Starting at about 39 minutes of the video linked below, Dr. Edmund Mazza explains that if one presumes that Jorge Bergoglio is the pope, then he cannot be brought to trial for heresy because a pope, having supreme jurisdiction, cannot be canonically judged. His position agrees with what I wrote in this post. Yet there are so many in Traditionalist circles, including of the True Resistance, who think that cardinals and bishops can get together and hold an imperfect council to canonically judge one presumed to be pope. There is only one word to describe this proposition: heresy!
https://rumble.com/v1xxfxu-dr.-mazza-interview-with-fatima-souls-november-2022.html
Dr. Edmund Mazza and you (Tony) are not learnt the Catholic Teachings well enough to know what the Doctors of the Church have been taught. Regardless what you believe Francis is a pope or not, doesn’t matter here. Be humble and be wise to learn, stop your arrogant of ” ‘you’ ” know everything attitude…”
Even if a valid Pope who teaches or professes publicly heresy will be cut off from the chair of St. Peter by the DEFINITION OF THE FAITH ALONE, and he terminated himself by his own “crimes of heresy.”
Here is one example I had told you to look for and learn it yourself you refused to do so. I have to bring this to your mouth this time but no more. Look up around 1:08:00 https://youtu.be/ftBg3mAxOPs. Many Saints and Doctors of the Church had taught this case so that when it comes the faithful will know how to deal with them.
Nobody needs to denounce the Pope who publicly denied the faith. HE DENOUNCED HIMSELF. But the Cardinals, Bishops… etc need to be formed to ask him publicly three questions… (listen to Fr. Gruner, he explained it very well so the spiritual retarded can understand) and if the crimes of heresy had confirmed by the pope own mouth. HE IS FINISHED. HE IS PUBLICLY CUT HIMSELF OFF THE CHURCH, FROM CHRIST, AND BE AS AN ANTIPOPE/ANTICHRIST. The church can call a conclave to elect a true holy Catholic Pope who will lead Christ’s Church.
Purple, what is your exact problem with my post? Read my post carefully. What did I write that you don’t agree with?
You said Fr. Isaac Relyea has it wrong about the College of Cardinals being able to depose a reigning Pope. I wrote a comment saying “No, he is not wrong but on the line of the Catholic Teachings and I told you to dig up a very “lay term explanation” that Fr. Gruner’s video. He and many others have been talking/discussing on many occasions according to the Doctors of the Church that teach the faithful what to do when this happens. (I think Fr. Isaac Relyea was there also… I don’t remember clearly, it was so long… my memory is kind of fading, but I think I saw him there…)
So far, nobody did it because this is the first time it’s happened, and needs to be done right now. You acted as if I don’t understand you or know nothing about Catholic Teaching on the issue. I am tired of “half truth and half compromised languages” that kill the faith.
If you want to know something true, examine all the aspects and listen to all sides and test it with the Church’s Teachings before you condemned others. Fr. Isaac was correct on this matter at this critical time. If not, then Saints and Theologians were all liars and wrong too, including Fr. Gruner, Fr. Kramer, me and so many others…
Sorry, Purple. Fr. Kramer doesn’t agree with that “the College of Cardinals are able to depose a reigning Pope”.
“…..whoever says that the pope’s inferiors, even the totality of the episcopate congregated together in a council, possess the power to dissolve the conjunction which joins the papacy to the person of the Supreme Pontiff, either directly or indirectly (by introducing a disposition to disjoin the conjunction), explicitly asserts heresy against the dogma of the Primacy, solemnly defined in Pastor Æternus, which infallibly set forth as de fide definita the ‘total fullness of supreme power’ of the Primacy — a fullness of power which in virtue of its totality admits no share whatsoever to the pope’s inferiors in the exercise of that supreme power by which the Roman Pontiff exercises exclusively a ‘full and supreme power of jurisdiction’ (Pastor Æternus) — a ‘full and absolute jurisdiction’ (Vacantis Apostolicæ Sedis) which he exercises even over the conjunction between the papacy and himself.”
Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (pp. 137-138). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.
Read my comment. The council only has to ask him 3 questions. The answer out of his own mouth will depose himself. No one needs or judges him, out of his own answer, he will expose and judge himself of his “CRIME OF HERESY” and he will cut himself off. Read my comments. I wrote at least 4, or 5 comments on this subject, and Fr. Kramer also appeared in the video that I told you to listen to. Your arrogant “know-all things” blind you spiritually miserably. Without the council, the AntiPope and AntiChrist will be in charge because of stupid Catholics who sit back and do nothing because they think they are doing the right thing.
I was writing about a canonical trial where the pope is brought to trial and deposed if found guilty. I did not write about a pope deposing himself. Once again, read carefully what I wrote. I used the term “depose” and in reference to the College of Cardinals “deposing” the pope.
Who exactly in traditional circles is advocating for a council to judge a pope? One typically only hears from a few scattered laity advocate for this.
It is not so much the advocacy as the proposition. That a putative pope can be judged for heresy by a council is defended by John Salza and Robert Siscoe as per Fr. Paul Kramer in his Volume 1 of To Deceive the Elect:
“In the first volume, I examine and explain the theology of defection from the faith and the Church; and refute primarily the erroneous and heretical arguments of the legalist-fundamentalist propagandists of Conciliarism, John Salza and Robert Siscoe, who heretically profess that a Church council possesses the authority to juridically pass judgment on a reigning Pontiff for the delict of heresy; and who heretically defend the thesis that a manifest heretic pope would, even as a manifest heretic who has publicly defected from the faith into formal heresy, remains in office as pope until judged guilty by his inferiors in the Church.”
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
Well, who is proposing this position?
You write, “Yet there are so many in Traditionalist circles, including of the True Resistance, who think that cardinals and bishops can get together and hold an imperfect council to canonically judge one presumed to be pope. There is only one word to describe this proposition: heresy!”
If you accuse someone, name the accused. Otherwise the entire group of traditional Catholics is suspect according to you?
Heavy charges without substance unless context or elaboration is provided.
I will name people as I see fit. You either believe me or you don’t. The entire group of Traditional Catholics is not suspect.