Full Transcript of Dr. Mazza's interview with John-Henry Westen: "[On] Bp Schneider's statement, I can't think of a statement in 2,000 years of Catholic history that is more un-Catholic than to say that the Pope can teach grievous error and even be a flaming heretic. And not only that, but there's nothing we can do, we just have to live with it."
Dr. Mazza interview with John-Henry Westen:
What Church History REVEALS About Leo’s Pontificate: Burke, Miriam & Schneider’s Analysis...
We thank Dr. Ed Mazza and LifeSite News' John Henry Westen for giving The Catholic Monitor permission to post a transcription of the show and post it on our site. Above is the full video:
John-Henry Westen: Hello, my friends. Well, as you can see, the crisis in the Church has reached a tipping point, I guess. This morning we had news from Bishop Paprocki that the SSPX, well, they're just now Protestants anyway. But I don't want to talk about Bishop Paprocki today. I want to talk about three people in the Church that I know and love, that at least at some point I was able to call friends. They're heroes of mine in the Church who have fought the crisis in the Church, who have called out the errors of at least Francis. And it's terrible because there's so much division in the Church right now. The best people are fighting the best people. These three people I'm going to mention now, I consider likely one day they will be named saints, all of them. And I wouldn't be surprised. But I'm going to talk about what they're saying right now. I'm going to look at it critically, with the help of a Church historian, actually, whom you all know. His name is Ed Mazza. He is a historian, a Church medieval historian. He's done lots of work in this area. He's written a few books now. He's got a new book out on antipopes. Ed Mazza, thank you so much for joining us. Oh, it's a pleasure as always.
I'm going to start is a Sign of the Cross. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. I'm going to start with a good friend of mine who recently came out with her position on the SSPX. This is Mother Miriam. She's super famous because she was Jewish, then converted to become an Evangelical, and then tried to convert Catholics for about 10 years, and then became a Catholic, and under Cardinal Burke, founded her own order, and now works to promote the truth, and is unafraid to call out the errors, even the errors of Francis and Leo. But here was her take on the current situation with the SSPX. Let's have a listen.
Neither pope has given us a faithful, a matter of doctrine that is of faith and morals that is wrong, in error, and bounded on the faithful. How do we know that Pope Leo is the pope, and that Pope Francis was the? Because they have been universally accepted as pope now. If they're false, it'll take a future pope to declare that. But we can't know that. We cannot know that they're accepted as pope by the Church, even if they teach heresy.
From there also, though, we have Bishop Schneider. Another man I know and love and honestly think he's going to be a saint, and he too has recognized the errors of Francis and even Leo, but he has a thesis that is very controversial. I want to read you a line from his thesis, and it's a very interesting one, and I think one that shocks in a particular way. I talked to him at length in various interviews about this very topic years ago already. But I want to just read you from his essay over at OnePeter5, which I think is very succinct. He says, "The Pope cannot commit heresy when he speaks ex cathedra. This is a dogma of faith. In his teaching outside of ex cathedra statements, however, he can commit doctrinal ambiguities, errors, and even heresies. And since the Pope is not identical with the entire Church, the Church is stronger than a singular erring or heretical Pope."
Just so that we're all clear on heresies, I want to let you know that we are talking about heresies, and this is where the third character whom I know and love and is also.
In this debate, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who I also think will someday be a saint, but he has said and avowed that what we're dealing with when it comes to certain teachings, the death penalty, is a reversal of Church teaching on the death penalty teaching. The new one by Francis is in the Catechism, and it's been not only reiterated, but emphasized and more than highlighted, doubled down on by Leo XIV. Listen, this is Cardinal Burke saying in 2019 after Francis had come out with the new teaching on the death penalty, which opposed the old teaching. Here's what Cardinal Burke had to say. And by the way, Cardinal Burke did this in union with Cardinal Pujats, as well as Archbishop Tomas Peta, and Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga, and Bishop Schneider. This was their assessment of just the one heresy. They say, in accordance with the Holy Scripture and the constant tradition of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church, did not err in teaching that the civil power may lawfully exercise capital punishment, i.e. the death penalty, on malefactors where this is truly necessary to preserve the existence or just order of societies. In case you're wondering about it, here's Pope Leo reiterating Francis's heretical teaching on the death penalty, and then his doubling down. Watch this. It's important to look at many issues that are related to what is the teaching of the Church. Someone who says, I'm against abortion, but says I'm in favor of the death penalty, is not really pro-life. So someone who says that I'm against abortion, but I'm in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants or in the United States, I don't know if that's pro-life. So they're very complex issues.
