to your resignation.

Do you admit that the aforementioned "political factions" orchestrated and caused or forced your resignation? Answer: yes or no.

3. Bishop René Gracida has convincingly demonstrated 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.

Do you admit that the Cardinals need to investigate the conclave? Answer: yes or no.

4. Respected Catholic scholar Dr. Peter Kwasniewski in reviewing the Antonio Socci book "The Secret of Benedict XVI: Is he still Pope?" said: "Socci['s]... careful analysis... above all, the interpretation [of] canon lawyers... argue that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity."

Do you admit that you need to do a new resignation which is unarguably and incontrovertibly valid? Answer: yes or no.

5. Your long time friend and colleague Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said "Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism."

Since Francis endorses "that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible" with his Argentine letter and since his Vatican calls the letter "authentic magisterium," do you admit that Francis is "a heretic and promotes schism"? Answer: yes or no.

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

18 comments:

  1. This is an excellent idea by Mr D'Souza, and thank you Fred for officially advancing this idea. This goes to the very heart of this debate. And more to that point:

    The entire justification of the "FrankyPapist" crowd is their naive willingness (actually eagerness) to just quickly accept without question the "answers" that have been put forth supposedly from BXVI.

    And what's worse, they instantly vilify anyone who questions the veracity and sources of those replies, which is quite strange, considering the fact that many of these same skeptics have made their media bones pointing out and continually investigating the documented deceit and widespread corruption that has virtually surrounded this "papacy" even before the questionable "election" of this heretical antipope.

    So we have some of the same skeptics (Skojec in particular) who quickly denigrate anyone who dares to apply the same healthy line of skepticism back to the unprecedented and bizarre event that precipitated this entire break from Tradition.

    And here we are - with a nonsensical "Pope Emeritus" - which is not even a real title.

    And BTW - WHAT exactly is the purpose of an "Emeritus" in the papacy?

    Steve O'Reilly advanced the theory that Benedict was following the precedent set by Celestine V - HOWEVER as I pointed out to him - Celestine actually DID retire the office completely and in FULL. And that meant:

    - He relinquished his papal name and went back exclusively to his birth name of Pietro da Morrone

    - Never wore ANY papal garb ever again

    - He did NOT wear a papal ring

    - He did NOT reside in Vatican City

    - He did NOT give papal blessings

    - He did NOT sit along side Pope Boniface and greet new Cardinals

    - He did NOT issue new "papal" writings

    - He never referred to himself in any papal reference again.

    So if anything - Benedict did the exact OPPOSITE of Celestine's abdication, which only leads to MORE questions, MORE intrigue, MORE obvious scandal of the unprecedented *NOVELTY* of this nonsensical office of "Emeritus" - which serves WHAT purpose exactly?

    Can any of the FrankyPapists explain WHAT exactly the purpose of a Pope "Emeritus" is supposed to be?

    Other than destroying the Sacred Tradition of the Barque of Peter and sowing nothing but complete confusion and endless future novelties (upon these pebbles I will build my Church) WHAT point precisely do they think such a deviation from the Petrine Office is there to this monstrosity?

    Skojec tried to spin it as a practical matter: that popes live longer now, and they're outliving their physical effectiveness - which is a very strange and worldly excuse for an Office that is supposed to be DIVINELY PROTECTED.

    And what's more: Benedict is actively executing his papal ministries and thereby DEMONSTRATING that he most certainly IS able to carry out his papal obligations.

    So what's the point to all of this? I mean other than

    "Because Benedict supposedly said so! That's why! Now shut up you amateur idiots!"

    All of which leads to the next obvious question:

    What's the next hellish novelty of the papacy that Franky's replacement will undoubtedly inflict on the Church? And how can the current FrankyPapists ever refute any of it when they've officially adopted the show-stopping roadblock of


    "Because the pope said so - THAT'S why!"

    Why do these oh-so-smart people NOT realize that they've fully embraced a slippery-slope that has no end?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The net effect of defending the precedent partial abdication as full and licit; and then insulting and denegratimg the subsequent anti-Papacy with all its natural dark fruit as the product of a particularly evil, stupid, clown, horse’s a** of a man - is to complete the circle begun by the Modernists in two steps:

    1: The practical, effective nature of the Papacy is altered.

    2: Catholics accept the alteration, then denigrate as evil, stupid and *ultra*-fallible its occupant.

    It is a diabolical attack on the Cornerstone - this denigration of the “Holy Father” and rejection of everything he says and does. These attacks are as bad as anything the Pope has done.

    Either follow Bergoglio with the respect and honor due our Holy Father; or reject the flawed premise that placed an anti-Pope fountain of heresy on St. Peter’s Throne with his Emeritus friend(s); or stop being Catholic because it is rendered meaningless by this new kind of multi-occupant “Petrine Ministry”.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Holy Father is the superior of everyone, everyone, on Earth. You cannot subject him to an interrogation. Instead you write a respectful letter and point out the need for response, or you present the demonstration of facts and law which he can reject by explicit response or tacitly accept by a non response. https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/pope-benedict-has-tacitly-accepted-that-his-resignation-was-canonically-invalid/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. I believe superiors can and should be forced to act according to the law, even with the use of force when necessary. If we can't demand that our superiors act in conformity with law then we do not have the rule of law, but mere tyranny.

