Tag Archives: One Peter Five

Media Criticism, News

Arbitrated Barnhardt discloses that “Chris Jackson” is a faker

9 Comments

+ + +

Catholic Media Critique by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As a chronicler of events in the Church and in Catholic Media, I have published a series of articles, and with my colleague AJ Baalman, several videos, in which I have discussed the strange laypersons who populate Catholic Social Media discussions, their identities, positions, errors, and quirks.

So, tonight, we have arrived at a momentous point, where Ann Barnhardt, arbitrated for liability for fraud, constructive fraud, etc., to the tune of $100,000 USD in 2009, and living somewhere between Florence, Italy, and Denver, Colorado, has revealed that Chris Jackson is not Chris Jackson — as AJ and I have opined since the beginning of summer. For, she says in the post above that that is a “pen name”.

That means, for nearly 10 years, Catholic publications have deceived and defrauded their readers by publishing articles under a false name, while making it appear to be a true name, using even a photograph often of a journalist from the 1940’s. — This revelation raises serious questions about the ethics under which both The Remnant and One Peter Five have been run for 10 years** : questions that should not be dismissed or ignored if the integrity and reputation of all Catholic independent media is to be guarded.

Evidently, it was the repeated calls by AJ and myself, this summer, which sparked even the curiosity of Ann, who was recently interviewed by “Chris Jackson”‘s colleague, Stephen Kokx, lately of LifeSite News — but dismissed by the Board of Directors, it seems, under dubious circumstances.

I write all this because I believe Catholics have the right to know who is feeding them “the news” and what their personal histories are.

I have long supposed that “Chris Jackson” was not a real name, because the meaning of that name is, “the anointed of Jakob”, which has obvious Sabbatean/Jewish indications in that it implies that the Messiah is the Anointed of someone other than David. This entity is the founder of the “Neo-Sedevacantists“, and the website, Catholics4Trump.com. Their motto is, “Recognize and Withdraw”, which is basically a high-Anglican viewpoint. AJ and I think it is highly likely that C.K. is a MI6 operation to corral Catholics under Trump but separate from Rome, as Trump signaled with his picture of himself as Pope, early this year.

Ann Barnhardt is a self-described convert to the Catholic Faith, and former fornicator who lived in sin with a man for 10 years, according to her testimonies at her blog, “Judica me, Deus” (‘Judge me, o God!” — I kid you not), HERE. She became an international sensation, after leaving Cattle Future Trading, when she burned a Koran live on YouTube. Her former employer was a Jew, trading in futures on the Chicago Exchange, and her own expertise in Cattle Futures was cited by Bloomberg. I have written repeatedly about the thesis which her clear and rational arguments first clarified for the entire Church, the invalidity of the renunciation of the Papacy by Pope Benedict. See HERE. For that she deserves unabashed credit.

+ + +

And now you might understand why these folk consider me a faker and deceiver and a snake, for taking permanent vows to observe the Rule of Saint Francis, following Christ in poverty, chastity, and obedience, in consecration to the Immaculate Virgin, giving all my wealth to the poor, forsaking marriage, career, even family, nation, and friends. — I am not a Saint, but my name really is what I claim it to be, and I have never been fired by anyone at anytime, let alone found liable in a court of arbitration for fraud, while I am risking my entire reputation in defending Pope Benedict XVI’s dignity as Roman Pontiff and militating at Rome against the invalid conclaves of 2013 and 2015, not because I want to, but because Catholics have a right to know the truth and to reject antipopes, and I find it intolerable that no one is telling them the truth, nor taking real action to defend them from such fraudsters.

___________________

** And more recently on a daily basis by the former stand-up comedian and saxophonist, Frank Walker, of Canon212.com who is now being interviewed on occasion by Steve Bannon’s British colleague, Harwell, who headed his troubled and sacrilegious project to take over Trisulti Monastery, here, just outside of Rome, and turn it into a Judeo-Christian center for political activism. — Click on the link to Trisulti to see my Video visit of the Monastery and FromRome.Info’s 5 year coverage of the project.

Canon Law, Debates, Papal Documents

Ryan Grant usurps Papal Authority in an attempt to refute Br. Bugnolo

6 Comments

+ + +

Commentary and Refutation of Ryan Grant’s Position by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

French Translation

In the above article, published on October 27, 2025, Mr. Ryan Grant, attempts to show that this Bull no longer has any force of law, even in the particular of its censure of the election of a heretic as pope.