And I'm really hoping that you, Ed Mazza, can make some sense of this for us.
Because what we have now is this teaching, I guess it was Bess, expounded by Bishop Schneider. Popes can, indeed, teach errors, as long as it's not in ex cathedra statements. And Mother Miriam seems to follow that logic when condemning the SSPX, because she says that we are to follow, but she adds, not when he's commanding sin, comparing that to a husband who is to be listened to by his wife unless there's sin. And then Cardinal Burke as well, saying we must obey, you know, the SSPX must obey the Holy Father. All of them accepting this premise that was basically best enunciated by Bishop Schneider, that a pope can indeed, in his official teaching on faith and morals, give us heresy. Let me start off with this question. The last ex cathedra statement in the Church, when was that? In 1950, Pius XII solemnly defined the Assumption of Our Lady. I guess since then, we could have had anything goes. Any heretical teaching on faith and morals could have been possible. And we're just, I guess, really lucky that it's only been Francis and Leo and everybody else didn't, and faith could look completely different. I'm trying to make sense of this. I don't mean to be flippant, but it's really a central question. And you had a line in your book that really struck me because it really pinpointed this, and it was this line, and I'm hoping you can expand on that for us. You said, we're forced to choose between the conclusion that the Bergoglian pontificate, that means Francis's pontificate, was invalid, or that the ordinary papal magisterium can teach dangerous errors, something that no ecumenical council or canonized saint has ever taught. Tell us if you would.
Dr. Ed Mazza: Because the question is not whether or not the SSPX bishops have excommunicated themselves. The question is, is the Pope the Pope? And this is a question that few people have been willing to grapple with publicly for over 13 years now. Okay. Francis was not Francis. And for all appearances, Leo is not Leo. These are manifest public heretics parading as legitimate popes. They're antipopes. And heretics don't have the power to excommunicate anybody, as we can get into. But I want to make that clear. There's an elephant in the room. And with all due respect to Mother Miriam, Cardinal Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and everybody else in the Catholic world, that's what we have to understand. The first question is, do we have an antipope squatting on the chair of Peter?
Our Lady of Fatima, in the third secret, as we have been told by different prelates in the Church, said that the devil would infiltrate the Church, there would be apostasy starting from the top. That's the first thing we got to get on the table here.
That being said, the next thing we have to address is Bishop Schneider's statement. I can't think of a statement in 2,000 years of Catholic history that is more un-Catholic than to say that the Pope can teach grievous error and even be a flaming heretic. And not only that, but there's nothing we can do, we just have to live with it.
So where to begin? Well, let's begin with Catholic teaching on the role of the Pope within the Catholic Church. You were very kind to point out all of this is in my book, Saints vs. Antipopes. There are over 135 theologians who have grappled with the issue of can a Pope be a heretic, and if a Pope was a heretic, what would happen? Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, said that if the Pope were a heretic, he would automatically lose his office. Suarez is another famous theologian who agreed with him. On the other side of the question, there's John of Saint Thomas, for example, who says that, well, an imperfect council would have to be held in order to actually depose the heretical Pope. Now, out of these 130-plus theologians who have come to grips with this issue, only one, Marie-Dominique Bouix, thought that the heretic Pope would still be Pope. Those people who claim that Leo was a heretic or Francis was a heretic, but he's still Pope, and we still owe him obedience, and he still has the jurisdiction to excommunicate people, they're following one person out of 135, and they're not even doing that. Because every theologian will, I'll just read you the quote. This is from Marie-Dominique Bouix. But on the hypothesis that the Pope could turn privately heretic, I would deny in an absolute way that he would be deposed ipso facto, or that he could be deposed by any council. Now, Saint Robert Bellarmine classified this opinion as exceedingly improbable. And again, this is the only opinion out of 135. The bottom line is this. All these hundreds of theologians that have talked about the possibility of a Pope becoming a heretic, and then what to do with him. Does he lose his office automatically, or do we need an imperfect council? Or in the case of Marie-Dominique Bouix, there's nothing you can do. In all of these cases, they are postulating the Pope fell into heresy as a private teacher, as a private doctor. As far as I'm aware, there is no one in Catholic history, in 2,000 years of Catholic history, no saint, no council, that has ever taught that a Vicar of Christ, a successor of Saint Peter, a Pope, qua Pope, acting as Pope in his ordinary or his extraordinary magisterium, could teach heresy. There is no such teaching in the Catholic Church. In fact, quite the opposite I can prove.
