tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post6724955376767302426..comments2024-03-18T19:30:18.591-07:00Comments on Introibo Ad Altare Dei: Pushing Back The Time Of The VacancyIntroibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-24671489094008045622018-10-19T13:14:01.478-07:002018-10-19T13:14:01.478-07:00Tony,
Pope St Pius X drove the Modernists undergro...Tony,<br />Pope St Pius X drove the Modernists underground but was unable to extirpate them. That in no way implies Popes Benedict XV, Pius XI, And Pius XII we’re not true popes. As I demonstrated in this post, they were completely orthodox. Popes are not infallible in making episcopal appointments and some fooled everyone. NO ONE suspected Augustin Bea Of being a Modernist. Only after Roncalli usurped the throne did he reveal his true colors. Does the fact Pope St Pius X didn’t get rid of all Modernists make him a false pope? He pretended to be against Modernists but allowed them to remain and conquer at a later time? There’s no evidence for any of this, and people who sadly go down this path wind up like Richard Ibranyi with the last pope being Pope Honorius II in 1130 AD!<br /><br />God Bless,<br /><br />—-Introibo Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-25331282754321649462018-10-19T06:08:15.421-07:002018-10-19T06:08:15.421-07:00John XXIII is elected "Pope" in 1958 and...John XXIII is elected "Pope" in 1958 and in ONLY SEVEN YEARS manages to fill the church with 2000 heretical bishops (those who would eventually vote for the V2 documents). That is impossible. The destruction of the Church by Freemasonry, Communism, and Crypto-Jewish infiltration must have started much sooner. I strongly believe the 1914 date as the end of the papacy. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09808545722171245121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-24159510589240551242018-08-31T19:22:17.429-07:002018-08-31T19:22:17.429-07:00Nice sarcasm, David!!
—-Introibo Nice sarcasm, David!!<br /><br />—-Introibo Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-77943070902565405042018-08-31T17:15:10.669-07:002018-08-31T17:15:10.669-07:00Proof that Peter was the last true pope
Antipope ...Proof that Peter was the last true pope<br /><br />Antipope Clement I said...<br /><br />//1. Clement of Rome (30-100): “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.”<br /><br />Source: Clement, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 32.4.<br /><br />//<br /><br />By contrast James said "we are justified by works and not by faith alone."<br /><br />Stick with the true papal encyclicals, 1 and 2 PeterDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04646855748283298080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-80567594761098081892018-02-27T19:33:57.629-08:002018-02-27T19:33:57.629-08:00To my non-deranged readers,
Mike is the typical “V...To my non-deranged readers,<br />Mike is the typical “Vacancy Pusher” who rejects how the Church teaches us by Her Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Now, he’s pushed back the vacancy another pope. Expect to see Mike in New Mexico with Ibranyi very soon!<br /><br />He think his private interpretation of Iam Vos Omnes “proves” heresy. He doesn’t read the document in context. It’s a call for non-Catholics to be reunited with the One True Church! <br /><br />Pope Pius said this:<br /><br />“Sustained by this hope, and roused and urged by the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave his life for the whole human race, We cannot refrain Ourselves, on the occasion of the future Council, from addressing Our Apostolic and paternal words to all those who, whilst they acknowledge the same Jesus Christ as the Redeemer, and glory in the name of Christian, yet do not profess the true faith of Christ, nor hold to and follow the Communion of the Catholic Church. And We do this to warn, and conjure, and beseech them with all the warmth of Our zeal, and in all charity, to consider and seriously examine whether they follow the path marked out for them by Jesus Christ our Lord, and which leads to Eternal Salvation. No one can deny or doubt that Jesus Christ himself, in order to apply the fruits of his redemption to all generations of men, built his only Church in this world on Peter; that is to say, the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic; and that he gave to it all necessary power, that the deposit of Faith might be preserved whole and inviolable, and that the same Faith might be taught to all peoples, kindreds, and nations, that through baptism all men might become members of his mystical body, and that the new life of grace, without which no one can ever merit and attain to life eternal, might always be preserved and perfected in them; and that this same Church, which is his mystical body, might always remain in its own nature firm and immovable to the end of time, that it might flourish, and supply to all its children all the means of Salvation.”<br /><br />Get that? They “glory in the name of Christian” but only in Christ’s One True Church can one “merit eternal life.” How “heretical!” They are separated in so far as their founders left the Church NOT that they are true Christians. <br /><br />Vacancy Pushers, Feeneyites, none of them understand how the Church teaches. They are only sad people who need our prayers, and in some cases—at the risk of sounding uncharitable—-psychological help.