- The Magisterium and the Role of Approved Theologians
- Papal Authority
- The many popes who taught material from the works of the theologians
- The founding, directing, and supervision of the various theological schools by the Magisterium
- Since the Council of Trent, theological works were used in seminaries which were supervised by bishops and popes
- Popes have used theologians as consultants and commissioned them to draw up Magisterial documents. Theologian Garrigou-Lagrange drafted the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) condemning modern errors, and theologian Guerard des Lauriers drafted the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus (1950) declaring the dogma of the Assumption; he later became a sedevacantist bishop consecrated by Abp. Thuc
- The writings of various theological schools have been praised and recommended by popes. Likewise, the popes and Roman Congregations have been diligent in censoring theologians who go astray. Consider that Frs. John Courtney Murray, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, and Josef Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were all censured in their writings and/or suspected of Modernism. These were the theologians who "hijacked" Vatican II once a false pope (John XXIII) rehabilitated them and gave them prominent roles at Vatican II. They were able to create the man-made Vatican II sect, posing as "Catholicism."
5. "The Consent of the Theologians Must be Universal and Constant"
Many falsely claim that "universal and constant" means every single Father, Doctor and theologian from the beginning of the Church must have taught a doctrine and if even one dissents or just omits to mention it, then it is not "universal and constant." They frequently cite the rule of St. Vincent Lerins to believe what was taught "everywhere, always, by all." This has been abused by the R&R especially to mean something other than what St. Vincent actually taught. It is wrongly defined as meaning something must be taught everywhere throughout the Catholic world and in time.
The great Cardinal Franzelin, a contemporary of the Vatican Council of 1870, gives the explanation that universality simply means the consent of the Church at this present time. Only when the present universality of a doctrine cannot be confirmed is it ever necessary to appeal to antiquity. Moreover, the appeal to antiquity is not an attempt to measure whether a particular belief was held always, but rather if it was ever held universally at any point. Either universality or antiquity by itself suffices. (See On Divine Tradition by Franzelin).
6. "Four Church doctors, St. Bernard, St. Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas and others denied The Immaculate Conception. How could this be? They were theological giants. The teaching was biblical and already true. If they are the Magisterium as you claim, how could they be wrong?"
If this person thinks that Catholics in the second century were celebrating the Immaculate Conception as they do today, he is sorely mistaken. Pope Pius IX didn't just wake up on the morning of December 8, 1854 and decide to declare the Immaculate Conception a dogma.
As theologian Scheeben explains, expounding on St. Augustine, a dogma may pass through three stages, (1) implicit belief; (2) controversy; (3) explicit definition.
Thus in the early Church, the validity of heretical baptism was admitted in practice. When the question was formally proposed, there were arguments on both sides and the most orthodox theologians disagreed. Finally, after much deliberation guided by the Magisterium, final judgement was passed and the matter settled for all time. The same holds true for the Immaculate Conception and many other dogmas.(See Scheeben, Ibid, 1:06).
7. "I've noticed how you put high importance on listening to the theologians. I've even read your article on it. If we are to go by the theologians, then why don't you follow any of them prior to Vatican II when they say that bishops and priests have to have jurisdiction in order to give out sacraments?"
Jurisdiction is needed for Marriage and Penance. What did the Catholic Japanese do when they had no priest to marry them? They married using layman, which can be done. As for Penance, on July 22, the Sacred Penitentiary responded to the following question " May a professor of sacred theology safely hold and teach the opinions that Blessed Alphonsus Liguori teaches in his moral theology?"
The answer, solemnly approved by Pope Gregory XVI was "In the affirmative, yet those who follow the opinions handed down by other approved authors should not be considered blameworthy."
St. Alphonsus teaches: Is any priest able to absolve from any sins and censures, not only at the point of death, but also in danger of death? This is denied by [various names] but more truly and more commonly affirmed by...The reason for this is that in this matter, the danger in taken for the point, as is clear from...For in such a case, anyone in mortal sin is bound to confess in the same way as if he were at the point of death. This is accepted by...provided that such a danger be so grave that it can scarcely be distinguished with certainty from the point: but, more immediately, it seems to be sufficient that there be prudent fear that death will arise in the danger. Now such a danger is considered to be present in a battle, in a long sea voyage, in a difficult delivery, in a dangerous disease, and similar cases...The same is true of one who is in probable danger of falling into insanity (amentia)...and the same of those who are captives among infidels with small hope of liberty. For it is believed that they will have no other priests in the future.(See Theologia Moralis, Bk.6, no. 561, Q.2)
Therefore, we are in an analogous situation where we can die without Penance. Hence, jurisdiction is supplied. As to the other "Home Alone" arguments, it's too long for an already long post.
