May 23, 2025 (Steven O’Reilly) – [Updated 5/25/2025] In the immediate aftermath of the election of Pope Leo XIV, Roma Locuta Est decided to check up on various leading Benepapists – i.e., those who claimed Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid – and to see whether or not they accepted our new Supreme Pontiff.
Roma Locuta Est‘s position, as readers will now, is Benedict XVI‘s resignation was valid, Francis was a valid pope, and that Pope Leo XIV’s election was, of course, valid (see Habemus Papam). Roma Locuta Est has argued for the validity of Benedict’s resignation on this blog (e.g., see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE), and in my book (Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI). More recently Roma Locuta Est criticized and negatively critiqued Dr. Mazza’s absurd suggestion for a small group of cardinals to elect their own pope (see Dr. Mazza’s latest idea: “maneuver” or manure?)!
Anyway, as said at the outset, we checked in on various Benepapists, etc., to see what they were saying about the election of Pope Leo XIV. One can read the roster in Habemus Problem? At the time it was written, it wasn’t apparent what Dr. Edmund Mazza’s view of Pope Leo XIV was. However, on recent appearances on a Ann Barnhardt podcast (listen HERE), and on a video (see HERE) with Tim Flanders on his Meaning of Catholic channel, we learn that Dr. Mazza does not appear to fully accept the election of Pope Leo XIV.
I state that tentatively because Tim Flanders described Mazza’s opinion on this question as a “hypothesis” — and Dr. Mazza agreed with that characterization of his view. I leave it to the reader who checks out these podcasts to decide for themselves whether this characterization of Dr. Mazza’s view is perhaps too charitable. I would say, in my opinion, while we might not be able to say Dr. Mazza is a full-blown sedevacantist, we might at least describe Dr. Mazza’s position on the question as being something of a “semivacantist” — in order to acknowledge his temporizing on the question.
Dr. Mazza’s Sedevacantist Argument and the Problems that Arise for Him
According to Dr. Mazza, aside from the fact that some of the cardinals in the conclave were not Catholic in their belief, ‘it appears to be that that they (i.e., the cardinals) have chosen a man who is not Catholic…it seems Prevost was ineligible to be raised to the Chair (of Peter)‘ [see Flanders podcast c. 13:20 – 14:26]. Dr. Mazza expressed similar sentiments on Ms. Barnhardt’s podcast as well.
It appears that Dr. Mazza adopts an argument used by 1958 sedevacantists. Dr. Mazza appeals to the document Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, a Bull of Pope Paul IV(1555-1559), a document which Dr. Mazza declares to be infallible and valid in “perpetuity.” Specifically, Dr. Mazza (in his slide presentation on Mr. Flander’s show) cites the following passage from the Bull of Paul IV (emphasis added):
“6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) The promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;…”
[Source: Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559, as cited in video on Dr. Mazza’s slide presentation]
Dr. Mazza alleges that Pope Leo XIV, as Cardinal Prevost, either held heretical positions, or positions which are arguably suspect of heresy. Briefly, according to Dr. Mazza, some of Cardinal Prevost’s “deviations from the Catholic faith” include affirming the “absolution exclusion of the death penalty“[1], speaking positively or in support of women in authority, and in support of synodality[2], and favorably quoting a portion of Frattelli Tutti on recycling, clean air and water, etc[3].
Citing such examples as “deviations from the Catholic faith,” Dr. Mazza then appeals back to the passage from the Bull of Paul IV just cited above – Dr. Mazza declares Leo XIV is not pope as a consequence, saying:
“…these are deviations from the catholic faith, at a minimum he is doubtful and at worst he is automatically an anti-pope…”
Now, Dr. Mazza’s examples are ridiculous on their face, and credit goes to Mr. Flanders for pushing back on Dr. Mazza and his examples. I will not go into Dr. Mazza’s examples in detail here, as that is not necessary to refute Dr. Mazza.
The question is, is Dr. Mazza’s use of the Bull of Paul IV reasonable? To this question, I would answer no. I would respond by making two points. First, I will examine the problems with Dr. Mazza’s criteria for determining who falls under the penalty of the Bull. Then, I will look at Dr. Mazza’s claim that the Bull of Paul IV is infallible and in effect for perpetuity.
Regarding the first point, it is true that the Bull speaks of the case where one has “deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy.” However, to be a heretic in the canonical sense:
“…one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against the faith.”[4]
One problem is, Dr. Mazza makes himself the judge of whether or not Cardinal Prevost has objectively and subjectively met the conditions so as to be guilty of having committed some heresy or to be considered suspect of having done so. Nor has Dr. Mazza stated what specific teaching or revelation Cardinal Prevost has supposedly denied or questioned.