<br /><br />—-Introibo Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-1162824704468809202018-02-27T19:08:30.171-08:002018-02-27T19:08:30.171-08:00Don't bother replying because I won't read...Don't bother replying because I won't read it because it'll just end up in my spam folder. Goodbye, apostate.Miguel Pasamanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05774063299486364319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-39334115537336880712018-02-27T18:50:55.556-08:002018-02-27T18:50:55.556-08:00IAAD, you have not earned the right to address me ...IAAD, you have not earned the right to address me or any of the other Faithful by name so cease and desist until you convert and wise men have pointed out that the more you know (provided you're honest which you're not) the crazier you sound to the ignorant (in which category you willfully fall into). Just today, Szabo Imre brought it to my attention that Antipope "Pius IX"'s taught of a such thing as "separated brethren" and implying of UnOrthodox and Reformed Protestants to be Christians (Iam Vos Omnes, September 13th 1968) well after he condemned the proposition that "Protestantism is another form of Christianity" (Noscitis, December 8th 1849; Syllabus of Errors, #18, December 8th 1864). I once defended Antipopes "Leo XIII", "Pius X", "Benedict XV", "Pius XI", and "Pius XII" back when I thought they were popes. I once defended Antipopes "John XXIII", "Paul VI", "John Paul I", "John Paul II", "Benedict XVI", and "Francis" back when I thought they were popes. Why? It was my duty to defend them back when I thought they were popes. You neglected to answer my question about the "existence" of the "separated brethren" and UnOrthodox and Reformed Protestants being Christians as they're called because you know you can't without admitting that he taught or implied what all sedevacantists admit is heresy so - as usual - you (just like the Dimonds and all other disinformation agents do) resort to strawman arguments (by mentioning other heretics such as Richard Ibranyi - who can't and won't produce a shred of "evidence" against Pope Innocent II thru Gregory XVI - to distract people from the actual issues: the 6 widely disputed papal claimants accepted among mainstream "sedevacantists") to personal attacks and then falsely accuse others of doing that to you when they refute and expose you lest people see the Truth and save their souls.<br /><br />I'm not interested in any of your modernist propaganda. Drink the poison yourself.Miguel Pasamanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05774063299486364319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-65801946149627525962018-02-27T18:15:01.919-08:002018-02-27T18:15:01.919-08:00Mike,
How do you live with such absurdity? The la...Mike, <br />How do you live with such absurdity? The last time you commented on my blog, you clearly stated that Pius IX was pope and you defended him as such! Now he’s an antipope? Lol!! Keep going—-soon you and Ibranyi will be fighting to see if Pope Honorius II was a valid pope in 1130 A.D. !<br /><br />See my post “The Source Of The Problem “ Of 1/22/18.<br /><br />—-Introibo Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-32455630046399246922018-02-27T16:47:22.460-08:002018-02-27T16:47:22.460-08:00Are schismatics and heretics Christians? Is there ...Are schismatics and heretics Christians? Is there a such thing as "seperated brethren"? If no, why does Antipope "Pius IX" teach that there is a such thing as "separated brethren" and imply that UnOrthodox and Reformed Protestants are Christians (Iam Vos Omnes, September 13th 1968) well after he condemned the proposition that "Protestantism is another form of Christianity" (Noscitis, December 8th 1849; Syllabus of Errors, #18, December 8th 1864)? How long are you people gonna keep lying to yourselves and others? How do you people live with yourselves?Miguel Pasamanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05774063299486364319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-67257534627861900552018-02-27T13:41:22.179-08:002018-02-27T13:41:22.179-08:00There is no evidence of Pope Pius IX being a Freem...There is no evidence of Pope Pius IX being a Freemason, other than malicious heresay. Keep looking. I’m sure you can find some quote or gossip about Pope Gregory XVI, and push back the vacancy even further. Try to make it back to St Peter.<br /><br />—-Introibo Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-13517450487439132018-02-27T03:08:57.747-08:002018-02-27T03:08:57.747-08:00One Faith, One Baptism, One God