Hyperpapalism=Ultramontanism=Real Catholicism
What Fitzpatrick deems "hyperpapalism" is really called Ultramontanism. What is that? According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: A term used to denote integral and active Catholicism, because it recognizes as its spiritual head the pope, who, for the greater part of Europe, is a dweller beyond the mountains (ultra montes), that is, beyond the Alps...This name of Ultramontane the Gallicans applied to the supporters of the Roman doctrines--whether that of the monarchical character of the pope in the government of the Church or of the infallible pontifical magisterium...For Catholics it would be superfluous to ask whether Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanis are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it. (Emphasis mine).
The caricature made of the papal monarchy is that "everything the pope says is infallible" and "he can't make any errors." The problem that comes from this mindset is that it artificially and erroneously constrains the very Teaching Authority of the Church into a false dichotomy of “infallible” vs “not infallible." Hence,“if it’s not infallible, then it can be contradicted or changed later on down the line.”
First of all, what is “infallibility”? Per the Catholic Encyclopedia, infallibility is in general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.” Furthermore, being distinguished from both Divine Inspiration and Divine Revelation, infallibility “means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error; that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly; and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.
Normally, infallibility is discussed with regards to ex cathedra pronouncements by the Roman Pontiff on matters of faith and morals, definitive decrees from Ecumenical Councils, and the doctrinal teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church. However, given the vast quantity of decisions, letters, and judgments promulgated by Catholic bishops throughout the ages, there is much which does not possess the character of infallibility. Does this then mean that that which is not infallible can then be ignored or discarded?
On the contrary, there is a level of assent which Catholics are obliged with regards to various decisions made by lawful authority. A brief selection of references follows (bold is emphasis added):
1. Having now inquired into the obligations of Catholics in regard to infallible pronouncements of the Church, there remains to be considered a third class of authoritative decisions which also have a binding force upon the faithful. The Church does not in all her pronouncements intend to exercise in full her supreme prerogative of infallibility. The reason for this we may suppose to be a merciful regard for human weakness, and a desire to give erring souls every opportunity of retraction before the final definitive sentence goes forth which would cast them out of the fold if they remained obdurate.
Hence she frequently utters, in the exercise of her authority to teach and govern Christ’s flock, words of warning, exhortation or direction, in virtue not of her infallibility, but of her ordinary ecclesiastical authority. When she thus speaks, it is without doubt the duty of Catholics to listen and to submit their judgment to that of their pastors. This assent is one of religious obedience rather than of faith, though. It does pertain, in a certain degree, to the latter virtue…After all, when the Church speaks, even when she does not speak with all the weight of her infallible utterance, she does invariably give us safe guidance; for, though the speculative truth or falsity of some matter which she treats in this particular way may be, for a time, a matter of question, there can be no question at all that a Catholic is practically secure in listening to the voice of those whom God has set as bishops and pastors to rule the Church." (Source: Fr. Hughes, Henry George. (1906). Essentials and Non-Essentials of the Catholic Religion. . pgs. 26-27, 31. Italics in original).
2. In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the apostolic see.
And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation. Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff. Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae).
3. To formulate and to discuss the criteria by which an infallible utterance may be diagnosed as such is another task for the theologian, and in any case is beyond the scope of this paper. For our purpose it is sufficient to register the fact that much of the authoritative teaching of the Church, whether in the form of Papal encyclicals, decisions, condemnations, replies from Roman Congregations – such as the Holy office – or from the Biblical Commission, is not an exercise of the infallible magisterium. And here once again our cautious believer raises his voice: “Must I believe it?”
The answer is implicit in the principles already established. We have seen that the source of the obligation to believe is not the infallibility of the Church but her divine commission to teach. Therefore, whether her teaching is guaranteed by infallibility or not, the Church is always the divinely appointed teacher and guardian of revealed truth, and consequently the supreme authority of the Church, even when it does not intervene to make an infallible and definitive decision on matters of faith or morals, has the right, in virtue of the divine commission, to command the obedient assent of the faithful. In the absence of infallibility the assent thus demanded cannot be that of faith, whether Catholic or ecclesiastical; it will be an assent of a lower order proportioned to its ground or motive. But whatever name be given to it – for the present we may call it belief – it is obligatory; obligatory not because the teaching is infallible – it is not – but because it is the teaching of the divinely appointed Church.
