Roma Locuta Est

March 10, 2026 (Steven O’Reilly) – Many of the leading Benepapists not only persist in their erroneous belief Francis was not a true pope, but they have now compounded this error by declaring Leo XIV an antipope as well. The sad reality is that these Benepapists are now two popes into full-blown sedevacantism. A few reject the label “sedevacantist.” Rather, they prefer the label “interregnist” instead. But such a label is a laughable distinction without a difference, as any sedevacantist could just as well describe their position in just the same way, with the only difference being the length of the claimed interregnum!

The pontificate of Pope Francis witnessed a wave of Benepapist books. The most notable and successful of them being Andrea Cionci’s The Ratzinger Code. Former professor of Church history Dr. Edmund Mazza also wrote a book defending the Benepapist position, titled The Third Secret of Fatima & The Synodal Church: VOL. I Pope Benedict’s Resignation. Given my own book (see Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI) which defends the validity Benedict’s resignation was published before Dr. Mazza’s, I did publish a subsequent rebuttal of Dr. Mazza’s book on this blog (see A Rebuttal of Dr. Mazza’s book on Pope Benedict’s Resignation).

Now, Dr. Mazza has recently published a new book, but not “volume 2.”[1]  His new work is titled Saints vs. Antipopes: Evil in the Church of Rome Convicted and Evicted.  The current work attempts to justify Dr. Mazza’s belief that we are now in the midst of the second of two consecutive anti-papacies, that of Francis and Leo XIV, both of whom he considers to be antipopes.

Below, I provide an analysis of portions of Dr. Mazza’s latest book.  This article will address some of his commentary in the Introduction and first chapter of his book, rebutting assertions central to Dr. Mazza’s overall defense of his position. Roma Locuta Est may publish subsequent articles on other claims in his book as time allows.

The Current Crisis

Dr. Mazza, Church historian, starts off his introduction by calling attention to Amoris Laetitia as the beginning of an “existential crisis” in the Church.  Amoris Laetitia, according to most interpretations, allows Catholics in active, public, adulterous unions — ‘in some cases’ — to receive Holy Communion. This reading, if the case, is truly disturbing to Catholics who know of the teaching of Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio 84, which said giving Holy Communion in such cases was never possible. So, I would agree that Amoris Laetitia, as well as other things said, or written by Pope Francis are, to say the least, problematic.[2]

However, Dr. Mazza’s theory as to why he believes Pope Francis was an anti-pope has nothing to do with Amoris Laetitia. He has long claimed that Francis’s alleged anti-papacy was the result of what Dr. Mazza considers Benedict XVI’s invalid resignation.  I have provided detailed replies to the errors of the Benepapists in my book (linked above), and in numerous articles (see The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”), and videos (see HERE).  Recent revelations that Benedict XVI affirmed the validity and meaning of his resignation, and that he explicitly said theories to the contrary are “absurd” should end any remaining doubts as to the validity of his resignation.[3]

But, as for Amoris Laetitia, I do believe the difficulties surrounding it, and other documents, will be addressed at some point by a future pope, and possibly a council. These will be addressed, in my opinion, in a way similar to how the various controversies surrounding Pope John XXII, and Pope Honorius were resolved.  Given the case of Honorius was resolved about 40 years after his death, Catholics will need to have patience. So, know your faith.  Live your faith.  Don’t be chasing after the bizarre theories offered up by neo-sedevacantists such as Dr. Mazza, Miss Barnhardt, et al.

The above stated, let’s now take a look at some of Dr. Mazza’s specific claims and assertions found in his new book.

A Dogmatic Fact vs. Narci-Schism

Given that he and other neo-sedevacantists have rejected the legitimacy of two pontificates, Dr. Mazza goes to some lengths to try to argue there is no fault or schism in accepting his view Francis and Leo XIV are antipopes. Early on, he brings up the case of the former archbishop Vigano who was excommunicated for claiming Pope Francis was an antipope. For his part, Dr. Mazza declares the excommunication was invalid! Well, I leave the matter to God, and not to Dr. Mazza to decide, as it is not wise to simply assert a canonical judgment is invalid when they are presumptively considered valid.  Still, the Vigano case is interesting as he does appear to have jumped from theory to theory as to why he believe Francis is an antipope (see Viganò hops from one bad theory to another).

