Skip to main content

Dr. Mazza: I have long argued that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid. But if somehow it were, he has lost his office due to material heresy—even if he were somehow not formally guilty of heresy

Dr. Mazza: I have long argued that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid. But if somehow it were, he has lost his office due to material heresy—even if he were somehow not formally guilty of heresy

Comments

Renato said…
In my opinion, God has granted certainty to the Church through the dogma of a legitimate Roman Pontiff being infallible always, although he is a man with weaknesses, not in the probability of the "maybe" and the "probable", there is no way a Pope can be a formal heretic (definitively) or not someday. Because this is part of an act of faith, but it does not cease to be rational and just on the part of God. That is why many people fall into this same rambling and lose the certainty that it would lead to the confidence of the divine promises. Because there is no such faith. And many, as a result, leave the Church. One should not mix the fallible with the infallible; The wrong with the right It is a basic matter of logic. Aristotle defended three basic principles of logic: this infallibility is infallibility, there is no contradiction that this infallibility is infallibility and at the same time a non-infallibility. There is no third option, for example, it is impossible to say that infallibility is part of the Church and not part of the Church. Therefore, let "our yes be yes; let not ours be not" (Matthew 5:37). This is part of our belief.

1:08 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more