Welcome. Im sorry...One Faith, One Baptism, One God<br /><br />Welcome. Im sorry but I have some informations about IX. Pius ass well. He is was a liberal freemason. He just started his carrier and gave a democratic government to Rome. The NewYork Time write about him in 1874 like a freemason. He sent the papal stone to the washington monument what was building by the freemasons. He was beleiving in some heresies too like the Invincible Ignorance. But later close to end of his life in turn already towards the Conservatism. His best friends like Antonio Antonelli cardinal, Franz Liszt were a freemasons ass well.<br /><br /> <br /><br />I think the last pope is Gregory XVI.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A05E1DC153BEF34BC4F51DFB667838F669FDE&legacy=true<br /><br />freemasonry.bcy.ca - Pope Pius IX : freemason<br /><br />http://www.masonic.benemerito.net/msricf/papers/marples/marples-great.likelihood.pope.pius.ix.freemason.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-64536648929157394172018-01-07T14:29:13.880-08:002018-01-07T14:29:13.880-08:00Mike C’s final “argument” (if you want to call it ...Mike C’s final “argument” (if you want to call it that) is that Church Fathers, Doctors and theologians are “not infallible.” This argument is also in vain as we can clearly see from the definitions of the Magisterium above that when a teaching of the Church is unanimous, it is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which is itself infallible, according to the solemn teaching of the First Vatican Council. Certainly, when a theologian speaks or writes on a doctrine, that in itself is not an infallible statement; it is when that doctrine is unanimously taught elsewhere in the Church without condemnation that it becomes part of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium.<br /><br />Furthermore, to say any of the sources above are “not infallible” is to directly imply that they have been in error for all the years or centuries since they were allowed to propagate, and that the Solemn Magisterium did nothing to correct it. This is to say that the Catholic Church can propagate error and heresy, which is a denial of the dogma of the Infallibility of the Church. It is blasphemy to say the One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Catholic Church can introduce anything harmful to the faithful. <br /><br />Church teaching on the subject: Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, 1794, condemns: ''the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful" (again, this was condemned). Also, Pope Gregory XVI in Quo Graviora (1833) states, "The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?”<br />Having shown Mike C does NOT understand even the basics of theology (such as what constitutes the Magisterium) he gets everything else wrong too. So he sits Home Alone, calling anyone who disagrees that pulling sentences out of context from papal decrees to prove “heresy,” is a “liar” “heretic” and so on. He’s no different from Mike Bizzaro and Richard Ibranyi, except that they all become their own private “magisterium.” Sad. <br /><br />(I wish to credit not only my library of 4, 000 titles, but some excellent Internet resources that are bringing forth the truth on BOD and BOB, and from whom I have used some materials, such as traditionalmass.org among others)<br /><br />---Introibo<br />Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-58750704880634246962018-01-07T14:23:53.355-08:002018-01-07T14:23:53.355-08:00Pope Pius IX (19th century): Quanto Conficiamur Mo...Pope Pius IX (19th century): Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863: “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”<br /><br />Singulari Quadam, December 9, 1854: "For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God."<br /> <br />If these are just private teachings, Mike C must push back the time of the vacancy because as St. Alphonsus teaches:<br />"If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."Oeuvres Completes. 9:232.<br />According to Mike C, Pope Pius IX either (a) was too stupid to understand the doctrine of baptism (which must be rejected to to the pope’s ecclesiastical education and theological training) or (b) he taught heresy as a private teacher and fell from office, pushing back the time of the vacancy!<br />St. Thomas Aquinas, like St. Alphonsus Liguori, both saints and Doctors of the Church taught the absolute necessity of water baptism and then teach BOD and BOB! Were they contradicting themselves? No! They understood Baptism of water as the ordinary and usual way of entering the Church and BOD and BOB as extraordinary means, a rare miracle of grace whereby Faith and sanctifying grace can be infused at the moment prior to death. This explains the apparent “contradictions” Mike C gives which come recycled from the Dimond brothers. <br /> In the Summa Theologica in the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas is seen teaching baptism of desire and blood numerous times. A century later, in the 14th century, St. Thomas' writings were thoroughly scrutinized during his canonization process, and he was not shown to be in error on this teaching, and Pope John XXII still chose to canonize him. Two centuries after this, in the 16th century, St. Thomas' writings were again thoroughly scrutinized during the process to make him a Doctor of the Church. Again, St. Thomas was not found to be in error on this teaching, and Pope St. Pius V chose to make him a Doctor of the Church. These processes never would have completed if St. Thomas were teaching heresy. In addition, since the days of St. Thomas Aquinas, there have since been roughly 70 Popes and countless bishops that have certainly read the Summa Theologica, as it is one of the most trusted references in the history of the Catholic Church next to Scripture itself. None of those 70+ Popes and countless bishops ever declared St. Thomas to be in error on this teaching, and none of them have ever challenged his canonization or Doctor of the Church status, nor have any of them ever declared St. Thomas to be a heretic. There teachings could not be considered by any rational person as “an innocent mistake” without attributing the same “mistake” to 70 popes and countless bishops and saints which make a Magisterium useless.