The Church historian goes on to provide a couple of quotes which are obviously intended to get himself and other neo-sedevacantists off the hook with regard to the accusation of schism.  The first is from a couple of authoritative Jesuit scholars, Fr. Franz Wertz and Fr. Pedro Vidal.  These scholars of canon law write:

“…they cannot be numbers among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider [him]…suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation.” [4] (emphasis Dr. Mazza’s)

Dr. Mazza has often cited this specific text in articles, his book, and in debates. On first glance, it appears decisively in his favor.  However, Dr. Mazza regularly omits the full quote, which is not surprising because to include it would undermine his point. The fuller quote from Dr. Mazza’s source is provided below, with the bold letter being what Dr. Mazza omitted (bold added):

“…they cannot be numbered among the schismatics who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they are not sure of him or hold him doubtfully elected because of rumors that have been spread, as happened after the election of Urban VI, or because they resist him as a civil prince, not as the pastor of the Church. [5]

As the bolded sentence clearly shows, Wertz and Vidal provided an example of the sort of “rumor in circulation” that might justify a doubt. Here they refer to a specific case, that of Pope Urban VI. His election, for various reasons, was followed within five months by the election of an antipope, Clement VII.  At the time, the Church was in confusion and split as to the identity of the true pope, who we recognize today as Urban VI.  The point being, in the case of a contested election which resulted in two rival claimants for the papacy, one can understand why there might be a reason to doubt.  That is understandable.  However, in the case of Francis, there was no rival claimant.

Repeat, in the case of Francis, there was no contested election. The universal Church – the great majority of cardinals, bishops, and faithful – recognized Francis as the true pope.  There was universal acceptance of his election, which makes the valid election of Pope Francis (and Pope Leo XIV) a dogmatic fact. Scholar Fr. E. Sylvester Berry explained a dogmatic fact as follows:

A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.

Source:  The above citation was quoted by Robert Siscoe in his article for OnePeterFive (3/19/2019) titled Dogmatic Fact: The One Doctrine that Proves Francis Is Pope.  Mr. Siscoe cited Fr. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, p. 290.

Now, with the understanding of universal acceptance as a dogmatic fact, we can best deal with Dr. Mazza’s next citation which he hopes will exculpate himself and his fellow neo-sedevacantists from the charge schism.  Dr. Mazza cites Cardinal Cajetan, a 16th century Dominican scholar:

“If someone, for a reasonable motive, holds the person of the Pope in suspicion and refuses his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delict of schism or any other whatsoever, provided…he be ready to accept the Pope were he not held in suspicion.”[6]

While Dr. Mazza quite clearly believes this quote supports his position that there is no schism in his rejection of the papacies of Francis and Leo, he is quite mistaken. Cajetan clearly states there must be a “reasonable motive” for the doubt or suspicion. However, doubting the dogmatic facts of the validity of the papacies of Francis and Leo is hardly reasonable. The elections of both men as legitimately elected Roman Pontiffs was accepted by “the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful.” 

It is simply not reasonable for a faithful Catholic to reject the election of a man as pope who has been received by the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful. It would be the height of pride (and perhaps even narcissism) to take the position, either implicitly or explicitly, that on such an important question in the life of the Church that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful is wrong, while you, alone, or with a relative, scant few, are right. Perhaps we could call doing so, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, a case of “narci-schism.”

Yet, Dr. Mazza attempted to debunk universal acceptance, writing:

Universal peaceful acceptance of an individual as the Pope by the vast majority of cardinals and bishops may “cure” an electoral defect, but it cannot make an antipope a pope while the real Pope is still living, nor can it make a manifest heretic a valid pope. And it should be state very clearly that even in the case of curing an irregularity in a conclave, universal peaceful acceptance is only universal peaceful acceptance when everyone accepts that man as “the living rule whom the Church must follow in believing an always in fact does follow.” Something no faithful Catholic ever did with Bergoglio nor currently does with Prevost.[7]

There is much to unpack in this statement.

Firstly, note, Dr. Mazza here recognizes that universal acceptance is defined as the acceptance of a pope by a “majority of cardinals and bishops.”  Remember that well, as we will see how Dr. Mazza is elsewhere at least seemingly, if not glaringly, disingenuous on this question.

Secondly, Dr. Mazza says universal acceptance “cannot make an antipope a pope.”  Well, I agree! For that matter, universal acceptance cannot even make a pope a pope!  No.  Dr. Mazza misunderstands the doctrine.  Universal acceptance is an infallible sign a man is pope, it does not make him pope.  It is a sign of a valid election, not the cause of one. For that matter, not every valid pope has received universal acceptance in the history of the Church, such as in times when there was confusion arising from multiple claimants to the papal throne.  So, universal acceptance, when the Church is blessed with it, gives us absolute, infallible assurance that “this man” is a valid pope.  We had that in both the case of Francis and Leo XIV.