Westen: Can you just clarify that point for a second? Because you said in his ordinary or extraordinary magisterium. Define that. What does that mean?
Mazza: When the Pope makes a pronouncement like Pius XII made the solemn declaration that Mary was assumed into heaven in 1950, or in 1854, Pope Pius IX solemnly defined that Mary was immaculately conceived, or on certain other occasions, the Pope acting ex cathedra, right, teaching something that all Catholics must hold to, is protected by the Holy Spirit, it's a negative protection, he's protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching heresy, okay? It's infallible, it's infallible teaching, unfailing as it were. There is the ordinary magisterium, which is, you know, as the name would imply, it's the teaching authority which the Pope ordinarily employs.
And as you point out, Bishop Schneider and others, a philosopher Ed Feiser, a number of, you know, otherwise good individuals, who teach that, well, the Pope can make serious, grievous errors in these other modes, this ordinary mode of teaching. It's just that Francis and Leo are the, you know, the most extraordinary and prolific examples of this in 2,000 years of Church teaching. There is no backing to this, there is no foundation to assuming that.
Again, it's already been established that when a Pope speaks ex cathedra, that is to say, in his extraordinary magisterium, he is infallible. He can't teach error of any kind, actually, let alone heresy. But what about the ordinary magisterium? Well, the Pope can be infallible even in his ordinary magisterium when, not just one Pope, but a series of Popes teach over a long period of time the same thing again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again to the whole Church. That is infallible. Now, you read this in every dogmatic manual, especially written before Vatican II. That's what you'll find. So, the fact that the Popes 17 times have said that Mary is Mediatrix of all graces and Co-Redemptrix means that those teachings are actually infallible, which actually shows that Pribos is most likely an antipope, because he is, through Tucho, is saying that we can't call Mary Co-Redemptrix or Mediatrix, even though the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church, 17 different statements from Popes, have established that that is infallible teaching. That doesn't mean that it's an ex cathedra teaching, because it's not the extraordinary magisterium. My old colleague, Dr. Mark Miravalle, has been petitioning the Holy See to come out and make an extraordinary magisterial statement on the subject. But quite frankly, in the words of Father William Most, one of the best teachers of the 20th century, we don't need it. It's already infallible.
But I got news for you. That's not the only teaching that's been repeated 17 or more times over the course of centuries, actually. There is a teaching that the Pope is indefectible, the successor of Saint Peter cannot defect from the faith. In other words, he cannot teach grievous error that's poisonous to the rest of the Church. This was confirmed at the First Vatican Council, as a matter of fact, and it's also been confirmed dogmatically by other Popes. But with your indulgence, I will read a few quotes just to give an example. There's probably two dozen or more throughout the history of the Church. And this is predicated upon Saint Luke chapter 22, verses 32 through 33, where our Lord says to Saint Peter, he says to him that Satan has desired to sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail. When you have come to yourself, confirm your brothers, confirm the brethren. Now, again, there's scores of commentaries by Popes and saints down through the centuries on this point. And the point is, is that the Roman Pontiff cannot teach error, period. I mean, serious error that would land souls in hell if they followed it. So in the back of my book, again, Saints versus Antipopes, I've got an appendix, and in that appendix I list these statements by the most famous statements by Popes and by other saints. So, for example, Saint Lucius I, Pope Martyr, who ruled from 253 to 254, this is under the Decian persecution. I mean, this is in the catacombs, this is really early, right?