<br />(continued below)Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-73826945967043267692018-01-07T14:23:00.923-08:002018-01-07T14:23:00.923-08:00"All those things are to be believed by divin..."All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."<br /><br />In other words, both forms of the Magisterium of the Church (Solemn or Ordinary) are infallible and must be believed, according to this General Council. So if a teaching in the Church is universal, and allowed to propagate without condemnation from the Solemn Magisterium, it is considered infallible by the First Vatican Council. Pope Pius IX confirmed this : “For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1683. <br />Moreover, the opinion that theologians have “obscured” the more important truths of our faith was condemned by Pius VI. “The proposition which asserts ‘that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,’ HERETICAL.” Auctorem Fidei (1794) DZ 1501. <br /><br />Equally condemned is the proposition that Catholics are obliged to believe only those matters infallibly proposed as dogmas. (Condemned by Pius IX.) <br /> “And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe, and condemn: and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church…” “22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith.” CONDEMNED PROPOSITION. Encyclical Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864), DZ 1699, 1722. <br /> Now if Mike C wishes to object that the statements of Pope Pius IX were not infallible and not to be believed..he contradicts the very teaching to the whole Church in the Syllabus of Errors #22 promulgated by Pope Pius IX! Pope Pius IX also taught BOD and the doctrine of Invincible Ignorance.<br />(Continued below)Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-74457396167902811412018-01-07T14:22:19.130-08:002018-01-07T14:22:19.130-08:00The Ordinary Magisterium is where the majority of ...The Ordinary Magisterium is where the majority of Catholic beliefs are taught and learned; through unanimous teaching by preaching, by any written means, the approval of catechisms, the approval of textbooks for use in seminaries, etc.<br /><br />Some examples of the Ordinary Magisterium would be that of Guardian Angels, or the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (before 1950). While neither were solemnly defined by the Church (before 1950), they were always universally taught and believed, and it would be considered heresy to deny them.<br /><br />For example, Arius was considered a heretic before his condemnation at the Council of Nicaea in 325, because the Divinity of Christ (which he denied) was part of the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium before that Council. The same applies to Nestorius regarding his denial of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin, where he was later declared a heretic by the Solemn Magisterium at the Council of Ephesus.<br /><br />So in a nutshell, the Solemn Magisterium (used rarely) plus the Ordinary Magisterium (used continuously) equals the complete infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. The article "Science and the Church" from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) states it well: "The official activity of teaching may be exercised either in the ordinary, or daily, magisterium, or by occasional solemn decisions. The former goes on uninterruptedly; the latter are called forth in times of great danger, especially of growing heresies."<br /><br />Finally, the most frequent reason why the Solemn Magisterium is used is in order to confirm a doctrine which already belongs to the Ordinary Magisterium, but which has come under attack, usually by heretics. In other words, teaching from the Ordinary Magisterium continually occurs throughout the Church century after century, and the decisions of Popes and Councils (Solemn Magisterium) confine what is taught through the ordinary teaching. Both solemn and ordinary teaching of the Church are considered infallible by this definition. The infallibility of both Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium was solemnly defined by the First Vatican Council (1870) when it stated the following:<br />(Continued below)Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-63140453122810483132018-01-07T14:21:24.682-08:002018-01-07T14:21:24.682-08:00To my readers:
People often wonder why I allow clu...To my readers:<br />People often wonder why I allow clueless name-calling boors like Mike C to comment. Answer: They do a better job than I could ever hope to do in showing the lunacy and “sickness of soul” that Feeneyites possess. They even push back the time of the vacancy. They don’t understand what the Magisterium is and so they make things up based on private interpretation. In the case of the V2 “popes” there is lots of material that describes a new ecclesiology many times condemned by the Church, and announced for the first time at Vatican II. What Mike Bizzaro, Mike C, and Richard Ibranyi do is to sift through documents and pull one or two sentences out of context to “prove heresy.” Now, I’ll finish him off.<br />What the Magisterium is according to the Church Herself.<br />The Extraordinary Magisterium Defined as Church teaching “which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes. Its matter comprises dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils or Popes teaching "ex cathedra." (Definition from “A Catholic Dictionary”, 1951)<br />Examples of the Solemn Magisterium would be decisions of any General Councils of the Church, or certain papal encyclicals, such as that defining the Dogma of the Assumption in 1950. Note that it is only in extraordinary circumstances that the Catholic Church teaches in this manner, which historically has been to combat heresy. In the first 7 centuries of the Church, the Solemn Magisterium was not used often, and very little was solemnly defined. So at least 7 generations of Catholics lived and died during this time with very little solemn teaching by the Church. This is because the majority of what Catholics believe comes from the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.<br /><br />The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium is “continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical documents, in which the faith is declared.” (Definition from “A Catholic Dictionary”, 1951)<br /><br />So, according to this definition, the Ordinary Magisterium (also referred to as the Universal Ordinary Magisterium) is Church teaching that is continuous and unanimously consented to throughout the Church.<br /><br />"A Commentary on Canon Law" (Augustine, 1918, Canon 1323, pg 327) states: "The universal and ordinary magisterium consists of the entire episcopate, according to the constitution and order defined by Christ, i.e., all the bishops of the universal Church, dependently on the Roman Pontiff". It also states, "What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must be believed. And what the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide."<br />(continued below)Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-25165249238955391602018-01-07T09:13:18.003-08:002018-01-07T09:13:18.003-08:00Leave it to dishonest schismatics and heretics suc...Leave it to dishonest schismatics and heretics such as yourselves to once again try to deflect my again mentioning Mike Bizzaro as a desperate attempt to win a losing argument after you've clearly proven yourself to be the epitome of a blind spiritual fool in front of everyone who's honest and sees this. Anybody can say anything. Any heretic can say anything. Your words mean nothing. Throughout this debate, we, that is myself and the other honest good-willed readers, have been exposed to a litany of recycled modernist "theological" trash relying upon fallible non-papal saints and heretical modernist "theologians". No one who's honest or good will will be the least bit moved any of it.<br /><br />God, our Lady, the angels, the Apostles, the Evangelists, the Prophets, the Confessors, the martyrs, and the saints are deaf to the "prayers" of (willfully blind) schismatics, heretics, and apostates (like you). Us true Remnant who don't have our heads in the sand will be praying for the conversion of (willfully blind) schismatics, heretics, and apostates (like you)!Miguel Pasamanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05774063299486364319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-19721105540286576942018-01-07T09:13:08.820-08:002018-01-07T09:13:08.820-08:00No one who's honest would ever call your const...No one who's honest would ever call your constantly refuted "theological trash" a "sound theological argument". You quote certain Church Fathers saying certain things you like. I quote popes and in their Magisterial capacity Catholic Councils refuting all "possibilities" of any exceptions to the necessity of baptism and Church membership for salvation! You're the schismatics and heretics who imply that "Truth can contradict itself" by holding to Magisterially disproven theories of fallible man.<br /><br />3. You just refuted your whole defense of "Leo XIII", "Pius X", "Benedict XV", "Pius XI", and "Pius XII" as "popes". You falsely accuse me of judging popes just because I recognize "Leo XIII", "Pius X", "Benedict XV", "Pius XI", and "Pius XII" as heretical antipopes the very same way the "Vatican 2" apostates falsely accuse both of us of doing so because we both (even though you have no grounds to) recognize "John XXIII", "Paul VI", "John Paul I", "John Paul II" the Terrible, "Benedict XVI", and "Francis". You just refuted your whole defense of "Leo XIII", "Pius X", "Benedict XV", "Pius XI", and "Pius XII" by citing your own "Code" that Divine Law automatically deprives heretics of Office. Pope Liberius automatically fell from the First See just by being suspected of heresy and Pope Saint Felix II was Canonically elected as a result!Miguel Pasamanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05774063299486364319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-90090383078333531122018-01-07T09:12:37.250-08:002018-01-07T09:12:37.250-08:00At no point does "interpretation" come i...At no point does "interpretation" come in. If the Tridentine Council was really saying what you falsely claim it says, schismatics and heretics