Before I comment on his treatise, I will cite my previous writings on this matter, which he does not so clearly present.

Back in May of this year of Our Lord, 2025, the first argument I moved against the validity of the election of Cardinal Prevost, was that the election of a man who is found to have deviated from the Catholic Faith before his election by the Cardinals was declared ipso facto invalid by the Bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio.

In this, I cited my former argument on the matter, from 2015, and with the passing of some days, I returned to that argument and refined it, here — note that the edition of 2015 is revised, though the date still reflects the original publication:

This article discussed the effect of the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, on the perpetual validity of the precepts contained in the Bull. And I concluded, that in regard to the declaration of the invalidity of an election of a Cardinal in a Conclave, who had previously deviated from the Catholic Faith, fell into heresy or adhered to a schism, that Papal censure on the validity remained valid.

Subsequently on August 19, I revisited the argument regarding, as I just mentioned, and published the revision separately here.

And on August, 2, of this year, I published the second English Translation of this Bull, publicly available, on the Internet — there may be others in books or manuals — Here:

+ + +

So far, for what I previously have written.

Ryan Grant’s Treatise — A Historic Publication

I think this particular tract by Ryan Grant is the most thorough and complete treatment I have ever seen him muster on any topic, and shows that he has come of age in the matter of public disputation.

As a dinosaur who has been doing such things since my first Refutation of Father Wathen, back in 1996 — if I remember correctly, I welcome the graduation of the newest tract-writer on the block.

Second, Ryan Grant’s essay is the first to cite me by name in any Catholic publication, since the L’Avvenire in the summer of 2021, so it is indeed quite extraordinary. OnePeterFive, where Ryan Grant’s essay is published, even extended to me the unheard of decency, of a hyperlink to my August article, cited above. That has not happened since the Team Bergoglio Scandal in December of 2014.

So for both reasons, I sense that someone has “broken reality itself” in the Trad inc. camp, where the absolute censorship of everything said or done by Br. Alexis Bugnolo has been the unbroken rule since Michael Matt’s last publication of a letter to the Editor of The Remnant back in like 2004 or something like that — my grey hairs being unable to recall that misty past, it being so long ago.

For each of these reasons, Ryan Grant’s article is historic and I recommend my readers, here at FromRome, to read it, if they have the time.

The Complete Refutation of Ryan Grant

Ryan Grant’s article is entitled, “The Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio — Void and of No Authority.” — Leaders in publication are usually placed by the Editor, not the author, so I can scarcely fault Grant for this erroneous and scandalous title. But it needs to be said, that “of No Authority” is theologically and canonically erroneous and false, because, theologically speaking, it remains a monument of the authentic Papal magisterium, and canonically speaking, it remains a source for ecclesiastical jurisprudence. As such, these words are scandalous and ignorant, and should be removed or replaced.

Now, Grant’s article is lengthy, and would take several hours perhaps for the layman to read, if he was able and familiar enough with the terms, for when printed out, my browser produces a PDF file which is 27 pages long!!!!

So for Catholics who have not that time, I will cut to the meat of the problem with it: Ryan Grant has founded his argument on private interpretation.

You see, a Papal Law or Papal Bull can only be interpreted by the Roman Pontiff. There is no authentic interpretation, in the canonical sense, from any other source. Nor is there an honest interpretation of the same, in a juridical sense, if you interpolate words, and make the law say something it does not say.

Thus does Grant attempt to refute two of my positions.

My Refutation of Grant’s First Argument

In the First Position, Grant recites thus:

To summarize Bugnolo’s argument, while it is true that all penal sanctions of Cum ex are abrogated in paragraph 5 of Canon 6, the section of the Bull (n. 6) which deals with the election of the Roman Pontiff is not penal by nature, because it imposes no penalty, but only a discipline, per the language of the code, and thus under paragraph 6 of the same canon, it would have to be explicitly abrogated, otherwise it is still in force. This is easily refuted. St. Pius X had already abrogated this clause of Cum ex by his own constitution Vacante sede apostolica of December 25, 1904 (§29), where he abrogated all previous laws considering the voting in papal elections.

Unfortunately, since Grant has not ennumerated his paragraphs, I cannot give an exact location in his work for this quote, but it appears to be half-way through, according to the measure of the scroll bar in a browser.