This is what he says, the Roman Apostolic Church is the mother of all churches and has never been shown to have wandered from the path of apostolic tradition, nor being deformed, succumbed to heretical novelties, according to the promise of the Lord himself to Peter. Again, Luke 22, verses 31 through 32, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. Another early Pope that we could point to, Pope Saint Felix I, Martyr, 269 to 274. He says, speaking of the Roman Church, as it took up in the beginning the norm of the Christian faith from its authors, the princes of the apostles of Christ, she, the Roman see, remains unsullied according to what the Lord said, I have prayed for thee, etc., etc. Pope Damasus I, who ruled from 366 to 382, the first see, therefore, is that of Saint Peter, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish. Let's look to some later Popes. This is Pope Pelagius II, who ruled from 579 to 590. And he cites Luke 22, and he says, see, beloved, the truth cannot be falsified, nor can the faith of Peter ever be shaken or changed. And he goes on to say, well, again, let me give you another quote. The ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 869 repeated the words of Pope Hormisdas from 534 to, excuse me, 514 to 523, because in the apostolic see the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled, and her well-known doctrine has been kept holy.
So I could literally go through 2,000 years of Catholic history and give you dozens and dozens and dozens of Popes who taught something repeatedly to the whole Church, which means it's infallible. It's infallible that the Pope is indefectible, that he cannot teach heresy. That's what I would say to Bishop Schneider, that's what I would say to Mother Miriam, that's what I would say to Cardinal Burke. It's an infallible teaching of the Church. What are you going to do about it?
Westen: How did the cardinals deal with it when they had to confront them, and how they even determined that they were anti-popes. I mean, obviously, this time is mega confusing. You have the best people on either side. It reminds me of what our Lord said in the Scriptures, "In the end, even the elect, if it be possible, will be confused." Give us some examples from history of how bishops, priests, and cardinals dealt with the same kind of a thing.
Mazza: One of the earliest examples we have is from one of the darkest parts of the Dark Ages. We have St. Columban, an Irish missionary, who went throughout barbarian Europe bringing the faith back. And at the time, he writes a letter to Pope Boniface IV, I think it is. He's heard a rumor that Boniface is promoting Pope Vigilius's council that was held under Emperor Justinian, which looked like it was making compromises for the faith in order to appease the Monophysite heretics. And so it looks like the Pope is defending or promoting heretics. So let me read you the quote that Boniface says to him. Oh, excuse me, that Columban says to Pope Boniface IV. "I summon you. Remove the cloud of suspicion from St. Peter's chair. Call a conference so that you may clear the charges laid against you. For you are alleged to favor heretics. God forbid men should believe that this has been, is, or shall be true." And goes on to say that, "Already it is your fault if you have erred from the true belief and made your first faith void. Justly do your subordinates oppose you, and justly do they hold no communion with you. For if these things are rather true than fabled, with changed roles, your sons are turned into the head, while you become the tail. Thus too shall they be your judges, who have always kept the orthodox faith, even if they seem to be your subordinates." And he goes on to say, now he acknowledges Rome is the head of all the churches of the world, but he says, "Be careful lest you lose your dignity through some mistake. For power will be in your hands just so long as your principles remain sound. For he is the appointed key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven, who opens by true knowledge to the worthy and shuts to the unworthy. Otherwise, if he does the opposite, he shall be able neither to open nor to shut."
In other words, a pope will lose his power, he will lose his office, if he becomes a heretic or promotes the heresy of others. So this is just one example of St. Columban here, telling that to Boniface IV. Now, the ironic part of all of this is that not only is St. Columban a saint, but Boniface IV is also saint, Boniface IV. So even a saintly pope can be accused of being an antipope. It all depends on how they ultimately clarify their actions or don't clarify their actions.
Westen: It's really stunning because Columban doesn't even know that it is for sure. It's on suspicion because he's given the impression that. That's a bit freaky because we have so much impression that, I mean, well, we have statements out loud by Leo and Francis. The one on death penalty was so clear, but you could make more about how all religions are pathways to God. Leo saying to the Anglicans, we're already one. And if it's just about meetings with people who are heretical and seeming to give them favor, well, both Leo and Francis famously meet with Father James Martin, the biggest purveyor of, you know, a homosexual heresy in the Church.
