Monday, August 28, 2017

Pushing Back The Time Of The Vacancy


  There are some sedevacantists that make the rest of us Traditionalists look bad. The world, in its ignorance, already sees us as  "strange." We dare to call attention to the fact (using solid Catholic theological principles) that there has been no pope since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, and Vatican Council II created a heretical sect that is not the Roman Catholic Church. There are, however, people who think that they can decide matters authoritatively and impose those beliefs on others. They don't merely attempt to expound Church teaching, they presume to invent it.

Many of my readers have problems with the Holy Week changes of Pope Pius XII, and even the mitigated Eucharistic Fast. If you want to say you prefer the pre-1955 legislation, that's fine (I prefer it too!). There are problems though for those who claim the changes are intrinsically evil. The Church is Indefectible and cannot give that which is evil or erroneous. The Holy Ghost would not permit the hand of Pope Pius XII to sign anything heretical or evil, unless he fell into heresy as a private individual prior to that and lost the pontificate. That implicitly moves back the time of the sedevacante. Some dare to explicitly declare Pope Pius XII an antipope, and some go back even further!

 Take the case of Richard Ibranyi, who used to be with Fred and Bobby Dimond. He set up his own little cult and decided (on his own authority, with zero ecclesiastical education and theological training) which popes were heretical and which were not. According to him, there has been no pope since 1130 AD! More common are those who put the time of sedevacante at the death of Pope St. Pius X in 1914 (not a saint for them since Pope Pius XII canonized him). One such individual is Mike Bizzaro (no, I'm not making a joke) who runs the website  http://www.gods-catholic-dogma.com.

 One of my readers in the comments of a prior post had asked me to expose him, and Mike sent a response saying all of my "followers" are going to Hell. His website is so bold as to state that if anyone thinks any other site is Catholic, e-mail him the link, and he'll tell you what's wrong! He knows with apodictic assurance that no one else has the Truth. I did a Google search and allegedly he runs the site along with one Victoria DePalma. (I cannot attest to the truth of Ms. DePalma's involvement, or Mike's last name, I'm going by what I found after he commented on my blog. He does not choose absolute anonymity as I do).

 I could write several posts over the next couple of months detailing all the incorrect teachings that are as far removed from Traditional Catholicism as you can get. However, I don't need to do so. The three-fold problem with Mr. Bizzaro is the same as that for Ibranyi, the Dimond brothers, Lionel Andrades, etc. First, they only accept defined dogmas and everything else is up for grabs. Second, the dogmas are interpreted, not by the approved theologians of the Church, but by them, as if they had Magisterial authority. Third, they are not qualified as theologians with the requisite education and training, and yet do not hesitate to condemn everyone else to Hell who doesn't agree with them. Pride goeth before the fall.

 I wanted to see why Mr. Bizzaro claims Popes Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII were false popes because of being heretics. On section 20, 20.1, and 20.2 of his labyrinth-like website, he gives the reasons. As I suspected, they are quotes purposefully pulled out of context to "prove" something he wants others to accept. He should look up the definition of calumny.  It's also no surprise that he (like Ibranyi, the Dimonds, and Andrades) is a Feeneyite. As I've written before, there's an old saying, "A proof-text taken out of context is a pretext." I can't go through all errors attributed to the three pontiffs he maligns, as it would take more than one post, but a sample of a couple of "heresies" from each pope will more than suffice to expose his lies.

Below is the dishonest "scholarship" of Mr. Bizzaro.

False Accusations Against Pope Benedict XV

 Mr. Bizzaro writes the following:

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Benedict XV" in ...
Pacem, Dei Munus Pulcherrimum, Para 21:

The heresy ...
"We humbly implore the Holy Ghost the Paraclete that He may graciously grant to the Church the gifts of unity and peace." 

 It's allegedly heresy because of the following:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 18 Nov 1302 -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma > 
"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and also Apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles (6:8) proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one'."

Note: "Benedict XV" is in violation of this dogmatic decree which states "the Church is One". Benedict XV is saying exactly the opposite, that the Church is still in need of oneness. 