other than yourself wouldn't commonly dishonestly replace the word "without" with the words "except through" to make it say what they want it to say. I can't brush my teeth without a tooth brush, tooth paste, or water. Do I need just one? No. I need all three? I can't drive with a car, gas in the tank, and the key to start the car. Do I need just one? No. I need all there. Anyone who's honest knows "and"/"or" can sometimes be used interchangeably. This is what happens when you form teachings based on only half-sentences. Do you accept the Tridentine Council anathematizes all who say "true and natural water is not necessary for baptism" and thus twists into some metaphor the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 3:5) or say "baptism is optional , that is, not necessary for salvation" in Session 7 Canon 2 and 5 on baptism?<br /><br />The seminarians started getting infiltrated by the FreeMasons back in the late 19th century. You're a dishonest idiot if you think "Vatican 2" just popped up out of nowhere! The schismatics and heretics who "excommunicated" Leonard Feeney had no power to do so because they had no office because they were outside the Church because they were heretics. "Father" Gommar De Pauw was a heretical "theologian" and a double-agent between false "traditionalists" and FreeMasons as admitted by even "triple baptism" and "invincible ignorance" heretic Teresa Benns admits on http://betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/4-heresy/tracing-traditionalism-to-its-masonic-origins/. It's pathetic that you think that passes for true theologians truly approved by the Church. Nice going!Miguel Pasamanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05774063299486364319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-37235703899289630712018-01-07T09:11:24.550-08:002018-01-07T09:11:24.550-08:00Do you accept the Roman Breviary saying the same B...Do you accept the Roman Breviary saying the same Bishop Theologian Saint Gregory Nazianzen "wrote much, both in prose and verse, of an admirable piety and eloquence. In the opinion of learned and holy men, there is nothing to be found in his writings which is not conformable to true piety and Catholic Faith, or which anyone could reasonably call in question"?<br />Do you accept the same Bishop Saint John Chrystostom saying "weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ not a whit from them, those who go hence without illumination, without the seal …. with the condemned"?<br />Do you accept the same Bishop Doctor Saint Ambrose saying "the Three Witnesses in Baptism are One: Water, Blood, and the Spirit; and if you withdraw any One of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any Sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Even a catechumen believes in the Cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace"?<br />Do you accept the Bishop Doctor Saint Basil the Great saying "Whence is it that we are Christians? Through Faith, all will answer. How are we saved? By being born again in the grace of baptism … it is the same loss for anyone to depart this life unbaptized, as to receive that baptism from which one thing of what has been handed down has been omitted."?<br />Anyone who's ever honestly read at least the volumes of The Faith of the Early Fathers, which you obviously haven't, would know that so you know nothing about the Catholic Faith. You understand nothing. You reject that the Early Church divided the Mass into that of the Catechumens and that of the Faithful and prohibited catechumens from staying for the Creed because only the Faithful can recited the Creed. You reject Catholicly binding Magisterial statements like Pope Benedict XIV infallibly indefectibly authoritatively saying "The Church's judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching" in his encyclical, Apostolica Constitutio, # 6, on June 26th 1749 in for certain FALLIBLE MUTABLE sources like the ones you quoted and tried to falsely pass them off as unanimous like the lying antichrist you are!<br /><br /> 2. Anyone's who honest and of good will knows that it's very possible to be the most learned theologian and just be wrong about something and even the least learned person can be right about that very same thing because mere "theologians" are fallible and that's why we go by the true popes in their Magisterial capacity. We know Bishop Doctor Saint Alphonsus made innocent mistakes because: (1) there are no exceptions to the necessity of baptism or Church membership for salvation as Magisterially taught by Pope Innocent III ex Cathedra at the Fourth Lateran Council in Constitution 1: Profession of Faith in 1215, Pope Boniface VIII ex Cathedra in his bull, Unam Sanctam, on the Unity and Power of the Church in November 18th 1302, Pope Eugenius IV ex Cathedra in his bull, Cantate Domino, on Union with the Copts in his Baslian-Ferrarian-Florentine Council, Location 3, Session 11 on February 4th 1442; (2) he was canonized by a true pope; (3) canonizations by true popes are infallible; and (4) Truth can't contradict Truth.Miguel Pasamanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05774063299486364319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-81750096956328548192018-01-07T09:10:29.149-08:002018-01-07T09:10:29.149-08:00What you need is some good will and honesty.