Mazza: I also want So listen here before I forget, and that is that, you know, I said earlier that every Catholic theologian that deals with the issue of can the Pope be a heretic, they don't think it's possible. But they'll grant it as a hypothetical if the Pope could teach heresy as a private doctor. For example, like Cardinal Ratzinger in his trilogy, Jesus of Nazareth. He says up front, I'm not teaching as Pope here, I'm teaching as a private doctor. Feel free to disagree with me. I've got a quote here from Pope John Paul II, and this is what he says. He says that, "The essential task of the papal magisterium is to explain the doctrine of the faith and to promote the knowledge of the mystery of God and the work of salvation, bringing out all the aspects of the divine plan as it unfolds in human history under the action of the Holy Spirit. This is the service to the truth that has been primarily entrusted to Peter's successor." And this is the key phrase, "who, in the ordinary exercise of his magisterium, is already acting not as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church." When the Pope is teaching as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, he cannot teach heresy. Plain and simple.
Westen: That's so troubling because, you know, with the official teaching documents of Amoris Laetitia, of Gaudete et Exsultate, of Redemptus Suplicans, we have that problem even faith where every Catholic who's a Catholic knows that's not on. And yet it's a teaching on faith and morals that, as Catholics, we're supposed to submit to in mind and in will. Please continue.
Mazza: And some people say, well, you know, theologians debate whether or not the Pope can lose his office. But as I just pointed out, we've got dozens and dozens of popes that taught magisterially and infallibly that the Holy See is indefectible. But if you want to go back to the argument about does the Pope lose his office, Pope Innocent III in his magisterium teaches, so he, the Pope, can be judged by men, or rather shown to be judged, if he clearly loses his savor to heresy, since he who does not believe is already judged. More examples of popes saints and what they did practically speaking. At the turn of the second, at the beginning of the second millennium, there was a situation in medieval Europe where kings, emperors, lay lords were appointing bishops. Not only were they appointing bishops, they were investing them with the symbols of their spiritual authority. Now, the reason why this had gone on is because for 200 years there was this sort of salutary neglect that had happened because of the Vikings and the Magyars and different invasions that happened, and Europe broke up into feudal Europe, and the papacy was in a bad state. But when the reform popes came along, they said, no, you can't keep doing this. This was known as the Investiture Controversy. And the emperors, one emperor, decided to imprison Pope Pascal II. And then when Pascal II was released, the rest of the bishops of the Church were expecting Pascal to condemn the emperor for lay investiture. But he didn't, even when he got his liberty back. So, three canonized saints, saintly bishops, Saint Hugo, Saint Yves, and Saint Godfrey, attended a council in France. And at this council, they condemned in a document lay investiture. And they, you know, and what they did was they wrote to the Pope, and they said, as we absolutely do not expect, you choose another way, and you refuse to confirm the decisions of our authority, may God help us, for you will be separating us from obedience to you. He's an anti-pope, and therefore they don't have to be in communion with an anti-pope. Again, fortunately for history, he confirmed their teaching, and a crisis was averted. But the point is, John Henry, these saintly bishops, these canonized saints, they didn't sit idle. They didn't say, okay, let's have a novena campaign. They came out, and they said, Jesus's way or the highway.
Westen: So, at this point, I'm sure A lot of listeners are like me going, ah, where are our cardinals? Where are our bishops? They're like, they're literally nowhere. I mean, we've had Leo now, we've gone past his first anniversary as Pope. He's affirmed every horror from Francis. His clearest, easiest example of heresy is the death penalty one. He's not only affirmed it, he's doubled down on it with the, if you're not against the death penalty, you're not pro-life. But then with the new teaching demoting Our Lady, which, as you explained, was, you can't contradict it because the Church has said it over and over and over again. Contradicting an infallible teaching of the Church, but, you know, it's incredible because there's been veritable silence on Leo. Yeah, sure, there was some noise with regard to Francis, but I guess Francis showed enough of the cardinals, I'm going to demote you or the archbishops laicize you if you dare to speak out, such that we've had zero criticism of Leo from the cardinals. And even from bishops, almost nary a word, every once in a while a little blip, and that's it. And you're talking a handful of bishops, literally, on the planet. So we're left like the laity left doing it. But what are you supposed to do as laity? If you're saying here, the bishops are the one, are the ones to confront this, they're the ones to take it up, they're the ones, the cardinals principally, I guess, are the ones, but there's like zero, literally zero right now taking up Leo. What are you supposed to do?
