VIDEO: Dr. Mazza destroys the notion that Bergoglio could possibly be pope

What makes this one different? Check out the manner of dialogue between Gordon and Mazza. Gone now are Gordon’s lawyerly, measured responses. Gone are the tendencies toward hypotheticals. In place of all that is a genuine search for truth and justice. But, why? What changed?

What changed is that the past three weeks have laid bare the truth, which no honest person can possibly deny, and it is no longer hidden in footnotes and doublespeak. The blessing of sodomites AS sodomites is something a true Pope simply cannot do, because a true Pope is protected by the Petrine Promises of Christ. People are finally waking up, even normies, to the realization that something is very wrong. Common Novus Ordo pewsitters are shell shocked, like Private Hudson after the Marines got ambushed in the alien nest. “This can’t be happenin’, man.”

But but but “no one can judge the pope.” How does one not understand that this principle does not apply when the challenge is to who holds the office? “Antipope” is not a title, it is a criminal act. The charge is that Bergoglio is an impostor, this entire past 11 years nothing but a deception, his entire “magisterium” fraudulent.

This video gives me such hope. Hope that millions of people will open their eyes and bear witness to the sheer VISIBILITY of this monstrous antipapacy. Hope that the laity will rise up… because it will eventually be the laity who put down this usurpation of the Petrine See. Spread the word.

28 thoughts on “VIDEO: Dr. Mazza destroys the notion that Bergoglio could possibly be pope”

  1. As does the VII documents and “New ‘Mass'” destroys the notion any of the post conciliar men could be popes.

    Per my friend Mike Cavanaugh at OLQM:

    ARE YOU A CATHOLIC?

    DO YOU TRULY BELONG TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

    Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
    True or false

    Dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church can never change or be changed.

    True or false

    Christ and His Vicar on earth (pope) speak as one voice and infallibly in all matters of faith and morals either ex cathedra or in the ordinary course of his ministry.
    True or false

    A Catholic will answer these three statements as true with no reservations.

    Apply these statements to the Vatican ll Novus Ordo counterfeit religion or any of the proponents or defenders of said religion then the answers would have to be false.

    The three statements are doctrines of the Catholic Church held since its founding by Christ and supported by numerous infallibly declared Papal Encyclicals.

    1. Vatican II was a disaster because of the purposeful ambiguity of language inserted by freemasonic saboteurs, and it was a failed council as a result, but all the popes until Antipope Ber-gay-glio would have unreservedly stated “True.” These were valid popes.

      This is a great interview. Father Kramer explains exactly why the previous popes before this antipope were valid popes and not formal heretics: https://youtu.be/V6e9Ua1b3rM?si=h3pDDnDz6_2kTwTQ

  2. JPII and BXVI held the heretical position that Protestants and Orthodox were “imperfectly united” to the Church, as Unitatis Redintegratio of V2 explicitly states (which is in contrast to the defined dogma pronounced at the Council of Florence). Both men participated in the worship services of Protestant heretics and pagans. The 1917 CIC held such acts to be manifest acts of APOSTASY. Both men held those positions prior to their claiming the throne.

    Heresy is the rejection of defined doctrines of the Church. Formal or material is irrelevant. The simple act of manifestly holding a position contrary to what has been taught by the Church necessarily separates you from the Church (cf. Pius XII, Mysticism Corporis, St. Paul’s epistle to Titus). My mother would be considered a “material heretic” because she is a born and raised Protestant, and she is definitively outside the Church. The only way to argue that BXVI or JPII were not heretics and outside the Church is to argue that my mother, a Protestant is part of the Catholic Church because she is a material heretic.

    Further, BXVI told his Lutheran assistant NOT to convert because her Lutheran faith would save her. The only way to argue that BXVI was NOT a heretic is to pull a UR and say heresy really isn’t a big deal and doesn’t separate you from the Church. To do that, however, is to deny a definition solemnly pronounced by the Church…which is the textbook definition of heresy.

    1. Are you somehow unaware that in Mysticism Corporis Pope Pius XII REPUDIATES the strict interpretation of EENS?

      1. Proves too much Mark, as that would also include sedes, no?

        Why, if one is certain Bergoglio is a false pope, would one assist at Masses where he is commemorated as such when sede chapels are an option?

        1. Of course it includes sedes. Doubting the person of the pope is not heresy. As for Sede Masses, it’s really no better, since I’m also not in union with many, many, sede teachings.

          1. It really, really IS better. We’re not in union with an obvious apostate. And don’t let the sede squabbles deter you; we’ve no pope so it’s expected there would be disunity on things, most especially how to get a pope again.

          2. Sedes spread scandal, detraction and calumny on good valid holy priests. They say these priests are laymen. They say there is no hierarchy. I am not in union with you.

          3. “I am not in union with you.”….😪 Then I guess you’re saying I’m not Catholic. I’m sorry to see this.