It is the duty of the Church, as Franzelin has pointed out, not only to teach revealed doctrine but also to protect it, and therefore the Holy See “may prescribe as to be followed or proscribe as to be avoided theological opinions or opinions connected with theology, not only with the intention of infallibly deciding the truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also – without any such intention – merely for the purpose of safeguarding the security of Catholic doctrine.” If it is the duty of the Church, even though non-infallibly, to “prescribe or proscribe” doctrines to this end, then it is evidently also the duty of the faithful to accept them or reject them accordingly. Nor is this obligation of submission to the non-infallible utterances of authority satisfied by the so-called silentium obsequiosum. The security of Catholic doctrine, which is the purpose of these decisions, would not be safeguarded if the faithful were free to withhold their assent. It is not enough that they should listen in respectful silence, refraining from open opposition. They are bound in conscience to submit to them, and conscientious submission to a doctrinal decree does not mean only to abstain from publicly rejecting it; it means the submission of one’s own judgment to the more competent judgment of authority. (See Canon Smith, George, Ph.D., D.D. (April 1935) “Must I Believe It?” The Clergy Review, vol. 9. Original article comprised pgs. 296-309. Italics in original).
4. An astonishingly large number of prominent theologians can be found among those who take no adequate cognizance of the encyclical letters in their treatises on papal infallibility. These men content themselves with an examination of and a theological demonstration for the formula by which the Vatican Council defined the Holy Father’s infallibility. Bishop Joseph Fessler, the Vatican Council’s secretary, used this approach in his reply to the “Old Catholic” Schultes. The famous and highly influential Cardinal Cammillus Mazzella followed the same line, as did Archbishops Richard Downey, Valentine Zubizarreta, and Horace Mazzella, Bishop Michael d’Herbigny, Canon Auguste Leboucher, and Fathers Sylvester Berry, Hugo Hurter, Sylvester Hunter, Bernard Tepe, Raphael Cercia, Basil Prevel, Gabriel Casanova, and Gerard Paris.
As a group these writers frequently give the impression that they consider only those truths proposed by the Holy Father solemni iudicio as infallibly defined, to the exclusion of those truths which he sets forth ordinario et universali magisterio. Another very imposing group of theologians explicitly list the papal encyclicals, at least in a general way, as non-infallible documents. Bishop Hilarinus Felder, Msgr. Caesar Manzoni, and Fathers Emil Dorsch, Reginald Schultes, Antonio Vellico, Ludwig Koesters, Ludwig Lercher, and Aelred Graham teach thus in their treatises. The same view is set forth by Fr. Mangenot in his excellent article on the encyclicals in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, by Fr. Lucien Choupin in his outstanding monograph, by Fr. Thomas Pegues in his frequently quoted article in the Revue thomiste on the authority of the encyclicals, and by Canon George Smith in his brilliant study on this subject in the Clergy Review.
Fr. Jean Vincent Bainvel, along with Choupin and Schultes, incidentally, refers explicitly to the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and classifies them as non-infallible, while the article of Pegues was written as an answer to a question sent in to the Revue thomiste about the doctrinal authority of Pope Leo’s encyclicals. Fr. Herman Dieckmann classifies the doctrine contained in papal encyclicals with that of the Roman Congregations. The distinguished theologians who deny the papal encyclicals the status of infallible documents teach, none the less, that the faithful are bound in conscience to accord these letters not only the tribute of respectful silence, but also a definite and sincere internal religious assent.
To this end many of them, like Fr. De Groot, apply to the encyclicals a teaching with the eminent and brilliant Dominic Palmieri had developed about the Catholic attitude towards non-infallible teaching in the Church. Pegues, in his Revue thomiste article, makes this application with his usual clarity. ‘Hence it follows that the authority of the encyclicals is not at all the same as that of the solemn definition, the one properly so-called. The definition demands an assent without reservation and makes a formal act of faith obligatory. The case of the encyclical’s authority is not the same. This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church.
Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church. Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’
(See Msgr. Fenton, Clifford Joseph, S.T.D., S.T.L., J.C.B. (August 1949) “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals.” The American Ecclesiastical Review, vol. 121. Original article comprised pgs. 136-150. Italics in original).
5. In the light of [previously mentioned] Thomistic principles, we can clarify the assent required in the case of Papal pronouncements in matters of belief and opinion. Belief. When we accept a statement on the extrinsic grounds of the authority of him who states it, we make an act of belief. Thus, we believe things taught by the Pope in his Ordinary Magisterium. But this act of belief is by no means an unreasonable, or irrational act. My will does not “do violence” to my reason, and “force” it to accept something against which, on rational grounds, it rebels. This is, I grant, the picture that critics of the Church’s Teaching Authority like to paint, but it is an absurd caricature…When the truth to be believed is presented to us by the Pope, the intellect, lacking intrinsic evidence for the truth itself, nevertheless does have a tremendously powerful and eminently rational extrinsic reason for assent: the authority and doctrinal competence of the Supreme Teacher of Christendom.