      Delete
  4. Alexis Bugnolo said..."The Holy Father is the superior of everyone, everyone, on Earth. You cannot subject him to an interrogation."

    BXVI claims he fully resigned from the papacy - ergo - he is NOT the Holy Father any longer. Period. End of Story.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's roughly the right idea, but you have the wrong execution. The fact is that Benedict's resignation is at least morally doubtful, and this constitutes an unspeakable scandal for the faithful and an utterly intolerable for Holy Church. It is sickening and reprehensible. A doubtful resignation means that Francis is a doubtful Pope, and this is a scandal of the highest possible degree, since the Church and her faithful have a very urgent right to know whom their supreme pastor is.

    Benedict doesn't need a press conference; he needs to be dragged in front of a tribunal and put on canonical trial to be presided over by the cardinals in assembly and witnessed by the world. He should be forced to take an oath to speak the truth before Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Apostles, then he should be forced to speak truthfully concerning, 1. Whether or not he was put under duress in a way that would have made his resignation unfree therefore invalid, 2. Whether at the time of his resignation he had any intention whatsoever to retain any part of the papal office (munus) and bifurcate the papacy, rendering his resignation invalid by substantial error.

    If his resignation was valid, he should be rebuked for the scandal and confusion he gave to the Church by his words and actions, and be forced to give up his papal name, regalia, and all the rest of it, and should be banished from the Vatican such that we never hear from the man again.

    If his resignation was invalid, Bergoglio should be denounced as Antipope, and he and his supporters should be deposed from their offices and removed from the Vatican, with violence if necessary (even if it means asking the president of Italy to invade the Vatican City State and remove the Antipope).

    This is the right and just course of action which ought to be taken by the cardinals for the love of God, the Church, and the divine & ecclesiastical laws. Anything less is insufficient. That this is not taking place shows how little our pastors care about the law and the salvation of souls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "... and this constitutes an unspeakable scandal for the faithful and an utterly intolerable for Holy Church."
      intolerable situation *

      The point of making Benedict swear an oath would be that if he were to lie in that situation, he would without doubt be damned horribly having committed one of the worst sins in human history, to entirely abandon the flock to the wolves.

      Delete
  6. Benedict is a coward. He has no backbone, no courage.....he will continue to take the easy way out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Tom. I believe you are mistaken. Have you read the Third Secret of Fatima and Our Lady's explanation of it? Have you been in a position of authority where you are blocked on every side by subordinates who undermine through disobedience and/or negligence? We cannot know the cost of Pope Benedict's difficult yet triumphant decision. We can surmise that he is the Holy Father spoken of in the Third Secret. The one who is shot with bullets and arrows.

      Have you heard of the vision that Jacinta had which Sr Lucy recounted in her Third Memoir? In that vision Jacinta saw: “the Holy Father in very a big house, kneeling by a table, with his head buried in his hands, and he was weeping. Outside the house there were many people. Some of them were throwing stones, others were cursing him and using bad language. Poor Holy Father, we must pray very much for him”. Tom, don't be one of those who curses or uses bad language toward Pope Benedict. We simply do not know the facts of the matter.

      Delete
    2. Exactly. Benedict XVI is no hero. He's a disciple of Rahner.

      Delete
  7. @ I is I:

    I agree with you, in regards to Fatima and also in regards to insubordination.

    He is like a ship Captain who gives orders to go one way, the crew goes another; every order given met with indifference. I picture him standing on the bridge, decked out in Captains uniform, and the crew acts as if he is not even there; his commands meaningless. He looks like the Captain. But the ship, practically speaking, is not his. Going down below deck to his private quarters simply aligns reality to his situation. His practical authority fully usurped until a higher power restores it.

    Speculation, for sure. But that is how I have seen it. The whole Church, especially his ranking Officers, was in full mutiny.

    In his partial resignation, he did not turn in his “bars” and his Captain’s hat. He retained them clearly. In his private quarters.

    In addition, however, as the Holy Father, Benedict XVI is due reverence and respect by the Faithful - regardless of his reasons for doing what he has done.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you Aqua....beautifully stated. Pray much for the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI!

    ReplyDelete
  9. You, like Benedict take the easy way out with endless excuses.....poor Benedict is a coward. You gave me a segue when you mentioned Jacinta AKA ST.JACINTA. This 6 year old little girl had more raw courage than 50 Benedicts. He's just another effeminate intellectual, more than willing to compromise Christ and His church. So you can "surmise" concerning this pathetic pope until Christ returns for the second and last time when hiding will no longer be possible.

