Will Skojec & T. Marshall join their Communion for Adulterers Heretic Allies & call on Cdl. Burke to accept Sacrilege?

Submitted by LocutusOP on Wed, 10/16/2019 - 23:34
Author: 

Aqua, Fred Martinez,  Justina   

Date: 
Wednesday, October 16, 2019 - 23:30
Article link: 
Will Skojec & T. Marshall join their Communion for Adulterers Heretic Allies & call on Cdl. Burke to accept Sacrilege?
Aqua7:54 AM

The birth of this crisis saw the Father of the future restoration, Archbishop LeFebvre, deal with the original de facto schism bravely, boldly, practically - a guide to all who would follow.

It has taken the rest of the Church 50 years to catch up, but we are all finally at the same place as he was when he confronted Pope Paul VI “to his face” (Gal 2:11-14) on the existential theological errors of Vatican II and its resulting Constitutions.

The Archbishop’s bravery and certainty was sourced in God and the unbroken, unchanging Tradition given by God to guide us throughout time. And he broke with the heretical (as yet formally undeclared) deviations and stood in defense of all that is of God and thus true.

Ultimately *we must all make the same fundamental Catholic choice as Archbishop Lefebvre*: which path - left, or right?

It cannot be avoided by any Catholic; no hiding from the conflict. God demands a decision based on our inner belief and faith.

I stand with Archbishop LeFebvre and all his base premises that led his blessed Order to thrive, grow, sustain holy places for God in dark, evil days.

...

Fred Martinez8:39 AM

Does Archbishop Lefebvre's organization presently acknowledge that Francis is in heresy and do they agree with their big supporter the Remnant's Matt who recently became a big supporter Marshall that Francis is definitely pope beyond doubt (infallible dogma as Skojec says) while name-calling everyone showing evidence to the contrary?

...

Aqua9:46 AM

I am not a member of SSPX, but an admirer. I do not know the answer to your question.

My sense is that they are not as concerned about Francis and the invalid Papacy and the heresy as they are with the precedent act that caused it all.

I see it in that way. Fruit of an evil tree. Heretics do what heretics do. The documents and Constitutions and the ever-present “spirit of the Council” infect everything they touch. Go to the source and the rest will fall into line. Neglect the source and, like the “Sorcerer’s Apprentice”, evil is like a hydra that cannot be defeated.

Archbishop LeFebvre confronted the precedent error. Then, he founded an organization committed to Truth not bound in any way by that error.

Now, as to the true Pope? Yes, they will have to decide and declare. If they decide wrong, they will be judged accordingly. It is foundational, Cornerstone level belief.

...

Fred Martinez11:27 AM

Please give more specific information on Matt's name calling, false consensus and blocking. Has it reached the level of Shea and company,
Marshall as well as Skojec? Why do you think he has Skojec's close friend White, who joins him in apparently being a dissenter on Vatican I's dogma of infallibility, writing for him?

 

Replies
  1. Justina4:02 AM

    Mr. Martinez: I can only speak from my own limited experience with the individuals you mention. Given the caveat that the following observations are anecdotal and subjective, I offer these thoughts. I myself would never mention the names "Michael Matt" and "Steve Skojec" in the same sentence. The former is a faithful gentleman of good will, with whose approach to the present crisis I take issue on a number of points. Whereas if I were to put into print my heartfelt opinion of the latter, I would be banned from these comboxes as well (and with good cause).

    Mr. Matt, in my estimation, is merely backing the wrong horse. Readers old enough to remember John Cardinal O'Connor will know he tried the same thing once. The pro-life movement is very splintered, and His Eminence was part of an effort with the word "Unity" in its name. The effort was a bust, and touched off division and squabbling beyond anything that existed before. The fact is that we who are on the side of Truth cannot employ the methodology of our opponents, which relies primarily on the mustering of greater numbers.

    My recent experience with the Remnant, however, is a big red flag in my mind, where this basically positive assessment of the publication is concerned. If comments pointing out the essential flaw of the "Unite the Clans" approach are intentionally isolated and removed, then the effort is no longer an honest one. Is it?

    Regarding Miss White, I do not have enough information to form even a defensible conjecture. And Taylor Marshall, I have posted about in this space before. Your own research into T Marsh's apparent censorship of the pro-Resignationist comments of his sidekick, T Gord, have gone a long way towards sealing my negative conclusion there as well.

    As for yourself, keep up the good work.
    And if you ever decide to take on a guest blogger, let me know.

 

 

 

Own comment: 

If division comes from the devil then Bergoglio is certainly of the devil, since few have managed to divide as he has. Let us though, recall , that in a fallen world, even truth divides!

As to the comments at hand, my opinion is that Michael Matt has never claimed that Bergoglio is definitely the pope. He is of the opinion that it does not matter and is not a point worth bickering about. I very much stand in the same camp as he does.

The Church will one day have to decide the issue, and I have a hard time seeing how they will rule Bergoglio was really pope. Still, the point is that there are concrete practical steps we can take which do matter which we should be taking, instead of engaging in angry polemics with each other over who is pope and who is imposter.

As for the others mentioned, I cannot intelligently comment on their positions or characters.