Thirdly, Dr. Mazza quote mines Cardinal Billot to suggest in the bold font above that “universal peaceful acceptance is only universal peaceful acceptance when everyone accepts that man as ‘the living rule whom the Church mustfollow in believing an always in fact does follow.'”  That is, Dr. Mazza seems to suggest, this must be an ongoing thing, under which the man elected pope is continually evaluated.  Dr. Mazza is misrepresenting what Billot said.  Billot was simply underling the necessity of the doctrine of universal acceptance by making the point that the gates of Hell would have overcome the Church if the Church adhered to a false pontiff, which would be “as if she adhered to false rule of faith.”  Consequently, because the Church cannot err; the Church could never universally accept as pope a man who is really a false pope.  This follows from the indefectibility of the Church. Again, therefore, Francis and Leo XIV must be true popes.

Fourthly, Dr. Mazza concludes his statement quoted above, saying “Something no faithful Catholic ever did with Bergoglio nor currently does with Prevost.”  This is bizarre. I am not quite sure what to make of this odd statement by Dr. Mazza.  It is as if he is suggesting, at least by seeming implication, that if you accepted Francis (Bergoglio) and Leo XIV (Prevost) as popes, this means you are not a faithful Catholic.  Is that what Dr. Mazza means to suggest?  That ‘no faithful Catholic’ accepted Francis or Leo as pope — therefore, those of us who did, are ‘not faithful Catholics’?  Really?

Regardless, while Dr. Mazza provides a fuller citation of Billot in his endnotes. It is unfortunate he reserved it only to his endnotes, because if had included it in the main body of his text the reader would have seen Dr. Mazza’s analysis is dead wrong. But, perhaps that’s why it was banished to the endnotes!  I cite the full end note because it disproves Dr. Mazza’s attempt to deconstruct the doctrine of universal acceptance.  From Cardinal Billot in Dr. Mazza’s own endnotes (bold emphasis is O’Reilly):

This at least must be firmly held as entirely unshaken and placed beyond all doubt: that the adherence of the universal Church will always be, by itself alone, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and consequently of the existence of all conditions that are requisite for legitimacy itself. Nor must the reason for this be sought from afar. For it is derived immediately from Christ’s infallible promise and providence: The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and again: Behold, I am with you all days. Indeed it would be the same for the Church to adhere to a false pontiff if she adhered to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule whom the Church must follow in believing and always in fact does follow…Certainly, God can permit that sometimes the vacancy of the See be protracted for a longer time. He can also permit that doubt may arise concerning the legitimacy of one or another elect. But He cannot permit the whole Church to recognize as pontiff one who is not truly and legitimately such. Therefore, once he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, the question of a possible defect in the election or absence of any condition necessary for legitimacy should no longer be raised, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals every defect of the election, and infallibly demonstrates the existence of all requires conditions.”

Source:  Dr. Mazza’s book, endnote 36, p. 28.  Source is from Billot, Tractus De Ecclesia Christi, vol. 1 (Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, 1927), Question XIV, Thesis XXIX, 3, pp. 635-636

Cardinal Billot says it must to be “firmly held” and “placed beyond all doubt” that “the adherence of the universal Church will always be, by itself alone, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and consequently of the existence of all conditions that are requisite for legitimacy itself.”  He goes on to state that God “cannot permit the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff one who is not truly and legitimately such.”

Therefore, it is not possible that God would have permitted the Church to recognize Francis and Leo XIV as Roman pontiffs if they were not truly popes, and legitimately elected.  QED.

The Church Historian vs. History:  The Case of Urban VI  and Clement VII

Finally, having reviewed universal acceptance, let’s turn our attention to history.  Dr. Mazza in various places and venues has claimed there are examples where the election of an antipope received universal acceptance.  By summoning such examples, Dr. Mazza hopes to say, ‘aha, since there are example of anti-popes being universally accepted in the past, then the universal acceptance of Francis (and Leo XIV) does not prove them true popes.’

The truth is, there are no such examples (see Anti-popes were never as universally and peacefully accepted). Even so, Dr. Mazza, Church historian, has attempted to offer two cases where he has alleged an antipope has received universal acceptance.  In his book, Dr. Mazza attempts to take Bishop Schneider to school on this question by citing the case of Pope Urban VI vs antipope Clement VII.