Grant’s claim of the abrogation, does not cite the words of the Constitution of Saint Pius X. And as any good debater knows, that, when you cite a law in Latin but give not the citation in words, then your citation probably does not prove what you are claiming. This concern is deepened when the passage you cite, here §29 regards the burial of popes, not the election of heretics.

And that is the case, here, since, as you can see, here at the very words of Saint Pius X in the passage which Grant should have cited, n. 34, since as a Latinist he claims to be able to read Latin: I quote from the Latin edition at the Vatican Website, found here.

34. Nullus Cardinalium, cuiuslibet excommunicationis, suspensionis, interdicti aut alius ecclesiastici impedimenti praetextu vel causa a Summi Pontificis electione activa et passiva excludi ullo modo potest; quas quidem censuras ad effectum huiusmodi electionis tantum, illis alias in suo robore permansuris, suspendimus [27].

Where the footnote 27 reads:

[27] Clem. V, cap. 2, Ne Romani, § 4, de elect., I, 3 in Clem.; Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 29; Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, § 22.

Even if you cannot read Latin, you can see immediately that Grant has dishonestly referred to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of Saint Pius X, because in this passage, when it speaks of the suspension of previous laws (suspendimus), it cites the laws of Pope Clement V, Ne Romani, and Pius IV ‘s Constitution, In eligendis, and Pope Gregory XVI’s Constitution, Aeterni Patris. There is no mention of Cum ex apostolatus officio.

Here is my translation of n. 34, and its footnote:

34. None of the Cardinals, by pretext and/or cause of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or any ecclesiastical impediment you like, can in any manner be excluded from active and passive election as Supreme Pontiff: which censures indeed, only as regards the effect of this manner of election, We suspend, with the former (illis) otherwise remaining in their force. [27]

Here, the Latin “illis”, which according to the rules of Latin grammer are to be translated contextually as referring to the aforementioned matter, rather than they are normally rendered (“those”, “they”), and refers here to “excommunciation, suspension, interdict or any ecclesiastical impediment”.

Where the footnote 27 reads:

[27] Pope Clement V, in chapter of, Ne Romani, section § 4, de elect., I, 3 in Clem.; Pops Pius IV, in his Constitution, In eligendis, § 29; and Pope Gregory XV in his Constitution, Aeterni Patris, § 22.

Thus, since Saint Pius X explicitly restricts his suspension to these three Papal Laws, he obviously does NOT intend to suspend the effect of Pius IV’s, Cum ex apostolatus oficio.

This is also confirmed by a comparison of the text of n. 34 of Pope Saint Pius X’s Constitution, with n. 6 of Pope Paul IV’s constitution, because the latter speaks both of the right to vote and be voted for (electio activa et passiva), and of his censure when an election is to be or not to be considered valid; but the former speaks only of electio activa et passiva. These are two different things, as is obvious, since the latter, as I have said in my article in August, regards the right of the faithful to regard or not regard an election valid or not, whereas the former regards the right of a Cardinal to vote and be voted for. Those ignorant of Latin think that the right to be voted for, means the right to be elected, since they confound “being voted for” with “being elected”. The modern concept of “being elected” refers technically to “being voted for by the needed majority AND accepting the election”, but the Latin concepts of  electio activa et passiva, only refer to casting votes and receiving votes in one’s favor during the procedure of the Conclave.

However, Grant quotes for his position, Fr. Wernz-Vidal’s general statement, found in Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum, t. 2, Rome, 1928. Tit. VIII, n. 413, p. 403. You can see Grant’s Footnote 21 for the Latin and his English translation of it. — This noted author, however, as has been seen from what I just said, obviously never read the footnotes which the Saintly Pope used in his Apostolic Constitution, since by placing footnotes to cite the previous laws which in regard to Papal Elections, which are to be suspended during elections of this kind, he has expressly restricted the limit of his own suspension. — Also, to say, “suspend” is not to say “abrogate”, since to suspend merely stays the application for a limited time. And since the determination of the validity of an election obviously takes place after the election, even this passage would not suspend anything at such a time, even if it referred to Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.

Thus, I believe, Grant’s first argument against my position is entirely destroyed.

My Refutation of Grant’s Second Position

Grant’s second salvo against my argument follows immediately after his first. For he holds that my citation of Canon 2265 of the 1917 Code is inappropriate. And in this he advances his principal error, as he says:

… the 1917 code has a different scope. Moreover, it does not specifically address the situation with the Roman Pontiff, and the code is silent about how to proceed in that case, leaving us to turn to the dogmatic theologians …

For here he appeals to private authors to interpret papal law, which, as I said above, is a grave error and violates the very principal of ecclesiastical jurisprudence that only the authority issuing a law can interpret it.