Mazza: Well, we're told we're supposed to follow the example of the saints and holy people, correct? I mean, everything I've been telling you so far is what the Church has taught for centuries. Are we supposed to now no longer go along with that to please Leo, to please two Joe, or? So let's give some examples from history of what holy laypeople did under these suspicious circumstances and told by suspicious characters. If we go back to around the year 429, the imperial capital of Rome was Constantinople. It was a Christian empire. And the patriarch was a guy named Nestorius, under Emperor Theodosius II. In an infamous Christmas sermon, Theodosius comes out—I mean, Nestorius comes out—and says, Mary is not the mother of God. She's not the Theotokos. She's more like God's valet, because she dressed him in human clothes. But she's not the mother of the Word made flesh, as it were, right? And in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia, a lay lawyer stood up and said, that's heresy. And not only did he say, that's heresy, but then he went around and posted a document in public and in the Church, copies and copies and copies of documents of the same document, in which he says—his name was Eusebius. He was later made a bishop. And he later not only fought against Nestorianism, he later fought against the opposite heresy, Monophysitism. "I have sworn this statement by the Holy Trinity so that it may be made known to the bishops, priests, deacons, readers, and the faithful living in Constantinople, that the heresy of Nestorius is of the same kind as that of Paul of Samosata, who was condemned 160 years ago by the Orthodox Fathers." He goes through and he takes quotes from the heretic Paul of Samosata, and he lines up the statements of Nestorius. And he proves that Nestorius is a heretic. Now, Eusebius was never sanctioned by the Pope for having the audacity as a layman to resist his archbishop in this very proactive way that he did. And indeed, the opposite happened. As I told you, he later became a bishop and was instrumental in fighting Monophysitism. Now, Pope Celestine, when he eventually wrote to Nestorius, he says to him that, you know, this dreadful news has reached our ears, right, about your novelties. We hear that Christ's Church is torn apart. With what conscience are you living, meaning Nestorius, being deserted by nearly everyone in the city, meaning the imperial capital? Now, they've deserted communion from a heretical bishop. And the Pope said, you've been deserted, bro. That's not the only thing. John Henry, you at LifeSite News have reproduced an article by the good folks at WM Review. They have reproduced in the article, can heretics excommunicate, they say they quote Pope Celestine writing to the Eastern bishops, actually it's Pope Nicholas writing to the Emperor Michael, quoting Pope Celestine at the time of Nestorius writing to the Eastern bishops. And he says, if anyone has been excommunicated or stripped of the dignity of bishop or cleric by Bishop Nestorius from the time he began to preach such things, it is manifest that this person has persisted and does persist in our communion. And we do not consider him removed. Because the sentence of one who had already shown himself deserving of removal could not remove anyone. Hey, newsflash to the world. Leo doesn't have the power to excommunicate anybody. Two Joe doesn't have the power to excommunicate anybody, according to what? The magisterial teaching of Pope Celestine. Elephant in the room has to be dealt with. Now, that's not the only example of laypeople. Let's take a woman, an unlettered lay nothing, as my friend Ann Barnhardt likes to call her, with all due respect. Catherine of Siena, in September of 1378, wrote to the Italian cardinals. Why? Well, because in September, they, along with the other cardinals, had elected Robert of Geneva, whom Catherine considered an antipope, because they didn't like Urban, I guess it was Urban VI, I think, that was elected back in April. So, and the Italian cardinals eventually supported him. So the entire College of Cardinals supported an antipope, which historians, most historians believe was an antipope, Cardinal Robert of Geneva. And she writes to them, and again, in my book, Saints vs. Antipopes, I've got an appendix, the second appendix is selections from Catherine's letter to the Italian cardinals. And she says, what made you do this? The poison of self-love, which has infected the world. This is what has made you pillars lighter than straw, flowers, you who shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek. Tell me what you really think, Kathy. She goes on to say that, basically, this guy is the devil, and you have inflicted this devil on us. You should know better. I mean, so this is how a laywoman addressed the College of Cardinals. Well, we're supposed to emulate the saints, aren't we, John Henry?