Note, Dr. Mazza fully understands Bishop Schneider’s definition of universal acceptance.  Please take note of this, because it will demonstrate the seeming, if not glaring, disingenuous and tendentious nature of Dr. Mazza’s argument.  Dr. Mazza quotes Schneider’s definition from an article written by the bishop (emphasis added):

“There is no authority to declare or consider an elected and generally accepted Pope as an invalid Pope. The constant practice of the Church makes it evident that even in the case of an invalid election this invalid election will be de facto healed through the general acceptance of the new elected by the overwhelming majority of the cardinals and bishops.”[8]

Please note, Bishop Schneider is speaking of universal acceptance in terms of the general definition, i.e. universal acceptance involves the acceptance by “the overwhelming majority of the cardinals and bishops.” This is essentially the same definition as given by Fr. Berry and Cardinal Billot cited earlier, as well as other scholars. Obviously, Dr. Mazza knows this is the definition, indeed we know this because Mazza quotes Schneider giving it. There is no escaping this fact.

However, Dr. Mazza subtly changes the definition when he considers the historical case of the election of antipope Clement VII. Here he holds out the case of antipope Clement VII as an exception in which “ALL the cardinals universally and peacefully accepted Clement VII.”  Note, again, Dr. Mazza altered the definition of universal and peaceful acceptance to being “ALL the cardinals” while leaving out mention of all “bishops.” This is not an unimportant oversight on Dr. Mazza’s part.

In terms of a summary history of the Urban VI-Clement VII controversy, Pope Urban VI was elected on April 8, 1378. There is no need to go into the particulars here, but as described by JND Kelly, in his Oxford Dictionary of Popes, by August 2, 1378, many of the Cardinals who elected Urban VI had declared months later that his election was invalid, “as having been made, not freely, but under fear” [see JND Kelly’s, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 227].  Speaking of these cardinals, JND Kelly wrote that “On Aug. 9 they informed the Christian world that he (Urban VI) had been deposed as an intruder” (cf, Ibid, p. 227). This, in turn, led to a series of events culminating in the election of Clement VII on September 20, 1378, only a few months after Urban VI‘s election, April 8, 1378.

Today, the Church considers Urban VI as having been the true pope, and Clement VII as being the antipope.  The curious thing is in his book, and on other occasions, Dr. Mazza claims as I alluded to above:

“Contra Schneider this invalid election (i.e., of Clement VII) was not healed when ALL the cardinals universally and peacefully accepted Clement VII.” [9]

Dr. Mazza is clearly suggesting that the election of the antipope Clement VII was not healed, even though “ALL the cardinals universally and peacefully accepted Clement VII.” Dr. Mazza essentially claims to have found in this case an example where universal acceptance did not heal a defect in a conclave or make an antipope a pope.  He then uses example to suggest that “likewise” the election of Benedict XVI was not overturned by the universal acceptance of Francis as pope in what Mazza considered an invalid conclave.

However, Dr. Mazza’s argument is seemingly, if not glaringly, disingenuous and tendentious. Consider, what Dr. Mazza claims for antipope Clement VII —  “ALL the cardinals” — is NOT what is meant by universal acceptance. Universal acceptance involves, as Bishop Schneider said, “the overwhelming majority of the cardinals and bishops.”  And history is clear on the question, antipope Clement VII never achieved anything close to universal acceptance. [10]

When he wrote his book, Dr. Mazza had before him Bishop Schneider’s definition of universal acceptance (“…overwhelming majority of cardinals AND bishops”), yet Dr. Mazza wanted the reader to believe the case of antipope Clement VII’s election by “All the cardinals” was one involving universal acceptance in the true sense, as used by Bishop Schneider, et al — when it definitely was not! [11]  One can reasonably conclude Dr. Mazza pulled a bait and switch.

Antipope Clement VII was never accepted by an overwhelming number of Cardinals, bishops, and faithful. Therefore, the example does not prove what Dr. Mazza suggests. QED.