Regardless, whether one is truly guilty of heresy or suspected of it, is ultimately a judgment of the Church (see HERE), and not of Dr. Mazza, or any other individual. It is the Church which decides the fact, and issues the necessary warnings to the accused, or makes a judgment about him. For example, in the case of Nestorius, Pope Celestine I commissioned Cyril of Alexandria to give Nestorius ten days to recant, or to face excommunication (see HERE). In the case of Galileo, he underwent a trial before being officially found “vehemently suspected of heresy” by a tribunal (see HERE).
Now, Dr. Mazza might claim such official proceedings and judgments by the Church are not necessary in the case of the Bull of Paul IV. Dr. Mazza may claim that just the ‘appearance‘ of heresy is sufficient to be barred from the papacy. And, in fact, Dr. Mazza does suggest just that by pointing out the Bull of Pope Paul IV speaks only of the minimal conditions, “if it should appear” someone deviated from the faith, i.e., a official judgment of the Church is not necessary (see Flanders podcast, c. 22:55-24:22).
But, as a former professor of Church history, Dr. Mazza should know such a low bar could call the election of many popes into question. For example, Pope Vigilius (537-555) appears to have had monophysite sympathies, as he entered into a secret agreement with Empress Theodora whereby she would secure the papacy for him if he agreed to disavow the Council of Chalcedon.[5] Surely, this would have made him suspect of heresy, even by appearance only, fairly or not, at the time of his election.
Then there is the case of Pope John XXII (1316-1334) (emphasis added):
“In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical…“[6]
So, here are but two cases, Vigilius and John XXII, of popes with questionable positions prior to their elevation. Surely, they do meet Dr. Mazza’s test of an “appearance” of a deviation from the Catholic Faith sufficient enough to exclude them from the papacy without a trial or official judgment. To use Dr. Mazza’s interpretation would throw the Church into confusion, as the legitimacy of many popes might be called into doubt.
So it would appear. But perhaps Dr. Mazza would object that Paul IV’s Bull — although it describes a truth of faith, being an infallible document — dates to 1559, and is only in effect for the Church from that date onwards.
Okay, even if we accept this potential objection, Dr. Mazza has not escaped the trap he has set for himself. The Sedevacantists (of the 1958 variety) use the Bull of Paul IV to reject the the validity of Pope Leo XIV, but they would also reject the papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. I would imagine a sedevacantist upon hearing Dr. Mazza’s recent foray into their territory on Ms. Barnhardt’s or Mr. Flanders podcasts might say to him: “well done, Dr Mazza on disproving Leo XIV, now apply your logic to all these other ‘popes’ from 1958 until today.”
Indeed, Dr. Mazza has some explaining to do. Remember during the Benepapist controversy, Dr. Mazza famously (and erroneously) claimed that Benedict XIV, both as pope, and as theologian, held erroneous views about the papacy. His error, per Dr. Mazza, was that Ratzinger’s understanding of the papal munus was such that it led Ratzinger to believe that a pope who resigned would still remain ‘papal’ in some way — thus creating something of bifurcated papacy, or a papal diarchy. Surely that would be an error, as Dr. Mazza argued.
Dr. Mazza has also held that Cardinal Ratzinger had a suspect understanding of ecclesiology regarding the office of Bishop. In one of the appendices in his Benapapist tome, Dr. Mazza writes in part (bold added):
“…Furthermore, these contrarian positions of Ratzinger and the other progressive Council Fathers seem eerily reminiscent of the errors of Johann Valentin Eybel (1741-1805), an Austrian canon law professor excommunicated for spreading falsity regarding Church and papacy.”
[Dr. Edmund Mazza. The Third Secret of Fatima & the Synodal Church, Vol. I. (Edmund J. Mazza, 2023), p. 163]
So, here we see Dr. Mazza himself says Cardinal Ratzinger’s views were “eerily reminiscent of the errors” of an excommunicated professor who spread “falsity regarding Church and papacy.” Dr. Mazza should therefore answer the following question. Isn’t this “appearance” sufficient to invalidate the election of Pope Benedict XVI, making it null and void? If not, why not, as it meets all the criteria of an “appearance” of a deviation from the Catholic faith — as being all that is necessary, according to Dr. Mazza, to nullify an election. So, let’s forget the supposed invalidity of Benedict XVI’s resignation, how does Dr. Mazza save the validity of his papacy!
Such is the can of worms Dr. Mazza has opened for himself, and one should fear more than just semi-vacantism for him. The dangerous road to outright sedevacantism looms before Dr. Mazza, if he follows the logic of his own specious arguments.
The Bull of Pope Paul IV: Neither Infallible Nor still in Effect
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was a disciplinary document, and not an infallible declaration on a question of faith or morals. Dr. Mazza’s appeal to the Bull of Pope Paul IV as an infallible document, which should be accepted as true in perpetuity, is without merit. The document is not included in any edition of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Definitionum [7], which surely would have included it among papal definitions if this were the case.