Thus it is that he has usurped Papal Authority, perhaps without realizing it, since in a clear matter of omission, one cannot appeal to dogmatic theologians for anything.

And I cannot shout this out louder, since I have been shouting it since 2018:

THE CESSATION OF RIGHT IS NEVER PRESUMED.

Thus if the code of 1917 or 1983 clearly and explicitly does not alter the standing of a papal precept, we can never lawfully or morally presume that papal precept is no longer in force.

However, he makes his assertion of an erroneous principal of interpretation while conceding to me that the Code have not spoken of this matter, and thus concedes my argument, since, if the 1917 Code has not expressly established any other discipline, then, my argument, which holds that because it does not, the former remains in force, is completely validated, since as Christ declares, “Whatsoever you bind upon Earth shall be bound in Heaven …”, in Whose Royal Decree we find no clause such as, “and it shall not remain in force in the future, if some dogmatic theologian opines that it does not”.

Finally, I will omit a refutation of Grant’s false allegation, made in passing, later in his tract, that I hold that there is a footnote in canon 188, as I never made such a claim. I spoke of a footnote in a commentary on Canon Law.

Conclusion

Grant’s article was heavily criticized by “Chris Jackson” here, though ineptly since he does not know the first thing about jurisprudence or theological distinctions, not to mention following the erroneous approach of many sedevacantists, who falling into the same error as Grant, have recourse to erroneous arguments that the Bull remains valid because it contains infallible teaching, not distinguishing properly between a disciplinary and a dogmatic decree.**

I welcome Grant’s attempt to rebut this my present refutation. But I will not demand a response, since I do not want my brother in Christ to publicly shame himself by advancing any more unfounded arguments to make his point.

Thus, that the Bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus offcio, in n. 6, in regard to the right of Catholics to hold the election of a Cardinal in a Conclave as invalid if he has previously (1) fallen into heresy, or (2) joined a Schism, or (3) deviated from the Catholic Faith, without repenting prior to his acceptance of his election, remains IN FORCE AND IN FULL EFFECT AND OF DIVINE AND PAPAL AUTHORITY, until a future pope, if he will or dare, explicitly refutes it, or in some other way effectively abolishes it.

FOOT NOTES

** Jackson publishes his critique of Grant on the Chinese based Substack platform, without mentioning my name of course, since Jackson’s handlers forbid him to do that, since all hell would break lose in his pysop if his readers came to know of my writings on the Conclave of 2025 or the Conclave of 2013. ( In the comments there, it appears there is a number of Zionist bots who claim that I am paid to say what I say, have never called for the abolition of Vatican II, and unfairly criticize “the annointed of Jakob”. But worse of all, I raise money to help the poor, suffering and canonically abused. That is unforgivable. — The only substantial criticism seems to confirm what AJ and I have said, that the C. J. operation is a MI6 operation, since they are incensed in that com thread that we together outted Lefebrve’s father as a MI6 agent, HERE) Jackson for his or her or its part lauds the Archbishop and finds nothing wrong with his father being an intel agent working for the United Kingdom. — As for “the annointed of Jakob”, he is living up to all the sterotypes by accusing Grant of “distracting Catholics”, when AOJ has hidden the invalidity of the conclave and the work of Catholics at Rome to have a Catholic pope, just the like of the other USAID narrative supporting “Catholic” mainstream and “independent” media. This is astronomical hypocrisy.

Editorials, News

Alinski’s Rules for Radicals, used against the Church

6 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Saul Alinsky was a radical Marxist Jew from Chicago, USA, who before his death, compiled 13 demonic rules for how to overthrow social groups, based on his experience in organizing collective action against established political, social and religious structures. He published these in a book entitled, Rules for Radicals. — Here, the word, “radical” means a Marxist of the Gramescian kind who seeks to undermine a non-Marxist society from within so as to bring down the system, rather than organizing the proletariat for open armed revolution.