Now, back to reality. Pope Benedict XV never even said what is attributed to him!  Pacem, Dei munus Pulcherrimum was written May 23, 1920. The quote in question is actually a quote Pope Benedict took from the Secret Prayer at Mass for the Feast of Corpus Christi. (See footnote 24 of the Encyclical, available online). The Church is infallible in Her disciplinary laws and Her liturgy. According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). Further, the encyclical is talking about peace and unity among the warring Christian Nations during World War One, when it was promulgated. It is not denying the "Church is One" as the Mystical Body of Christ.

The next "heresy":

The following statement by "Benedict-XV" in: Spiritus Paraclitus, Para 68: 
The heresy ...
"The voice of Jerome summons those Christian nations which have unhappily fallen away from Mother Church." 

Catholic corrections ... to the above heresy: 

Vatican Council of 1870, Pope Pius IX Session 2, Profession of Faith -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma >
"This true Catholic Faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear." 

Note: "Benedict XV" is in violation of this dogmatic citation by saying that heretic nations are "Christian" ... and by doing so implying that the heretics (in these heretic nations) might be getting to Heaven ... when they are not. 

Here, Bizzaro places a period in the middle of the sentence. It reads, "The voice of Jerome summons those Christian nations which have unhappily fallen away from Mother Church to turn once more to Her in whom lies all hope of eternal salvation.   Pope Benedict XV meant they were founded as Christian nations (not Moslem states, etc) and urges them to become Catholic because only in the True Church "lies all hope of eternal salvation." Sounds pretty Catholic to me. (Unless you end the sentence in the middle with a period and redact the other words I underlined).

False Accusations Against Pope Pius XI

Mr. Bizzaro writes the following:

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Pius XI" in ...
Mortalium Animos, Para 2:
The heresy ...
"Founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life." 
  
Catholic corrections ... to the above heresy: 

Trent, Session 7, Baptism Section, Canon 8 -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma > 
"If anyone says that those baptized are free from all the precepts of holy Church, whether written or unwritten, so that they are not bound to observe them unless they should wish to submit to them of their own accord, let him be anathema." 

Note: "Pius XI" is in violation of this dogmatic decree in that he states that "differing in certain religious matters" is not a barrier to "agreeing as brethren" on other matters. This Canon 8 states the opposite, that religious differences causes one to be outside the Church and headed for Hell. Pius XI by stating that heretics may be seen "as brethren" contradicts this dogmatic statement which tells the truth about the pending damnation of all heretics.

Reality check. Bizzaro really did a number on this encyclical. Having stripped the sentence from the paragraph it appears to be saying heretics may be seen as brethren, when in fact, the encyclical actually condemns it.

Read paragraph #2 of Mortalium Animos in context:

"A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion." (Emphasis mine to show how Bizzaro lifted the words out of context).

Notice he starts the sentence, fraudulently, with the word "founded." Pope Pius XI was talking about people who aim at "unity" founded on a belief...etc. What does Pope Pius XI say about those who do so? "Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule."

Next alleged "heresy":

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Pius XI" in ...
Quas Primas, Para 18:
The heresy ...
"Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men." 

Catholic corrections ... to the above heresy: 

Pope Saint Leo the Great, Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Flavian section, 451 A.D. -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma; 
"For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others." 

Note: "Pius XI" is in violation of this Source of Dogma which states that sanctification of the soul is inseparable from water baptism ... by which we enter the Catholic Church ... which alone is the empire of the Redeemer. Un-baptized pagans are not in the empire of the Redeemer so "Pius XI" is clearly lying again for the damnation of souls.

The encyclical has nothing to do with "water baptism" at all! It's talking about the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ and it instituted the Feast of Christ the King. Immediately after the sentence Bizzaro quotes, he references His predecessor Pope Leo XIII, whom even Bizzaro acknowledges as pope. Here's what was actually written in context:

Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ." (citation to Pope Leo's encyclical Annum Sacrum, May 25, 1899). Bizzaro might want to push the time of sedevacante back to Pope Pius IX, before Pope Leo XIII.

