Steve, you blew Mazza out of the water and more than proved that the Sedevacantists have everything absolutely correct. Dr. Mazza made his Ph.D in theology look like he earned it in a Novos Ordo, post-Vatican II college. His arguments about what constitutes a heretic also fell way short of what Modernists actually teach. Remember that Pius X said that Modernism is the most dangerous form of heresy because it not only teaches parts of defined doctrine and dogma, but mixes all forms of condemned heresy in with the truth. At any rate, he is absolutely wrong about the post-conciliar antipopes. They all clearly embraced the heresies promoted and promulgated by Montini and his successors. Furthermore, Montini changed the prayers of the rites of Holy Orders and episcopal consecrations in such a way that we have invalid Novus Ordo Holy Orders. The Novus Ordo sect does not possess all four marks of the Church. Hence, it is an antichurch led by antipopes. End of discussion. End of debate.
You’re raising real concerns, especially about Modernism, but it might be more fruitful to slow down on the conclusions and press the underlying question: how is the Church’s authority concretely recognized today?
You’re the authority Louis, please share with us your mission. Who has sent you to enlighten us about your defected church where the sacrifice of calvary has ceased to exist?
I appreciate the question—it’s a fair one, and it cuts both ways.
I’m not claiming to be sent or to speak in the Church’s name. That’s actually the point. There’s a difference between exercising authority and refusing to assume it. The tension I’m raising is simple: if apostolic mission exists, it should be demonstrable—not inferred from necessity or preference.
So the issue isn’t “who am I to speak,” but whether anyone today can show they’ve been sent to act. Until that’s clear, the safest course seems to be holding fast without presuming what hasn’t been given.
Dr Mazda is a nice guy but the mental gymnastics to put the circle in a square is tragic. He is just a different variety of R & R. With respect to quoting St Louis de Monfront, he forgets to mention that half of the True Devotion books talks about false devotion to Our Lady even though someone appears to be devout. I’m with your opinion. Great job
Dr. Mazza was correct about everything discussed! Such a joy to hear his voice and thoughts! His sincere devotion to Our Lady keeps him within the path of Truth! Thank you for this show!
Bravo- Very nice job by Mr. Kokx. Diplomatic, but really made Dr. Mazza work to defend his position… in the end he was unconvincing. Mr. Kokx was so well prepared and hosted a much-needed conversation.
I really appreciate that you had a differing opinion on and were so respectful yet still did not give Mazza a pass. I think his points are stronger and hold more weight especially in light of the St. Peter in Antioch example. Clearly popes can err, but where that error trips to heresy (formal or material) is really where this debate’s rubber meets the road. I think it is reasonable to hold your view and I think it is reasonable to hold Mazza’s view. The VII errors are serious and are not to be glossed over, so getting them in the open is critical. Thank you for your work.
There’s something compelling in how you’re trying to preserve continuity here. I do find myself wondering, though, how far that can be carried if the public expression begins to diverge in ways that earlier teaching wouldn’t seem to recognize so easily.
I initially thought that this Substack analyzes the modernist crisis in the church, with a clear sharp view, resisting the progressive structures from an Abp. Lefebvre standpoint but would avoid blatant sedevacantism. As I'm SSPX (R&R) attending ICKSP & FSSP occassionally meaning being 'una cum' I can't support this channel any longer. It is weird, that in current trad. journalism is either accepting the stupid 'zip it'-policy where every criticism is being silenced or ignored and on the othet hand the subtext 'every una cum mass 62-mass is at least problematic (sspx) or invalid (FSSP /ICKSP).
Steve, you blew Mazza out of the water and more than proved that the Sedevacantists have everything absolutely correct. Dr. Mazza made his Ph.D in theology look like he earned it in a Novos Ordo, post-Vatican II college. His arguments about what constitutes a heretic also fell way short of what Modernists actually teach. Remember that Pius X said that Modernism is the most dangerous form of heresy because it not only teaches parts of defined doctrine and dogma, but mixes all forms of condemned heresy in with the truth. At any rate, he is absolutely wrong about the post-conciliar antipopes. They all clearly embraced the heresies promoted and promulgated by Montini and his successors. Furthermore, Montini changed the prayers of the rites of Holy Orders and episcopal consecrations in such a way that we have invalid Novus Ordo Holy Orders. The Novus Ordo sect does not possess all four marks of the Church. Hence, it is an antichurch led by antipopes. End of discussion. End of debate.
You’re raising real concerns, especially about Modernism, but it might be more fruitful to slow down on the conclusions and press the underlying question: how is the Church’s authority concretely recognized today?
You’re the authority Louis, please share with us your mission. Who has sent you to enlighten us about your defected church where the sacrifice of calvary has ceased to exist?
I appreciate the question—it’s a fair one, and it cuts both ways.
I’m not claiming to be sent or to speak in the Church’s name. That’s actually the point. There’s a difference between exercising authority and refusing to assume it. The tension I’m raising is simple: if apostolic mission exists, it should be demonstrable—not inferred from necessity or preference.
So the issue isn’t “who am I to speak,” but whether anyone today can show they’ve been sent to act. Until that’s clear, the safest course seems to be holding fast without presuming what hasn’t been given.
Stephen
Dr Mazda is a nice guy but the mental gymnastics to put the circle in a square is tragic. He is just a different variety of R & R. With respect to quoting St Louis de Monfront, he forgets to mention that half of the True Devotion books talks about false devotion to Our Lady even though someone appears to be devout. I’m with your opinion. Great job
Oh I’ve been waiting for this day!
Don't buy his book.
Dr. Mazza was correct about everything discussed! Such a joy to hear his voice and thoughts! His sincere devotion to Our Lady keeps him within the path of Truth! Thank you for this show!
Ave Maria,
Dr. Maria
Bravo- Very nice job by Mr. Kokx. Diplomatic, but really made Dr. Mazza work to defend his position… in the end he was unconvincing. Mr. Kokx was so well prepared and hosted a much-needed conversation.
I really appreciate that you had a differing opinion on and were so respectful yet still did not give Mazza a pass. I think his points are stronger and hold more weight especially in light of the St. Peter in Antioch example. Clearly popes can err, but where that error trips to heresy (formal or material) is really where this debate’s rubber meets the road. I think it is reasonable to hold your view and I think it is reasonable to hold Mazza’s view. The VII errors are serious and are not to be glossed over, so getting them in the open is critical. Thank you for your work.
There’s something compelling in how you’re trying to preserve continuity here. I do find myself wondering, though, how far that can be carried if the public expression begins to diverge in ways that earlier teaching wouldn’t seem to recognize so easily.
I initially thought that this Substack analyzes the modernist crisis in the church, with a clear sharp view, resisting the progressive structures from an Abp. Lefebvre standpoint but would avoid blatant sedevacantism. As I'm SSPX (R&R) attending ICKSP & FSSP occassionally meaning being 'una cum' I can't support this channel any longer. It is weird, that in current trad. journalism is either accepting the stupid 'zip it'-policy where every criticism is being silenced or ignored and on the othet hand the subtext 'every una cum mass 62-mass is at least problematic (sspx) or invalid (FSSP /ICKSP).
"Una cum" seems to be an issue for the "Dogmatic Seeds", not for most who adhere to the judgement of a vacant see.
Looking forward to it