Alinsky’s 10 Rules for Radicals are a sort of luciferian way of practicing deceit in the most concealed and vicious manner. They are the classical reflection of an distorted passive aggressive psychopathy which recognized no objective moral norm to respect, uphold or promote the common good, and contrariwise inverts the approach the individual should have to that common good by advocating what is directly opposed to it. These rules are, thus, truly demonic:

  1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
  2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
  3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
  4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
  5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
  6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
  7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
  8. “Keep the pressure on.”
  9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
  10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
  11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
  12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
  13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Since the Bergoglian revolution is being run by Marxists — that is undeniable — it should not surprise us that those fellow Catholics who recognize Bergoglio as their leader should either openly advocate Marxism or use the tactics of Alinsky to counter Bergoglio’s enemies — the chief of which are those Catholics who recognize the teaching of the Church regarding when a Pope duly resigns and when he does not. Since Pope Benedict XVI never duly resigned, he is still the pope. And profession of that historical fact is the chief and most destructive assault against the Big Lie, used by the Bergoglian Church, to present itself as the Church of Jesus Christ and deceive the Elect.

Errors of the “Recognize and Resist” Movement

Catholics are increasingly aware that these tactics are being used now by Trad Inc. to sustain their ridiculous position of “recognize and resist” — This position holds that a Catholic is morally, doctrinally and canonically obliged to hold that Bergoglio is the Pope, but that he is also morally and doctrinally obliged to oppose his errors. — In practice, the “Recognize and Resist” Movement is one which denies that Bergoglio has ever uttered a formal heresy or that if he has he is never pertinacious in adhesion to it. Furthermore, they hold that canon 1364 can never apply to him, because he is the pope, even though Canon Law makes for no such provision or privilege. They deny the entire teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that formal, manifest pertinacity in heresy causes a man to lose all membership, office and dignity in the Church. And they especially deny that the words of Canon Law or of the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI have any precise meaning or use if it contradicts their position.

Thus the “Recognize and Resist” Movement is more about recognizing and very little about resisting. And thus its effect is totally about causing Catholics to submit to the Bergoglian Church and practice non-think about the abominations, heresies and scandals which are going on, not to mention, about the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI. Indeed, the “Recognize and Resist” Movement seems to be a position slightly to the right of Opus Dei, which is all about Recognizing and nothing about Resisting in public — they in fact tell their members to shut up and stop thinking about the problems and stop being active on social media.

Therefore, it should not surprise anyone, that the “Recognize and Resist” Movement has begun to employ Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, because in the defense of a lie there is no better tool that to employ the demonic.

Recent Attacks on Ann Barnhardt et alia

Ann Barnhardt is a pubic figure in the United States of America, who is famous for her commentary on current issues which cuts to the heart of the problem. Since the spring of 2016, she has rightly and sanely argued and demonstrated that the Renunciation of Pope Benedict did not separate him from the Papal Office and that the claims that he is no longer the Pope are the Big Lie of the present crisis of the Church. Countless Catholics today recognize Pope Benedict XVI because of the work of Barnhardt and those who came to know the truth of Church teaching and Canon Law about papal resignations through her. This is why the enemies of Pope Benedict seek to attack her more than anyone else. She blogs at Barnhardt.biz.

The recent attacks on Ann Barnhardt, chief of all, seem to be employing the Rules for Radicals. In Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, we have, for example, Rule 13, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  This means, in regard to persons, to dissuade the public from consideration of the truths professed by an individual by attacking that individual on personal issues.

Then there is Rule 5, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon,” which has been honed into a fine art by Steve Skojec, editor and publisher of OnePeterFive.com — apparently a commercial site, because of its *.com, but in reality organized in US Law as a non-profit, where it appears from its tax filings 100% of funds raised, after expenses, go to Skojec or family members.*

Here is an example of that, in regard to Ann Barnhardt.

https://twitter.com/SteveSkojec/status/1225259735525388289

Then there is Alinsky’s Rule 6, “A good tactic is one that your people enjoy,” which seems to be the case with Skojec, because he would not revel so much in insulting others, if he did not enjoy it. It also seems to be enjoyable to the rest of Trad Inc. because NONE of them — to my knowledge — reprehend Skojec and others for doing this.

Catholics, however, know that to insult others in public is the mortal sin of contumely, and so disdain it. Yes, insult an error or falsehood or behavior, but not a person.