False Accusations Against Pope Pius XII

 Bizzaro writes:

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Pius XII" in ...
Anni Sacri, Para 14:
The heresy ...
"Let those who hold the government of state be persuaded that there is no more solid social foundation than Christian teaching and the safeguarding of religious liberty." 

Catholic corrections ... to the above heresy: 

Apostate anti-Pope "Pius XII" telling people to ... believe whatever they want (liberty) ... thus shoving them toward eternal Hell. 

Those who believe that there is such as thing as "religious liberty" ... are headed for Hell. 

Here, Bizzaro wants you to think Pope Pius XII was in favor of "religious liberty" where one religion is as good as another and Catholicism should not be the State religion as Vatican II heretically taught. Anni Sacri is about a program for combating atheistic propaganda throughout the world. Paragraph # 14 reads in full:

"Let the lies of the wicked be exposed by His light, let the surly arrogance of the proud be humbled, let the rich be led to justice, generosity and charity, let the poor and wretched take as their model the family of Nazareth, which also earned its bread through daily labor; finally, let those who hold the Government of State be persuaded that there is no more solid social foundation than Christian teaching and the safeguarding of religious liberty." Pius meant liberty for the Church based on Christian teaching.

Another alleged "heresy":

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Pius XII" in ...
Mystici Corporis, Para 103:
The heresy ...
"As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church."

Violates the following Dogmatic Decrees: 

Council of Florence, Session 11, Pope Eugene IV, 1442 A.D. -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma > 
"It (the Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives."

Note : "Pius XII" is saying the opposite of this dogmatic decree by Pope Eugene IV because this dogmatic statement clearly says that those who die outside of the Catholic Church will descend into Hell at the moment of death. For this statement of liar "Pius XII" to be true, Heaven would have to be "guiding" those who are outside the Catholic Church into Hell -- because that is where they are headed. This is, to say the least, completely ludicrous not to mention a spiritual impossibility since God or the Heavenly principalities cannot deceive or be deceived.

Once more Bizzaro lies to "prove" his calumny. The sentence reads thus: "As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly.

Once more he cuts off a sentence. The "example of the Good Shepherd" is to go looking for the "sheep that was lost" (Outside the Church), and bring him back to the fold (within the One True Church).

Conclusion

 Poor Mike Bizzaro and his lying, error-laden website "God's Catholic Dogma" is a sad example of what happens when laymen set themselves up as self-anointed "saviors." They will interpret Church teaching, not the approved theologians. They will even lie to make their point in some cases. And, of course, they tell you that you must "Follow me or burn in Hell." Please be careful when ascribing theological error. A preference for the old Holy Week Rites (pre-1955) does not make the Pope Pius XII Rites "evil" or "erroneous." To say otherwise can put you on the wrong track of pride and (God forbid) you start to set yourself up as a Magisterial authority. The day may come when one such person puts the time of sedevacante back to St. Peter himself. 

27 comments:

  1. I am fairly new to Tradition, however, in my opinion people such as the ones described above sound more Protestant than Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're correct Joann! They use private judgement on all matters and even lie to make the "facts" fit their preconceived ideas. People like them go beyond Protestants. Should you dare disagree with them, you will "burn in Hell."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. People who are practicing predestination to hell is a good indicator to stay far away. No one knows with certainty who is going to make it to heaven or hell. Predestination to hell is as bad as those who believe in predestination to heaven. Protestantism.

      Delete
    3. Excellent point! I completely agree.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. These fools are the worst marketing that sedevacantism can have. I always hear the tradromantics R & R affirm that all sedevacantists are like this, even those who are learned and worthy to guide us, like Father Cekada, Bishop Dolan, Bishop Sanborn, Bishop Pivarunas, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The R&R will NEVER focus on the SSPV or CMRI, but the lunatic fringe in the hopes of discrediting us. Why such dirty tactics for those who allegedly fight for the Truth? The answer should be academic!