Westen: Something you said really struck me because it is part of the conversation I had with Bishop Schneider. So I asked Bishop Schneider about the possibility, because if you remember during the, if you remember, you're the guy who wrote the book, but it was during the Francis pontificate that we were having all these troubles, one of which was because of what you presented. It was about the Benedict's resignation and how it doesn't work, how it's wrong. And I know there's different people who made the same claim. But that was one of the, and I asked Bishop Schneider about this, because not only is it the resignation, but then it was the rules set up by John Paul II for the election, which were also not followed. And then the pronouncement in the document that John Paul II made, Universi Dominici Gregis, especially I think it was paragraph 76, that talked about how if elected improperly, it doesn't count, it confers no power on the one elected, and there's no need for any announcement on the matter. And of course we had the revelations of the St. Gallen Mafia and that collusion, which violated the laws in Universi Dominici Gregis, the constitution on the election of the pontiff. And here's what Bishop Schneider told me. He said, if the whole College of Cardinals agrees that this is the Pope, that supplies for the problem, and he is the Pope for sure. And what you just said a second ago was that Catherine is fighting the whole College of Cardinals? That's crazy, because that just undoes what the very sort of thesis or whatever that it seems Bishop Schneider was working from.
Mazza: I tell you that you cardinals that you did wrong with the antipope. He was chosen a member of the devil. You have committed all these faults in regard to this devil, to confess him as pope, which he surely is not. Catherine of Siena. I will debate anybody, John Henry, anytime, anyplace, in the Catholic world, on this point, that lay people can observe objective reality and tell the truth like it is.
Westen: I want to come back to the beginning.Only because what we're experiencing right now in the Church is a rather unbelievable time of division, and I would say even diabolic disorientation. You have the best of the best of the best people fighting one another, sometimes less charitably. I have heard from now many people in this space calling for charity because these condemnations, like this morning with, you know, Bishop Paprocki saying, they're just, they're just Protestants. There is a understanding among all Orthodox Catholics that something is very, very wrong. To put it very simply, if Leo was your pastor at your parish, he last week met with Father James Martin. During the Holy Week, or Holy Week, he let, you know, the LGBT pilgrimage come in through your holy door at the parish. He keeps appointing associate pastors who are LGBT whatever, whatever. He has altar girls. He, and the list could go on and on. Would you let him catechize your children? And everybody knows the answer is no way. So, at one level, everybody gets it. But the issue is at this point, there is so much confusion, and an article that we published recently over at LifeSite from Father David Nix talks about that. Like, there's umpteen different positions, even among those who understand the Church crisis and get it. With the kind of fighting that's going on, of the really mean and nasty accusations, I think that's really, really harmful because there's very few people who at the same time get it. So, I very much appreciate you, and especially your humility. You come at things not from a, you don't brandish a sword or club to beat down your opponents with. You want to debate them. Everybody takes seriously what, you know, they feel the Holy Spirit's led them to. And you've done obviously a lot of research, but you don't lord it over people, I guess is a way of putting it, the way our Lord said or the way the apostles said. Why don't you give us your final thoughts on this, and I would encourage people to get your book, "Saints vs. Anti-Popes," because I think it's really quite something. Gives us that perspective of what we do. And maybe you can tell us a little bit about, maybe in your conclusion, the relationship between Catherine of Siena and another saint who was known as a miracle worker, Saint Vincent Ferrer.
Mazza: Yes, your second part, first, St. Vincent Ferrer, who, you know, converted thousands of Jews, raised the dead, was a wonderful Dominican preacher and great saint. And for a time, he supported what it turns out to be the anti-pope rather than the pope. So, in a certain sense, you know, Catherine, St. Catherine was on the right side of history, and St. Vincent Ferrer was not. And it just goes to show you that, you know, well-meaning people can be mistaken and be on different sides of an issue. And we shouldn't strike people off and say, you're in schism, you're going to hell, you're leading souls to hell. That's being judgmental, is it not? I mean, St. Anthony, not of Padua and not of Egypt, but St. Anthony, the saintly bishop of Florence during the early Renaissance, writes about this. He says that we, those people who supported a rival person as the pope, we shouldn't consider them to be in schism, that we have to have charity for everybody. That's the watchword, is charity, right? The truth and charity, caritas veritate, right? What I would add to what we said so far is that, in addition to the teaching of the saints, in addition to the teaching of the theologians, and in addition to just common sense, we actually have Marian