Skip to main content

HERESY?: Leo XIV: 'Absolute exclusion of the death penalty'... "Dr Edmund Mazza..drawn our attention..article written by Leo XIV, then-Bishop Robert Prevost"


Comments

Anonymous said…
You are promoting a no win situation. How does one proceed if what you say is true? If someone follows your lead on this, and they reject the pope, and you're in error, then you have led someone outside the church. If what you are saying is true then the Gates of Hell prevailed and you made Christ a liar? Lastly, there are many bishops and theologians in the world, none of them have raised your points, and Mazza is pretty much alone, out on a limb, asking for others to join him. No thanks.
Anonymous said…
No one in authority has alleged heresy. No one has had a case of heresy proven or even investigated. And you want people to follow you? Nope, I'll stay in the church, with the pope until proven otherwise.
Fred Martinez said…
It is mind-boggling how these supposedly "conservative" interlocutors of yours (I have just listened to the Timothy Flanders interview)
insist that there is no way to distinguish, and then make that distinction the basis of their own conclusions. They do distinguish--between those like yourself who are willing to contrast Tradition with presemt reality, and those who think that theologically two plus two can equal five, siding philosophically if not politically with the latter. Thus they contend that an elective inability to be rational counts as the authentically Catholic thing to do.

Flanders essentially argues, in other words, that your citation of the "doubtful pope" principle does not apply because we, as Catholics, have no right or standing to doubt anything.

He doubts, in other words, that man is made in the image and likeness of God, endowed with an intellect and will of his own. He gets to doubt, but anyone who disagrees with him does not.

Evidently, it is not only members of the hierarchy who have lost the plot when it comes to the very nature of the Catholic Faith. If we have learned anything from the past twelve years, maybe it's that.


"Take England all, from tide to tide; be Athelney my share." (G. K. Chesterton)
Fred Martinez said…
The above comment is from a Catholic Monitor reader that destroys your two comments.

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...

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...

5 Dubia Questions for 1P5's Steve Skojec & All faithful Catholics especially Francis is definitely Pope Cardinals, Bishops & pundits

Here are five really short and easy to answer dubia questions which hopefully aren't too complicated for Steve Skojec, publisher of the One Peter Five website, to answer. To make it really easy for the publisher of One Peter Five it has been formatted so that he only has to answer: yes or no. 1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said "The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See." Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no. 2. "Universal Acceptance" theologian John of St. Thomas said "This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff." Was John of St. Thomas for saying "the supreme pontiff" must be BOTH "lawfully elected and accepted by the Church" a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no. 3. Do you think that a "supreme pontiff...