      God bless my friend!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I also want to add that while it is true that those like Ibranyi and Bizzaro are fringes, the R-R theory itself, though maybe not heretical in a strict sense, is definitely a fringe theory.

      Delete
    3. In light of Catholic principles, you are correct. However, the world sees it the opposite.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. Interestingly, we have some guys here in Europa, that hold such extreme positions, especially in a small group in Germany who consider that Pius XI was in fact the last true pope. The guy who spreaded these things is Andreas Pitsch. Here is a link about him on a german sede website : http://www.monarchieliga.de/index.php?title=Andreas_Pitsch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the information. Another member of the self-anointed "Magisterium" that's clueless.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. It takes a great deal of humility to disengage from the Feeney heresy and a great deal of trust. The average Feeneyite probably fears being lead to hell by those he thinks are liberal or modernist. If the modernists weren't' such evil heretics, the Feeney heresy would never have taken off. It is a heretical reaction to modernism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is indeed. When BOD was not fully and properly explained by many of the clergy pre-Vatican 2, people got the idea that belonging to the Church is not a big deal. Virtually everyone would be saved by BOD. Unfortunately, the reaction by Fr Feeney was not to correctly explain Church teaching, but to fall into an opposite error.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. I'm NOT making a magisterial dogmatic decree nor am I theologian.
    After much reading and subsequent research,it's possible a true Catholic Pope in the future will regard the office of Pius XII null and void after 1953 or 1955.
    I could be 100% wrong so please do not base your faith on this comment.
    With that said,Pius XII destroyed ancient venerable Traditions like a bulldozer in 10th gear.
    These "changes" along with the incorrect belief of BOD equating to "faith alone",layed the groundwork for the Novus Ordo in the late 60's.(priests Bishops did not teach BOD/BOB properly in the 40's/50's)
    It's difficult for me to believe Pius XII didn't know more changes were planned given the amount of outright liberal modern nutcases he was surrounded by in the 50's.
    He promoted Montini (yes promoted to Bp of Milan..same post Pius XI held before being elected Pope) Roncalli etc..
    He approved of the top secret "Liturgical Change commission".
    Given the evidence it doesn't look good for Pius XII after 1953.
    Based on action and deed,Pius XII is fine from 1939-1953.
    Good article btw very enlightening and informative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you are level-headed and realize none of us have Magisterial authority. I'm just a layman too. If a future pope declares something to be the case, I will submit as all loyal Catholics must do.

      Personally, I think there was going to be a new form of the Roman Rite. Not the Novus Bogus!! Something different yet totally Catholic, like the pre-Vatican 2 Eastern Rites were VERY different from the Latin Rite but every bit as Catholic.

      Who knows? Like you, I will wait for a future pope to decide!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. You could be correct on a new form of the Roman Rite.
      Say there were plans for a new Roman Rite that was Catholic.
      Why do you think they wanted to change it so bad?
      Does Quo Primum have any legal weight/authority or is it just a piece of paper that belongs under glass in a museum?

      Delete
    3. I think there was development that started with Pope St Pius X. He lowered the age to receive Communion, and began revisions. The liturgical movement started out legitimately, but ultimately ended up hijacked by the Modernists. I think the Church was going to begin a "Counter Reformation" of sorts against Modernism, Communisim, and Secular Humanism. It would be reflected in a revised Roman Rite. This is only my opinion. I have no idea what the final Rite would look like as V2 took place.

      Quo Primum was used as a rallying cry for those opposed to the Modernists but didn't know how to react in such an unprecedented time of near universal Apostasy.

      It was a useful tool to make Catholics realize they could stand up to the "pope." However, no theologian ever held it to be infallible or irreformable.
      The "in perpetuity" clause was merely a type of legal boilerplate language common in papal legislation.

      Furthermore, history shows us the Mass was changed twice in less than 70 years after Quo Primum. In 1604, Pope Clement VIII issued new regulations for the Blessing at Mass, and in 1634 Pope Urban VIII changed the wording of the Missals rubrics and hymn texts.