The Church Historian vs. History:  The Case of Innocent II  and Anacletus II

In chapter I of his book, Dr. Mazza also raises the case of Pope Innocent II vs. antipope Anacletus II.  His presentation of the case is, in my opinion, somewhat convoluted in its discussion of the question. Consider, the section of his chapter wherein he discusses this case is titled St. Bernard vs. the “Jewish” Pope.[12]

Dr. Mazza previously raised the case of Innocent II vs. Anacletus before.  He did so in a LifeSiteNews article [13] in a reply to an article by Bishop Schneider.  In my opinion, Dr. Mazza’s discussion of this case was more clearly presented in his LifeSite article than it was in his recent book.  However, the general thrust is the same.

In his article, Dr. Mazza speaks of the case of antipope Anacletus, who he notes, was “elected and accepted by the overwhelming majority of electors and clergy.” However, here to, as in the case of Clement VII, if we are speaking of the doctrine of universal acceptance, properly understood, we are speaking of acceptance by the great majority of Catholic bishops and faithful – and not just the election or acceptance by the “majority of electors and clergy” in Rome.  So, again, this is yet another example of seemingly intentional misdirection by Dr. Mazza.  That is a reasonable conclusion.

Dr. Mazza knows the definition of universal acceptance, he sees it in the source materials, and in the argument of Bishop Schneider. Yet, instead of addressing Bishop Schneider’s definition universal acceptance head on with real example, Dr. Mazza attacks a straw man. Quite disappointing.

Anyway, Dr. Mazza’s seeming, if not glaringly, disingenuous and tendentious argument, the case is quite clear. In the case of Pope Innocent vs. anti-pope Anacletus, while Anacletus had possession of Rome following his election, “Europe came out in favour of [Pope] Innocent, with the exceptions of Aquitane, Scotland, Milan, and certain other cities of north Italy, and southern Italy.” [14]

Therefore, in sum, the historical record clearly shows, antipope Anacletus was never universally accepted by the Catholic episcopate and faithful. Consequently, the case does nothing to help Dr. Mazza’s argument. QED.

Final Thoughts

Many Catholics may come to a general understanding that the Church is in the midst of a crisis, and that there are serious issues surrounding the pontificate of Pope Francis that need to be addressed and clarified.  One day, this effort to clarify things may reach the level as was seen in the case of Pope Honorius. However, to either accept or to grant this in no way suggests we must accept Dr. Mazza’s, et al, claims that Francis and Leo XIV are antipopes.

The scholars cited by Dr. Mazza, but not fully quoted by him, gave an example of what might justify a doubt or suspicion related to the person of a putative pope. That example of Urban VI and Clement VII was the case of there being two rival claimants to the papacy. Confusion and doubt at such a time is understandable, but that is not the case (or cases) before us.

The papal elections of both Francis and Leo XIV were each accepted by the practically unanimous consent of an overwhelming majority of cardinals, bishops, and faithful. That Francis was, and Leo XIV is, a true pope are dogmatic facts. Therefore, there can be no “reasonable motive” for a faithful Catholic to continue to call the validity of their elections and papacies into doubt.

In this article, we examined two historical examples where Dr. Mazza has suggested in various venues as being cases of an antipope receiving the unanimous consent of the Church.  By these examples, Dr. Mazza hoped to argue that because antipopes Clement VII and Anacletus were accepted by the Church, then the Church acceptance of Francis does not prove he is a true pope.

Unfortunately, Dr. Mazza’s arguments with regard to these historical examples may reasonably be considered disingenuous and tendentious, for the reasons outlined throughout this article. Regardless, as demonstrated above on the basis of historical facts, antipope Clement VII and antipope Anacletus II were never universally and peacefully accepted by the Catholic bishops and faithful.  Neither received anything close to the unanimous consent of the Church, properly understood as the practically unanimous consent of an overwhelming majority of cardinals, bishops, and faithful.  Consequently, neither the case of Clement VII nor – for that matter – of Anacletus have any bearing on whether Francis is or has ever been a real pope or not.  Therefore, Dr. Mazza’s arguments fail.

Cardinal Billot, another source cited by Dr. Mazza himself(!), says it must to be “firmly held” and “placed beyond all doubt” that “the adherence of the universal Church will always be, by itself alone, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and consequently of the existence of all conditions that are requisite for legitimacy itself.”  He goes on to state that God “cannot permit the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff one who is not truly and legitimately such.”

Therefore, it is not possible that God would have permitted the Church to recognize Francis and Leo XIV as Roman pontiffs if they were not true popes, and legitimately elected.

Against dogmatic facts, it is the height of pride to essentially claim, either explicitly or implicitly, as do Dr. Mazza and other neo-sedevacantists (Barnhardt, etc.), that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful is wrong, while they alone, or with a relative, scant few, are right. It is time their “narci-schism” comes to an end. Let us pray that common sense is restored to them.