1. Y...What you need is some good will and honesty.<br /><br />1. You either don't know or don't care what "AS HOLY MOTHER CHURCH HAS ONCE DECLARED" or "THERE MUST NEVER BE A RECESSION FROM THAT SENSE UNDER THE SPECIOUS NAME OF A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" means. Pick one! You haven't shown any citations that ALL of the Fathers believed the theory of "triple" baptism because you can't because you know that some of them were on both sides of the issue because they were FALLIBLE men and most of them ultimately rejected the theories. The only thing you showed is that not all of the Fathers were consistent because they were FALLIBLE men! (What part of UNANIMOUS TEACHING don't you schismatics and heretics get!?)<br />Do you accept Bishop Doctor Saint Augustine's theory of "baptism of desire" basing itself on the same Bishop Saint Cyprian's theory of "baptism of blood" and not Tradition? Do you accept the same Bishop Saint Cyprian saying heretics can't validly baptize or Pope Saint Stephen I saying they can? Who do you side with? By your sorry excuse for an "argument", I should side with a regular bishop against a pope!<br />Do you accept the same Bishop Doctor Saint Augustine completely recanting "baptisms of blood and desire" in saying "when we shall have come into His [God’s] Sight, we shall behold the Equity of God’s Justice. Then no one will say: "Why was this man led by God's direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?". Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments"?<br />Do you accept the same Bishop Saint Cyril accepting "baptism of blood" while rejecting "baptism of desire" in saying "If any man does not receive baptism, he does not receive salvation. The only exception is the martyrs."?<br />Do you accept Bishop Theologian Saint Gregory Nazianzen clearly rejecting "baptisms of blood and desire" saying "of those who fail to be baptized, some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire. Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it. "If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired baptism, without having received baptism." But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?" So much for your bogus claim that “the Fathers are unanimous” in favor of "baptisms of blood and desire""!Miguel Pasamanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05774063299486364319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-66392545541361854252018-01-06T18:57:45.186-08:002018-01-06T18:57:45.186-08:003. You don’t understand the Canon Law you reject. ...3. You don’t understand the Canon Law you reject. “Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur” (Canon 1556)—The First See is judged by no one. The Pope loses office by DIVINE LAW not canon law! The Primatial See can be judged by no one (Canon 1556). The Supreme Pontiff has the highest legislative, administrative and judicial power in the Church. The Code states that the Roman Pontiff cannot be brought to trial by anyone. The very idea of the trial of a person supposes that the court conducting the trial has jurisdiction over the person, but the Pope has no superior, wherefore no court has power to subject him to judicial trial.<br />(Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by Rev. Callistus Smith [New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1952], n. 1549, p. 225) <br /><br />Finally, for someone so eager to call others “liars” the only proven liar is one of your own ilk, Bizzaro who attributes “heresy” to Pope Benedict XV which is in actually part of the Mass for Corpus Christi!<br /><br />I’ll still be praying for your conversion.<br /><br />---IntroiboIntroibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-76129307679588247912018-01-06T18:52:57.052-08:002018-01-06T18:52:57.052-08:00St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Church (4th ...St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Church (4th Century): First Catechetical Lecture Of Our Holy Father Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, To Those Who Are to Be Enlightened, Delivered Extempore at Jerusalem, As an Introductory Lecture To Those Who Had Come Forward for Baptism, Lecture III on Baptism: "If any man receive not Baptism, he hath not salvation; except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom. For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. For martyrdom also the Saviour is wont to call a baptism, saying, Can ye drink rite cup which I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?<br /> <br />Do you accept what these Fathers taught regarding Baptism of Blood? If not, were they “innocent mistakes” like you claim with St. Alphonsus Liguori? How do you know it was an innocent mistake? Have you spoken with St. Alphonsus lately? How did his heretical teaching escape detection by all the popes as well as all the holy priests and bishops who taught this in the seminaries? <br />I have read and studied theology quite extensively under an approved pre-Vatican II canonist, Fr. DePauw. That doesn’t make me a theologian, but as you can see Mike, it does mean I can make a sound valid theological argument. I have quoted the Church Fathers in defense of Baptism of Blood, and one for Baptism of Desire. You quote yourself.