Furthermore, if the document was considered an infallible definition, it is odd it was not described or considered as such by those favoring the definition of papal infallibility at Vatican I. Rather, the truth is, in the debate surrounding and leading up to Vatican I, it was the anti-infallibilists — such a Ignaz von Dollinger (aka “Janus”) — who attempted to claim Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was an infallible document in order to undermine the arguments for papal infallibility.
In their book (True or False Pope: Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Error), John F. Salza and Robert J. Siscoe made that preceding point. They go on to cite Dollinger from his book The Pope and the Council wherein he cites the Bull of Paul IV to undermine the case for papal infallibility. I excerpt a portion of Dollinger’s argument below, as cited by Salza and Siscoe (bold added by O’Reilly):
“…And to all this is finally subjoined the doctrine, that all official and sacramental acts of a Pope or Bishop, who has ever – say twenty or thirty years before – been heretically minded on any single point of doctrine, are null and void! This last definition contains so emphatic and flat a contradiction of the principles on the validity of sacraments universally received in the Church, although mistakes have sometimes been made about it at Rome, that they must have seemed to theologians utterly incomprehensible. The serious inconveniences which at former periods such doctrines had led to in the Church would have reproduced now, had not even the most decided adherents of the infallibility theory, the Jesuit divines, shrunk from adopting the principle laid down by this Pope and his cardinals, though Paul IV threatened all who resisted his decrees with the wrath of God. Bellarmine himself, forty years later, said in Rome itself that a bishop or Pope did not lose his power by becoming or by having been a concealed (occult) heretic, or (else) everything would be reduced to uncertainty, and the who Church thrown into confusion.
(Sources: Janus, The Pope and the Council, (London, Oxford, Cambridge, Rivingtons, 1869), pp. 383-384, as cited by John F. Salza and Robert J. Siscoe in their book True or False Pope: Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors (STAS Editions, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, Winona, Minnesota, 2016) pp. 496-498, Kindle Version.)
So, again, the reader should keep in mind, in the period leading up to the first Vatican Council, it was the anti-infallibilist party which wanted to use Paul IV’s Bull as an example of an ‘infallible’ decree to demonstrate what was, for them, the absurdity of the doctrine. The Bull of Paul IV was the perfect example of this, as it would throw the Church into confusion, as Dollinger argued.
On the other side of the question, the infallibilist party denied Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was an infallible declaration on faith or morals; saying, instead, that it was a disciplinary decree that could be changed or abrogated. Cardinal Joseph Hergenrother, Prefect of the Vatican Archives, who was an important figure in the debates over infallibility at the time of Vatican I, denied Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was infallible (emphasis added):
“…now the Janus party and jurists who protest against the Vatican Council assert the Bull of Paul IV is dogmatic, though all Catholic theologians deny it to be such. In truth neither the wording of this last-named Bull, nor its contents as a whole, nor the rules universally received among theologians, allow it to be regarded as a dogmatic decision. If there is to be a doctrinal decree binding on all, it is requisite that a doctrine to be held or proposition to be rejected be placed before the faithful in terms implying obligation, and be prescribed by the full authority of the Church’s teaching office. This is not the case with this Bull. True enough in the introduction the Papal power is spoken of, and in accordance with the view of it held universally in the Middle Ages. But here, as in every other Bull, the rule already spoken of holds good, that not the introduction and the reasons alleged, but simply and only the enjoining (dispositive) portion, the decision itself, had the biding force. Introductions quite similar are to be found in laws relating purely to matters of discipline, as any one may see who concult the Bullarium. As to the enjoining portion of the Bull in question, it only contains penal sanctions against heresy, which unquestionably belong to disciplinary laws alone. To deduce from the introduction a doctrinal decision on the Papal authority is simply ridiculous.”
[Source: Cardinal Joseph Hergenrother, Catholic Church and Christian State, p. 41-46, as cited by Christopher Conlon, in The Non-Infallibility of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, p. 2 (2013). Note, Salza and Siscoe, in their aforementioned book, also cited Hergenrother’s rebuttal. See pages 498-503 of their book for their commentary]
As with Denzinger, we see Hergenrother rejected the notion Catholic theologians received Paul IV’s bull as an infallible statement, and in fact, as Hergenrother said rather emphatically, “…all Catholic theologians deny it to be such.”
Finally, with regard to whether Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio is still in effect, Salza and Siscoe in their book demonstrate conclusively this is not the case. They write (bold added by O’Reilly):
“Now, since Cum Ex Apostolatus was only concerned with “the practical execution of previous penal laws, which their nature are disciplinary,” as Cardinal Hergenrother explained, its penalties could be, and indeed were, abrogated when the 1917 Code of Canon law came into force. Canon 5.2 explains:
“That which pertains to penalties, of which there is no mention made in this Code, be they spiritual or temporal, remedial or, as they call it, punitive, automatic or declared through a judgment, they are to held as abrogated.”