      Quo Primum has a place in my heart for the role it played against the Modernists. However, the argument should be abandoned as we have sound, valid arguments apart from it and Modernists with some erudition can easily refute "Quo Primum says the Mass can never be changed."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. 1951-1958*
      Not 1953-1958

      Delete
    5. VERY interesting take on what could've been the original intent of the liturgical change committee.
      Like you say we don't know but very interesting opinion to say the least.
      BISHOP Robert Dymek (Thuc_
      Des Lauriers_McKenna_Slupski_Dymek.
      Bp.Slupski ordained/consecrated him)
      HE would remind us he was a priest and an emergency bishop who could only act as bishop on certain rare days throughout the year.
      Holy Thursday,confirmation,and the ultra rare ordination & even more rare consecration, especially the last few yrs of his life.He refused candiates for Holy Orders many times his last 5 yrs of life.
      He would remind us he had no office from the Church and had zero authority to make official pronouncements.
      The emergency clerics need to chill out on this Una Cum issue as it's making them look ridiculous.
      They are starting to look like Mike Bizarro and Richard Ibranyi.
      No offense but the clerics who make magisterial pronouncements and their parishioners are starting to create their own sect.
      CALL ME CRAZY BUT POPE MICHAEL'S PLEAS FOR AN IMPERFECT COUNCIL AND PARTICIPATION OFF ALL TRADITIONAL BISHOPS IS WHAT'S NEEDED.
      1958 OR 1963/1964 IS TOO LONG,ITS TIME FOR A POPE.

      Delete
    6. What about "incurring the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter & Paul?"
      Not being sarcastic,I promise.
      Just curious as that sounds ominous and direct as possible.
      Where can we look at these changes by Popes Urban & Clement?
      It's not online as I have looked in vain for years on these changes.

      Delete
    7. To anonymous @7:21, I reject Bawden , but I agree with his contention that we need an imperfect General Council. I also think Bp. Dymek was a humble man and a wise cleric. There should be more like him.

      To Anonymous @8:25

      The "wrath clause" was also legal language indicative that only the pope or his successor could dare change it, not any ecclesiastical inferior. It was not a dogmatic definition which would bind everyone forever.

      The decrees can be found in any Missale Romanum, pre-1962. In have an original 1943 Altar Missal and on pg. vii and viii appear the decrees of Pope Clement VIII and Pope Urban VIII respectively (in the original Latin text). Guess what is just before them? Quo Primum! Proof-positive that Quo Primum was not binding on future popes!

      God bless you both,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Thank you for the compliment of Bishop Robert Dymek.
      He died in late April please pray for his soul.
      He obeyed the pre-1950 system and encouraged fasting after midnight for Holy Commnion.
      His used to say Sacrifice now while you can for the sake of your soul.

      Delete
  6. One explanation for why these Feeneyites tend to go off the deep end might be that the Devil knows that they have come close to the truth, therefore he must single them out for special treatment, tempting them to believe themselves great prophets or something. On the other hand, perhaps, since he doesn't have much of a problem with polite, liberal, easy-going traditionalists, who never really put up any effective resistance to his plans anyway, he just leaves them in peace, and, as a result, they appear to be (and in may ways, in fact, are) more virtuous than their Feeneyite counterparts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There may be some truth in what you're saying George. Effective resistance to the V2 sect should be much stronger.

      Although I must say George, outside of this (and a few other forums) if we discussed "liberal white sedevacantists" ---we'd both be shunned as off the wall! Lol

      God bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Can you give me a few examples of liberal Catholics holding the Sedevacantist opinion?

      Delete
  7. Sometimes I wonder if people like Michael Bizarro are controlled opposition to give Catholics holding the Sedevacantist opinion a bad name?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an interesting idea!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I also wonder why very intelligent Catholics like Charles Coloumbe don't correct people regarding Vatican 1.
      On the Tumblar House YouTube channel,people will write the generic saying
      "Vatican 1 says there will be perpetual successors till the end of time."
      It actually says
      "There SHOULD be successors till the end of Time."
      Yet they don't correct people on such a simple quote and simple format.(YouTube channel message space)

      Delete