<br /><br />2. This is where interpretation comes in Mike. You notice that the plain reading of Trent says Baptism “or the desire thereof.” No one would understand it the way you do by “plain meaning.” Nevertheless, desire for the sacrament isn’t enough! Adults must have Faith. If the canon meant what you think it does, then “without Faith” would have been added because desire is not enough. I might desire baptism because my best friend was baptized, but if I don’t have faith, the baptism is invalid. The Immaculate Conception was not yet defined and was open to theological discussion, so of course there will be disagreement. That didn’t make him a heretic (at that time) nor was it universally accepted by the theologians. I notice you CLAIM that St. Augustine “recanted” his views on BOB and BOD. Can you please CITE me where it was written? “The majority of Fathers rejected BOB”? Better check out my citations.<br />(continued below)Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-41037673623531105402018-01-06T18:52:03.336-08:002018-01-06T18:52:03.336-08:00Wow! I think you need some lithium more than praye...Wow! I think you need some lithium more than prayers! Here we go:<br /><br />1. You ask me what part of “AS HOLY MOTHER CHURCH ONCE DECLARED” don’t I get. It’s not that I don’t understand..it’s that you don’t understand what that phrase means! Notice that in all of your gobbledygook there is not one citation to back up your claim that Holy mother Church understood things the way you do. You DO claim to accept the unanimous teachings of the Fathers. Do you accept the following:<br /> St. Cyprian, Church Father (3rd Century): The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXXII: "Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood".<br />St. John Chrystostome, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Panegyric on St. Lucianus, "Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood."<br /> St. Basil, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XV: "And ere now there have been some who in their championship of true religion have undergone the death for Christ's sake, not in mere similitude, but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood. Thus I write not to disparage the baptism by water, but to overthrow the arguments of those who exalt themselves against the Spirit; who confound things that are distinct from one another, and compare those which admit of no comparison."<br />St. Ambrose, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): From his writing "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio": "But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it."<br />(Continued below)Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-53932124920383831622018-01-06T17:17:44.827-08:002018-01-06T17:17:44.827-08:003. Anyone who's ever honestly read the Vatican...3. Anyone who's ever honestly read the Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, which you obviously haven't, knows the true popes alone held the Magisterium. Put in one thing is like gluing pages to a book to make it the way you like it is and then falsely accusing them who recognize what's not really there of ripping out half the pages of that notice and hoping no one who's honest sees what you're doing.<br /><br />I've refuted your sorry excuse for a "direct answer" and you keep recycling the same modernist "trash" theology manifesting your blindness and bad will. By pointing out that "Vatican 2" contradicts word-for-word the Magisterium proves you don't need fallible even true theologians to detect heresy. That's why the Tridentine Council Session 23 says all Dogmatic Canons are for use of ALL the Faithful of Christ. That alone is the measuring stick for detecting heresy and knowing who's a heretic and who's not. That's what schismatics and heretics like you don't get! Antipope "Benedict XV" was a close friend to know Freemason Mariano Rampolla. That in itself is enough to rouse suspicious of heresy. Your own "Code" of "Canon Law" says malice must be presumed until the contrary is proven (2200) and anyone affiliated with anyone in societies that plot against Church are automatically excommunicated (2335). He just pronounced himself excommunicated by that very "Canon". He's the reason the Cristeros lost the war they almost won in Mexico. Antipope "Pius XI" repeatedly taught that all men benefit from the Redemption. Antipope "Pius XII" taught that evolution was to be allowed in schools, said the rhythm method isn't contraception, defended the manifest heresy of "religious liberty" as condemned by Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX, and "approved", and "entered into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis", a heretical "protocol" denying the Dogma nulla salus extra Ecclesiam AS HOLY MOTHER CHURCH HAS ONCE DECLARED, and "approved known Freemason Annibale Bugnini's modernist "revision" of the Holy Week prayers.<br /><br />God, our Lady, the angels, the Apostles, the Evangelists, the Prophets, the Confessors, the martyrs, and the saints are deaf to the "prayers" of (willfully blind) schismatics, heretics, and apostates (like you). Us true Remnant who don't have our heads in the sand will be praying for the conversion of (willfully blind) schismatics, heretics, and apostates (like you)!Miguel Pasamanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05774063299486364319noreply@blogger.com