Then there is Rule 11, “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside,” by which Alinsky appears to mean that you keep disparaging and misrepresenting your opponent until the opponent thinks he has a problem, or at least the general public does. Here is an example of that, in action:

https://twitter.com/SteveSkojec/status/1226178290529947649

The truth is quite the opposite. As anyone and everyone knows, who reads Ann’s arguments, she always cites reality or Church documents. She never say that anyone should listen to her because she is the source of authority. She is always saying that everyone needs to confront and accept reality, and overcome their inhibitions to live by the teachings and faith of the Church. — Whereas, it is Steve Skojec who is constantly insisting that Catholics ignore Canon Law and the teachings of the Church and Saints as regards the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and the indefectibility of his person, because some late Scholastic Theologian said something with the word “canonical” in it, but he, Steve Skojec, cancels out that word, and uses the statement as a new rule for discernment against which no teaching of the Church or canon law can be cited, without showing madness or insanity or a schismatic or heretical spirit.

The general attack, used most of all, however, even by pro-Bergoglian apologists, of the kind which Skojec is certainly not, is Rule 3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.” However, this rule did them in, because little did they know, that there are Catholics out there who are far more capable of understanding Church teaching than they themselves are capable of crafting arguments against it. — Praise be to God!

Reflections

As Catholics we should reject all the methods and lies of Satan. We should likewise reject the methods and lies of all false ideologies, especially Marxism.  When we see any individual or group doing things of this kind in the Church, then we have found a true cancer in the Church, because it does not live by the teachings of Jesus and the examples He has given us, or His Holy Spirit has given in the Saints.

Such individuals objectively are not in communion with the Church, nay, they work against it by striving to kill souls and deceive them. Perhaps they do not know what they are doing, because sin can blind the mind so much as to make it barely capable of discerning its own culpability. But we cannot ignore the fact that by such behavior, whatever persons or groups do such things, they are not in communion with the Church, morally or spiritually speaking, because being in grave mortal sin and working against Her, they have not the life of God in them.

Aiding and abetting such individuals and groups would be a sin of collaboration in the evil they propose. But helping them see their error is a great work of mercy, because it respects them as creatures of God, even if at times they might act like individuals unworthy of the pearls thrown at them.

Nevertheless, a sustained and constant attack by officers of corporations and media outlets against the teaching of the Church on any point must be seen for what it is. Catholics can no longer ignore that the “Recognize and Resist” Movement is at the service of evil in itself, and of even greater evil, inasmuch as it gives power to Bergoglio in sustaining his false claims to be the Pope and to not be a formal, pertinacious heretic.

COMICAL POSTSCRIPT

https://twitter.com/SteveSkojec/status/1226632515936407558

+ + +

_________

* In U.S. tax law such an approach is not fraud, if the monies are disbursed as salary for work done on behalf of the non-profit. But Mr. Skojec’s supporters are able to get a tax write-off — if they qualify according to IRS rules for being able to take itemized  deductions — for effectively paying him a salary to write articles for One Peter Five. Unlike, Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., the non-profit which publishes Br. Bugnolo’s books, which has never paid a salary to anyone. And unlike, Ordo Miltiaris Inc., a for-profit, which has never paid a salary to anyone. — Steve does quite well, according to the tax filings for One Peter Five, which show that in 3 recent years alone, his combined earnings in salary were near $500,000 USD. So someone is paying him to do what he does, clearly.

_________

CREDITS:  The Featured Image is a screen shot of Steve Skojec’s public Twitter Page, which is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary. The embeded tweets from his Twitter timeline are likewise employed.

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Editorials, Philosophy

Siscoe’s Triple shell game

14 Comments

hqdefault

Recently at One Peter Five, a website which is subtitled, “Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition”, Robert Siscoe has published an article to quell the raging doubts Catholics have about the legitimacy of Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy: the first part of which is entitled: “Dogmatic Fact, the One Doctrine which proves Francis is Pope“, and the second part of which is entitled, “For Each Objection, an answer why Francis is Pope“.

There is nothing much to be said for his article other than it’s a lawyer-esque attempt to convince his audience using 3 different shell games.  As you may know, a shell game is where you put a ball under one shell and then quickly shuffle the shells on a table top so that the onlooker loses track of which of the shells contains the ball, and then you ask the onlooker to guess under which shell the ball is.  In American popular discourse, a shell game, therefore, is a trick whereby you pretend that something is one thing at one time, when it really is not.

Here are Siscoe’s 3 Shell games:

The Church

In Siscoe’s mouth the verbal expression “The Church” has two distinct meanings: the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, AND the mass of those who uncritically accept that the resignation of Benedict XVI is valid because they never examined its conformity to Canon 332 §2.