            To Josh, I’ve not posted much at all for months, but thanks for comparing me to such a grotesque group. God bless you too.

  3. And just an FYI, it’s been confirmed the Abp. Vigano has been conditionally confirmed by Bp. Williamson. Guess we sedes aren’t the only ones concerned about valid ordinations/consecrations.

  4. It’s too bad this excellent subject matter by Dr. Mazza got hijacked into – yet another – dead horse beating about 1958 sedevacantism. Among the many reasons why 1958 sedeism is wrong, we need look no further than the Eucharistic Miracles of the late 20th and current 21st Centuries. Eucharistic Miracles happen as a reminder to the priests and the faithful that He is real and is present in the Blessed Sacrament. Eucharistic Miracles do not happen in non-Catholic Churches. Let that reality sink in. God is NOT going to allow a Eucharistic Miracle to happen in a false church. Here is a link to four Eucharistic Miracles in recent years – all of which were in novus ordo Catholic Churches. https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/approved-eucharistic-miracles-21st-century

  5. I watched the interview link provided (part 1) and didn’t hear any such explanation….did I miss it ( do you have a time stamp) or does it come in a later part of the interview?

      1. Edison,

        Sorry, it was actually on the Part 2 of the interview with Father Kramer. Here is the correct link. It is the first question right at the beginning of the interview. I recommend watching the whole thing. In my opinion, this is the best interview (all four parts) about why Jorge Bergoglio without a doubt is an antipope and how everything ties into Our Lady of Fatima’s messages:

        https://youtu.be/3iOakB3MPi4?si=CRrLV5C3ibZuMFMa

  6. I can get behind sedes until I’m told my confession is invalid. How can anyone ever be in a state of grace then? Not everyone has access to confession from a pre Vatican 2 ordained priest.

  7. I am not a 1958 sede but I don’t believe Bergoglio is pope. That said, you can’t dismiss a position just because you don’t like outcome. I think sedes promote perfect contrition as an option to return to a state of grace absent “valid” priests.

    1. It’s not so much as I dislike the outcome as much as it contradicts dogma. And when anyone point out which dogma it contradicts it doesn’t matter because “your position has contradictions too, so our contradictions against dogma are perfectly acceptable”. For example take the article on the loss of apostolicty on NOW. Whether 1 Peter 5’s positions are themselves hypocritical or incoherent has no relevance to 1958 sede contradictions on Catholic dogma. If your position is true, it cannot contradict itself, for contradictions cannot exist in reality. Pointing out the existence of a completely novel and untraditional idea as sedeprivationism is also inadequate to explain why 1958 sedevacantism is remotely possible.

      But sedes do not notice all the logical fallacies used to defend old sedevacantism because they cannot conceive being wrong. They’ve long since bought into the view that it is the Truth. They are not looking for the truth, just looking for anything to justify what they already believe. At least that is what I think might explain why they do not notice the blatant logical fallacies in their defense that would disgust any genuine truth seeker.

  8. Hasn’t it always been taught that the Orthodox have valid sacraments? Also that we should normally never go there but could in really dire, near-death, situations, accept an Orthodox sacrament? Hard to see how such a situation would occur but it would mean sacraments are still on earth?

  9. Oh I don’t believe he is pope either. I’m not trying to pick and choose anything, truth is truth, I simply struggle to discern which is correct. I get family in my ear regarding all sides… 58, 22, and those who don’t have a problem with Vatican 2. I wasn’t raised with the TLM.

  10. If it’s any help, Fr. Kramer’s contribution regarding the levels of “suspicion of heresy” can be found here as well: https://catholicinsight.com/when-is-someone-a-heretic-a-look-at-heresy-and-suspicion-of-heresy/

    There’s strong, vehement, and violent suspicion of heresy, all of which Fr. Kramer explains in Part 2 of that video Joel mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iOakB3MPi4

    In a nutshell, the post-concilliar popes fell under some suspicion of heresy, but nowhere near the supermassive level of Antipope Bergoglio. I think for him, we’d almost need an entirely new category, perhaps “genocidal suspicion of heresy,” or “Undisputed King of All Heresies.”

    Clearly, no matter which you slice it, make what you will of the V2 popes (especially Paul VI), their recorded statements and writing weren’t as problematic as Bergoglio.

  11. ” a true Pope is protected by the Petrine Promises of Christ “….this seems to be the gist of the sedevacanist argument when declaring post V2 popes invalid. Whatever a true pope teaches should be safe for Catholics to embrace, even when not infallibly defined…arguably this was not always the case. I would like to see a debate between someone like Dr. Mazza and Louis Verrecchio. A good point in favor of Paul VI being valid is that he ultimately got Humanae Vitae right against all odds (even if he had to be dragged kicking and screaming!)….but then you still have the disaster that is Vatican II to reconcile….
    I think “sedes” is a short-hand, not intended to be disrespectful….

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.