This reason, since it is extrinsic, does not coerce the intellectual assent; it is not a necessitating reason, but it is a sufficient reason; and only on the intellectual judgment that the Papal Teaching Authority is a sufficient reason does the will move the intellect to assent…So far we have been dealing with the assent required for what is set forth by the Pope as a certain truth. Admittedly the truth is not guaranteed by the charisma of infallibility; also, in the case of belief, the certitude is neither metaphysical nor physical. But we do have a high degree of moral certitude of the truth itself. When the Pope, however, calls upon our assent in a matter of opinion, there are other elements to be considered. Opinion. Opinion, of its very nature, does not include certitude of the proposition opined; certitude always involves freedom from any fear of error, but opinion “accipit alterum oppositorum cum formidine alterius.” It would seem that the assent required in the case of an opinion is more complex than that we give to a proposition set forth as containing a certain truth. Before examining briefly the nature of the psychological act, however, it must be noted that the Sovereign Pontiffs certainly do require a dutiful submission to the Teaching Authority in matters of opinion…
What constitutes, exactly, the “internal religious assent” that we elicit in a matter of opinion? I think it is two-fold. As regards the opinion itself, we do not, of course, have certitude that what the proposition states is true. If we did have that certitude, we would no longer be in the field of opinion, and it is precisely as an opinion that the matter is presented to us. Motivated by the authority and competency of the Holy Father, we hold the matter precisely as an opinion. This is one aspect of the act of assent we make regarding a matter of opinion.
I believe, however, that there is something more than this required for the integral unconditional internal assent we owe to the Pontifical assent even in the field of opinion. We also assent unconditionally, with no fear of error, to the fact that the opinion the Pope sets forth is well founded and safe, and is the opinion that we as Catholics are to act upon and follow. This two-fold view of the act of assent safeguards both the psychological reality involved and the docility due to the Teaching Authority of the Holy Father.
There remains just one final word to be said in this section regarding the religious quality of the assent. Even where infallibility is not involved, nevertheless our assent, while not as intimately connected with divine faith as is the “fides mediate divina” we give to pronouncements regarding the secondary objects of infallibility, does ultimately depend upon our faith in the Teaching Authority of the Vicar of Christ on earth. We assent as Catholics; with the humility and docility and whole-heartedness proper to a religious act. We assent not hesitatingly, not grudgingly, but gladly; not as slaves but as men eminently free. For we have seen the Truth, and it is the Truth that makes men free. (See Fr. Benard, Edmond D. (June 25-27, 1951) “The Doctrinal Value of the Ordinary Teaching of the Holy Father in View of Humani Generis.” Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America. pgs. 94, 96-98. Italics in original).
The Bottom Line: Hence, even when the full force of infallibility is not invoked in the Magisterial teaching of the Church or the Roman Pontiff (be it solemn or ordinary), there is an obligation to assent externally and internally on the part of Catholics, corresponding to the degree and force of what is being promulgated.
Part II: The Fitzpatrick Disinformer
Now to the article. You should be able to spot the problems. The article can be read in full at https://fitzinfo.net/2026/06/26/sedevacantist-blogger-invokes-hyperpapalism-in-attempt-to-dogmatize-fatima/#respond.
FD is the Disinformer followed by my response below.
FD: What is an “approved” private revelation if it is not dogma and not part of the magisterium? The answer to this question cannot seem to be found among the staunchest advocates of the Fatima apparition, yet they blast this term “approved” as if it signifies a Papal Bull or something even greater. Yet, it doesn’t seem to mean much of anything, other than that the local bishop at Fatima found it “worthy of belief”
Reply: No, it goes beyond just a diocesan bishop.
FD: Hyperpapalism to the rescue! “Fatima was approved by Pope Pius XII himself,” writes sedevacantist blogger Introibo Ad Altare Dei in an article about why all Catholics ought to believe in the Fatima apparition. “To claim that Fatima is from Hell would be an indirect denial of the Indefectibility of the Church–i.e., the Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members.”
Reply: I will delve into Indefectibility specifically another day. According to theologians McHugh and Callan: The Church permits but does not exact belief in these [private] revelations. One would not be excused, however, who rejected them through pride or contempt, or without sufficient reason...Similarly, although the Church offers for human faith alone certain particular facts of history, one who rejects them may easily be guilty of contempt or temerity. Such particular facts are...the appearance of the Blessed Virgin at Lourdes in 1858... (See Moral Theology, [1929], 1:277).