The Shell Game that Siscoe plays with these 2 senses can be reduced to a simple Sophistic argument (i.e. invalid syllogism), thus:

Major: The Chuch (founded by Jesus Christ) cannot be deceived about who is the Pope.

Minor: The Church (of all those who have not examined the resignation of Benedict) accept Bergoglio as Pope Francis.

Conclusion: Therefore, The Church (founded by Jesus Christ) accepts Bergoglio as Pope Francis.

This kind of argumentation is a false illation, because the term “The Church” has not the same signification in both the major and minor premises of the syllogism.  Aristotle calls this the Sophism of the undistributed middle term, or the equivocation.

Fallible Private Opinion

In Siscoe’s mouth, the phrase “Fallible Private Opinion” has two senses:  in one sense its a judgement about something wherein the judgement may or may not be correct, because its not based on objective reality but on an interpretation of reality.  In the other sense, its any fact of objective reality which he wants to ignore for the sake of his argument.

The Shell Game that Siscoe plays with these 2 senses can be reduced to a simple Sophistic argument (i.e. invalid syllogism), thus:

Major: No merely infallible private opinion about dogmatic facts can assert itself as more authoritative than the judgement of the majority of men and women in the Church, since the Church’s sensus fidelium and Her indefectibility protects Her from error.

Minor: That Benedict’s act of renunciation regards the ministerium and not the munus, is a fallible private opinion.

Conclusion: Therefore, no one has the right to sustain that Benedict’s resignation is invalid against the vast majority of the members of the Church.

The error of this illation is found chiefly in the Minor. Because, that Benedict said ministerio not muneri in his act of renunciation is NOT a private opinion, but a fact of history.

Siscoe may not know it, but the Science of Logic teaches that the verity of premises flows down to their conclusions in valid illations.  Thus:

Major: That Benedict renounced his ministerium, is a fact of history.

Minor: That canon 332 §2 requires the renunciation of munus, is not a fallible private opinion, but a fact of law, being the very text of the Law.

Conclusion: That Benedict’s act of resignation is not in conformity with canon 332 is a fact of history.

Siscoe might want to ignore canon 38, which says that any Motu Proprio which runs counter to the terms of the law, EVEN IN THE CASE IN WHICH the one positing the act is IGNORANT of the law, is invalid UNLESS there is an express derogation from the law by the competent authority (in this case by the Pope), but Canon 38 is there and Catholics cannot ignore to apply it to this case.  Thus the conclusion infallibly follows, since the act of resignation contained no derogation from canon 38 or 332, that:

Benedict did not validly resign.

Peaceful and Universal Acceptance

These words mean two things in the mouth of Siscoe: in one sense they mean universal and peaceful and CANONICAL acceptance by the Church (see last quotation in part II). In the other sense they mean peaceful and universal acceptance CANONICAL OR NOT by the Church (see the citation of Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori).

So Siscoe’s usage of both terms can be reduced to this syllogism:

Major: The acceptance (Canonical) by the Church of of a man as Pope requires that all accept him as validly elected.

Minor: Bergoglio has been accepted (even if it be unCanonically).

Conclusion: Bergoglio must be accepted by all the Church as validly elected.

Siscoe’s illation is false because he is using 2 different senses of accepted. If he used the ancient reflex principle in its proper context, as he cites it in the final citation of that article, and did so AT THE BEGINNING of his article it would be obvious that he is beating against the air, because since the controversy regards whether Benedict canonically resigned, the key quality to be examined in the resignation is its conformity to canon law.

In Conclusion

Siscoe misunderstands the notion of infallibility.  Infallibility as a quality is the natural property of God alone as Infinite Truth. Infallibility as a charism of grace is vouchsafed to only a validly elected successor of Saint Peter. But infallibility is a quality of every true proposition, on account of truth being per se infallible, even if the thing asserted be asserted by a non infallible created person without any gift of grace.

Siscoe also seems to not know the distinction between an opinion and a fact. One can have an opinion about whether there is life on Mars, because we yet do not know if there is or is not. But one cannot have an opinion of whether there is life on Earth, since that is a fact.  An opinion can be had when both sides, pro and con, are possibles. But when there can be no truth on one side of the judgement, an opinion is impossible.

NOTE WELL: In this controversy, there is a fallible private opinion which is being asserted by some as superior to truth, reality and law, and it is this: that the renunciation of ministerium effects a renunciation of munus. Those who hold this opinion have yet to prove it, and the only valid proof must be in accord with the norm of Canon 17.