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.

Notes:

[1] Dr. Mazza’s Benepapist book is “Volume 1,” as its title explicitly states.  Unfortunately, we don’t know what happened to Volume 2.  I suppose historians of this controversy a hundred years might puzzle over its fate. The “Lost Volume” they might call it.

[2] Roma Locuta Est has published many articles on the subject (for example, see Summa Contra Stephen Walford, and Pope Francis, the Open Letter and the Pesky Preface).

[3] see Intellectual Honesty and the End of Benepapism; The Stake through the Heart of Benepapism; The Authenticity of Benedict XVI’s 2014 Letter.

[4] As provided by Dr. Mazza in his book, p. 10 (kindle).  Source cited: https://archive.org/details/IusCanonicumWernzSJVidalSJ/7%20%28Ius%20Poenale%20Ecclesiasticum%29-%20Ius%20Canonicum-%20Wernz%20SJ%2C%20Vidal%20SJ/page/436/mode/2up

[5] Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum (1937), Tomus VII, Part III, Chapter 29, n. 398 (p. 439).  Note: My thanks to Matt Gaspers who provided the citation and fuller quote.  See also his article: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-pope-francis-and-peaceful-and-universal-acceptance.  I used this quote in my rebuttal article to Dr. Mazza in a LifeSiteNews series, see https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/heres-what-benedict-xvi-meant-by-pope-emeritus-a-second-reply-to-dr-mazza/

[6] As provided by Dr. Mazza in his book, p. 12 (kindle). Source cited: https://archive.org/details/operaomniaiussui08thom/page/308/mode/2up

[7] Dr. Mazza, p. 23 (kindle)

[8] Dr. Mazza, p. 22 (kindle), cites Bishop Schneider from his article (OnePeterFive:  https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-validity-of-pope-francis/).  Please note, I provide the full quote in my article.

[9] Dr. Mazza, p. 22 (kindle)

[10]  See my discussion of this question in Dr. Mazza, PH.D., and Universal Acceptance: Another Failed Argument:

As word spread throughout Christendom that there were now two claimants to the papal throne — Urban VI and Clement VII; Christendom divided into competing camps in support of one or the other. Indeed, an online Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Western Schism states, “Christendom was quickly divided into two almost equal parties“[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm&gt], while another article in the Catholic Encyclopedia states that “The obedience of Urban was more numerous, that of Clement more imposing”[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15216a.htm>.]. The former of these two articles in the online Catholic Encyclopedia on the New Advent site gives the following breakdown of this division of support between the two papal claimants:

“The greater number of the Italian and German states, England, and Flanders supported the pope of Rome (i.e., Urban VI). On the other hand, France, Spain, Scotland, and all the nations in the orbit of France were for the pope of Avignon (i.e., Clement VII).”[13]

In The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, J.N.D. Kelly gives additional details, writing that those siding with the anti-pope Clement VII included France, Burgundy, Savoy, Naples, and Scotland, while those siding with Urban VI included England, Germany, ‘most of Italy,’ and Central Europe (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, JND, Kelly, p. 227).

[11]  See the link to Dr. Mazza’s article in n. 13 below; and the link to my response in n. 13 below as well.  Dr. Mazza makes the same argument contra Bishop Schneider. Dr. Mazza makes the same sort of argument regarding the case of Urban VI and Clement VII. In his debate/discussion with Matt Gaspers, the question of Universal Acceptance came up (see Mazza’s comments beginning 31:05). See my discussion of the similar difficulties with Dr. Mazza’s argument (see https://romalocutaest.com/2024/04/15/dr-mazza-ph-d-and-universal-acceptance-another-failed-argument/).  However, despite the obvious hole in his argument, Dr. Mazza, undeterred by the facts, continues to use the same example, making the same false claim.

[12] Dr. Mazza’s book, p. 33 (kindle version)

[13]    Dr. Mazza’s article (Benedict XVI’s own words prove that his resignation was invalid: a reply to Bishop Schneider) was a response to one by Bishop Schneider.  Bishop Schneider did not respond to Dr. Mazza. However, I did reply to Dr. Mazza’s comments in my own article appearing on LifeSiteNews (see Anti-popes were never as universally and peacefully accepted).  My comments on the Innocent II vs. Anacletus II case are taken for the large part from that article.

[14] See Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 169.