None of the prescriptions in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio were included in the 1917 Code, and consequently they were all officially and authoritatively abrogated.”
(Source: John F. Salza and Robert J. Siscoe in their book True or False Pope: Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors (STAS Editions, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, Winona, Minnesota, 2016) pp. 504, Kindle Version.)
As a side note, the reference above to Canon 5.2 should read Canon 6.5. It is Canon 6.5 which reads:
“As applying to penalties, if no mention is made of them in the Code, whether they
are spiritual or temporal, medicinal or, as they say, vindicative, automatic or formally
imposed, [such] are considered abrogated;”
(Source: THE 1917 OR PIO-BENEDICTINE CODE OF CANON LAW; Canon 6.5)
Therefore, the disciplinary penalties of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio were abrogated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and were not taken up again in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Furthermore, the Bull of Paul IV was not considered to be infallible by Catholic theologians, and therefore cannot be argued to still be in effect on this ground.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Final Thoughts
As I outlined in my article Habemus Problem?, some of the Benepapists appear to accept Pope Leo XIV. Unfortunately, others do not. One of these appeals to the Bull of Paul IV (just like Dr. Mazza), and as funny and as tragic as it sounds, is even planning his own conclave to elect a pope (Habemus Bugnolo?) –making it the second conclave he has held (see The Bugnolo Files)!
I certainly hope and pray that Dr. Mazza, and those tempted to accept his arguments and be led astray by them, will reconsider, and reject the errors of both semivacantism and sedevacantism.
Time will tell.
Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. He writes for Roma Locuta Est He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com. Follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA.
[1] First, Dr. Mazza adduces the following quote to support his case Cardinal Prevost promulgated heresy (at 35:1):
“Also, in this chapter [of Fratelli Tutti], Pope Francis makes explicit what has already been the teaching of the Church clearly pronounced since the pontificate of St. John Paul II, the absolution exclusion of the death penalty. ‘Everyone…is called to fight…for the abolition of the death penalty…’”
Bishop Robert Prevost, Official Bulletin Diocese of Chiclaya, Feb. 2021
Yes, there is controversy and confusion around what Pope Francis said and did on the subjection of the death penalty (e.g., More Papal Confusion: Footnoting Francis throws his predecessors under the bus), However, Cardinal Prevost’s statement does not demonstrate he was guilty of heresy. Cardinal Prevost’s use of phrase “absolution exclusion of the death penalty” does not necessarily imply that he views the death penalty as intrinsically evil, which would indeed pose a problem. He could mean no more than what Pope John Paul II meant = and indeed he references the position of Pope John Paul II in his statement; that in our present day and time, with the ability to house and hold the guilty, etc., there is no longer any need for the death penalty. So he is speaking, it seems to me, of prudential judgment conditioned on the state of things in our current age. Consequently, Dr. Mazza fails to make his case on this subjection.
[2] The next bit of Dr. Mazza’s “evidence” is this clip which includes a quote or two from Cardinal Prevost (bold in the original):
“While Prevost has been a member of the Dicastery for Bishops since November 2020, the pope appointed him prefect in January. In 2022, for the first time, the pope also appointed three women to the dicastery, which is also responsible for recommending to the pope candidates to fill the office of bishop in many of the Latin-rite dioceses of the world.
Asked about what has changed with women members, he said, “there has been a noticeable difference, if you will, I think a very fine addition to the work of the dicastery and our plenary sessions.”
The women – Franciscan Sister of the Eucharist Raffaella Petrini, Salesian Sister Yvonne Reungoat and Maria Lia Zervino – are from “different countries with different perspectives. And the spirit of dialogue that we are actually trying to promote, if you will, in this spirit of synodality, I think it does make a difference.”
https://www.thefloridacatholic.org/news/vatican (as cited by Dr. Mazza in his slide presentation)
[3] As cited by Dr Mazza:
“Laudato Si: “It’s a very important encyclical,” he said. “It also represents something new in terms of this explicit expression of the church’s concern for all creation.”
“Living our vocation as protectors of God’s work involves changing habits, such as reducing plastic use, conserving water, separating waste, using public transportation, turning off unnecessary lights, and planting trees. These simple actions can make us more noble and reawaken the desire to choose what is good.” Bishop Rober Prevost 2016
[4] Modern Catholic Dictionary, Fr. John Hardon, S.J., “Heresy”, p. 247
[5] See JND Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 69
[6] “Pope John XXII.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm>
[7] The Non-Infallibility of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, Christopher Conlan (2013), p. 4, n. 4; (https://archive.org/details/TheNon-infallibilityOfCumExApostolatusOfficio/mode/2up)
Roma Locuta Est 