    Evidentially, Benedict does not grasp the ontological weakness that Original Sin has imposed on all of us. He is a pathetic man, who lacks courage, and the Holy Spirit calls him to pray unceasingly for the strength to do what God requires of all popes....to fight to the death to defend Christ and protect His church from her enemies. Instead what do we get....selfpity and halfhearted attempts.....just enough for him to justify himself.

    In 2012 I began to grapple seriously with Vatll and the conciliar popes, when I gave in, bought a laptop and got internet service. Up to then I had relied on journals like First Things Crisis, et al, never realizing that most of the writers were unwilling to face up to the desperate state the church is in. Needless to say a world opened up for me that I didn't know existed. At first I couldn't believe that the church that I love could be so compromised by popes, bishops, priests and scholars. Not one of those popes starting with the spiritually lazy John XX111 was willing to put his life on the line to protect the church from the progressives/modernists, and Pope Francis, the atheist/antipope would not be possible without those compromised popes who proceeded him. I read recently a Catholic intellectual who considers PJXX111 a holy man and an "optimist". Why did he not see that an optimistic holy man or woman is an oxymoron. Yet poor deluded John was an optimist regarding the new horizons opened up by science and revolutionary technologies. This writer I'm paraphrasing, like those tragic popes and the Catholic world in general had forgotten the catastrophic reality of Original Sin that haunts the human race and leaves little room for optimism. Christ, the Eternally Begotten Son of God, did not become man because times were tough before the advent of Modernity, but because the disobedience of our First Parents opened an abyss separating mankind from God because we lost the sanctifying grace which made us God centred so that now we are selfcentred. And without Christ, our Divine Saviour, we are eternally separated from the Holy Trinity.

    As appalling as the truth is the church of the 20th century including the Vatll popes forgot Christ and pessimism be damned.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Traditionally a dubium is always a yes-or-no question. So repeating over and over "Answer: yes or no," is unnecessary, combative, and obnoxious. A dubium should not contain declarative sentences. It should be one interrogative sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fr. VF said... "Answer: yes or no," is unnecessary, combative, and obnoxious.

    That method perfectly fits this unnecessarily combative and obnoxious antipope from Hell.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Frank Walker is doing a great job of separating truth from nonsense in the Church and the world. He should have a much more prominent position than he does. Perhaps be in charge of EWTN for example.

    Frank is pointing out the truth. The Catholic Church institutionally has become almost entire corrupt with politics overwhelming religion, with rampant sexual deviation of homosexuality, exchange of silence overlooking of sexual sin for more money and audience laity, Protestantizing the Church with Vatican II theology, installation of of a bogus Pope, etc. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For Bergoglio to be Pope today, there must have been a certain sequence of possibilities, decisions and actions, all valid and in the case of decisions and actions, correctly made.

    For example, in time sequence, but not by any means exhaustive:

    1. Benedict must not have been forced ("A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly") – there is doubt here
    2. His intention must have been to resign the entire papacy - munus and ministerium (" ... out of malice, substantial error,") – there is doubt here on the second, arguably even on the first
    3. There must have been no simony ("... or simony is invalid by the law itself") – I have not seen anyone posit this with regard to Benedict's resignation, but it is theoretically possible
    4. Conclave must have been validly called – I don't know if there is doubt here, independently of the previous and next
    5. Conclave must have been validly conducted – there is substantial doubt here, as at least one Cardinal boasted of actions which would have invalidated it according to "Universi Dominici Gregis" 81/82
    6. Person chosen must not have been a woman, child or heretic – there is doubt on the latter point at least
    7. Person chosen must not now be a heretic – there seems to be plenty of doubt on this point, some would say it is close to 100% likely that Francis is a heretic. This is probably not independent of the previous.

    For those who are logically and mathematically inclined, construction of a decision tree and use of Bayes’ theorem could help visualise the dependencies and investigate the probabilities that Francis is really Pope or not and that Benedict is really Pope or not.

    This would have two additional benefits:

    1. It would bring expertise in from other fields than Canon Law and Theology: logicians, mathematicians, statisticians etc
    2. It would thus make the issue of interest to a wider range of non-experts who may be turned off by Canon Law or Theology, especially those with more Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics related interests and positions.

    So if any of you have concerned friends who are logicians, mathematicians, statisticians, maybe you could help them begin such an endeavour?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Good day everyone!
    --

    Do you need a loan to start up business? pay off bills? we offer all kinds of financial assistance to every individuals Such as:

    *Business loan
    *Personal loan,
    *House purchase loan.
    *Student loan,
    *Investment Loan
    *Debt consolidation and House purchases Etc. We Offer is affordable at an interest rate of 2%.

    Note: These offer is for serious minded and honest people Only.

    Email: jacksonwaltonloancompany@gmail.com

    Text or call: +1-205-5882-592. (SKYPE Video Calls.)

    Address is 68 Fremont Ave Penrose CO, 81240.

    CEO:Mrs Helen Raymond

    ReplyDelete