apparitions. Our Lady did not leave us in the lurch. There's a reason why she said that the third secret was supposed to be revealed no later than 1960. There is evidence that, and again, I get into this in my book, Saints versus Anti-Popes. I also get into it in my book, The Third Secret of Fatima and the Synodal Church, Volume 1, Pope Benedict's Resignation. We have people like Dietrich von Hildebrand, Alice von Hildebrand, talking to the editor of L'Osservatore Romano, asking about the third secret and being told about the apostasy at the top. We have Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, reminding us that at Lourdes, at Fatima, should be at La Salette, at Fatima, Our Lady warned about apostasy at the top. And then we have Father Malachi Martin, who read the third secret because he was the assistant to Cardinal Bea. And Cardinal Bea was at the meeting when this was revealed by John XXIII. And Malachi Martin predicted in 1994, he says, the present situation, concentrating on the church John Paul II got and the policy he formulated, he still maintains the facade, he still welcomes the bishop for their ad limina visits, he still treats them as if they were doing their duty, knowing they're not doing their duty, knowing some of them are plotting against him, knowing some of them want him to resign before his time and get out so that they can elect a man after their own heart who will be an anti-pope. I mean, how much more evidence do we have to present that we have been warned? It's like somebody who's driving on a dangerous road. You pass that sign, you disregarded another sign, and you just kept on going until you went off the cliff. Who's to blame for that? Who's to blame for that? It's like St. John Paul II when he went to Fatima in 1982. He said, can the mother, who with all the force of the love that she fosters in the Holy Spirit, desires everyone's salvation, keep silence on what undermines the very basis of their salvation? No, she cannot. And he goes on to say that Our Lady said strong words at Fatima, but she did it because she was concerned about the pope and she was concerned about the church, and she was concerned about the salvation of souls. So we need to turn to Our Lady, we need to pray the rosary every day, we need to wear the brown scapular. And as Bishop Sheen said, you know, we need to hold our prelates and bishops and cardinals, we need to hold their feet to the fire. Because if there is an anti-pope sitting on the throne of Peter, and we don't get a proper consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary pretty soon, there's going to be chastisements. Lucia said, God will use Russia as the instrument to punish the whole world. Sr. Sasagawa at Akita, Our Lady told her that fire will fall from the sky and consume the greater part of humanity, that the living would envy the dead.
Westen: Yeah, there's one last thing that I'd like to bring up. You wrote something that I had never seen before, and it involved the approved apparition of La Salette. La Salette, where I think everybody knows now, they predicted that Rome would lose the faith, become the seat of Antichrist, that there would be two worm-ridden popes. But there's one other thing that I found fascinating. You note in your book that the Abbe Combe, the editor of the 1906 edition of The Secret of Melanie, adds that he has it from Melanie that the Church will be eclipsed in this sense. One will not know which is the true pope. I thought was really fascinating because from the same approved apparition that we get, there will be two worm-ridden popes. We get that when she said the Church will be eclipsed and the world be deranged by fear, she was mentioning that, or she was meaning that they will not be able to discern who is the true pope.
Mazza: It's quite shocking, but that is what the Abbe Combe said. He spoke to Melanie, and that is, that is the interpretation. And actually, that backs up something that Saint Augustine had taught. I reproduce the quote from Saint Augustine. He says, you know, when our Lord says that in the end times, that the moon and the sun will not give their light, Saint Augustine writing a letter, says, "The sun, that is the Church, shall be darkened, because in those tremendous tribulations and temptations which shall be in the end of the world, many who had seemed as bright and as firm as the sun and the stars shall fall away from the faith and a state of grace." Not only last of that, but it's a little-known fact about the message of Akita. Our Lady of Akita told Sister Sasagawa to follow your spiritual director, and he will guide you about the messages in particular. And Father Giesuita, who is a saint himself, he died with literally the odor of sanctity at age 90-something. In a very obscure Japanese book from 25 years ago, he actually shares this. He says, "Bishop John Ito appointed me spiritual director of the convent in 1974, a year before the miraculous tears of the statue began." And he goes on to say, "Judas and the last Pope are to sell Jesus to the enemy. Therefore, the era of Antichrist Pope will soon come."
Westen: I would encourage everybody to go grab this book, I think it's, especially for our times, something that's needed. It's good to have a historical reference point as to what the Church has already gone through so that we can live through this, which is obviously another crisis. Ladies and gentlemen, Ed Mazza, thank you so much for joining us. God bless you, Ed, and God bless all of you. [Transcription with help of https://chatgpt.com/ ]
Comments