So one can easily be guilty of contempt or temerity for withholding belief in Lourdes. Fatima was investigated by the Church for 13 years before the bishop's approval, and 10 years after that for papal approval. How can one not be guilty to deny Fatima with no pope to answer problems, and setting yourself up years later to second guess the Magisterium? In Timmy Fitz's case, he believes Prevost is pope, yet he is not to be obeyed unless he personally agrees with what he decrees. He decides a lot more than just Fatima.
FD: Just as sedevacantists need to invoke the over-developed and ultimately erroneous concept of hyperpapalism (generally speaking, the idea that anything a legitimate pope says or does can never be wrong) to make the sedevacantist position true, Introibo has found a clever way of elevating Fatima to some level that the Catholic Church does not allow. Divine revelation has the protection of infallibility, but private revelations do not, no matter how spectacular they may be. However, because of the sedevacantist’s disordered understanding of papal infallibility (defined at the First Vatican Council), they don’t seem to differentiate and, instead, just imply that everything coming from the Holy See is infallible, including declarations on private revelations.
Reply: I have never stated that anything a pope says or does can never be wrong. Nor does the Church teach this, as I've amply demonstrated above. Something need not be infallible to be believed. (See Part One of this post). I've made Fatima "dogma"? Please. It is contemptuous to set oneself over the pope who wrote about Fatima in an encyclical and claimed to have seen the Miracle of the Sun no less than four times. The only thing disordered is Timmy Fitz's reasoning skills (or rather the lack thereof).
FD: But more concerning about this line of thinking, if a Catholic’s faith hinges on the veracity of a private revelation, the sincerity of their faith is in question. Introibo does not address this glaring problem.
Reply: I didn't address it because I never claimed a Catholic's faith hinges on a private revelation. It does hinge on a correct understanding of the papacy, which our brave informer of Jewish-Masonic-Bolshevik conspiracies doesn't get at all.
FD: Introibo goes on to argue his case for Fatima by appealing to the “it’s approved” narrative and that Pius XII could not have erred in any way, yet it’s all irrelevant seeing that private revelations do not have the protection of infallibility.
Reply: Well, it is approved, and deference to the non-infallible teaching authority of the pope must be respected. Do we trust Timmy Fitz's conspiracy theories or the Vicar of Christ protected by the Holy Ghost? (rhetorical question).
FD: Perhaps in time, yes, as was the case with the Vatican’s recent ruling against the heretical “co-Redemptrix” push by the SSPX and Trad Incorporated. Trad Inc. concluded that the ruling was yet more evidence of the Church’s apostasy, yet the opposite was the case. The rejection of “co-Redemptrix” was the Church’s indefectibility shining through the darkness that has been increasing around the Church.
Reply: I laughed out loud when I read that one!
- Pope Benedict XV, in his Apostolic Letter Inter Sodalicia (March 22, 1918), wrote, "To such extent did she (Mary) suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son, and to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for man's salvation, and immolated Him, insofar as she could, in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ."
- Pope Pius XI called Our Lady Co-Redemptrix at least six (6) times. In the radio broadcast to the world at the solemn closing of the Jubilee Year which commemorated the Redemption of humanity (April 29, 1935) he prayed, "O Mother of piety and mercy who, when Thy most beloved Son was accomplishing the Redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, didst stand there both suffering with Him and as a Co-Redemptrix; preserve us we beseech thee, and increase day by day, the precious fruit of His Redemption and of thy compassion."
- Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Ad Coeli Reginam (October 11, 1954) distinguishes Mary's role in the Redemption from her role as Mediatrix of All Grace.
- On November 26, 1951, the entire Cuban hierarchy petitioned Pope Pius XII for a dogmatic definition of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. An entire nation of bishops felt that it could and should be defined.
- Feeneyites/Dimondites: Those who deny Baptism of Blood (BOB) and Baptism of Desire (BOD), the most infamous of whom are the phony "Benedictine" brothers, Fred and Bobby Dimond of New York's Most Holy Family "Monastery." They also condemn Periodic Continence as "birth control," and claim to know who has died and gone to Hell.
- Vacancy Pushers: This is the term I have coined for those who not only reject the "papacy" of Roncalli (John XXIII) up to Prevost (Leo XIV), but "push back the date of the vacancy" by denying the authenticity of pre-Vatican II popes. They accomplish this by digging up some obscure quote from an encyclical or some other papal document of a prior pope, twist it out of context, and declare him an "antipope." There are three main groups; those who, like Michael Bizzaro, declare Pope St. Pius X (d. 1914) as the last pope; those who recognize Pope Pius IX (d. 1878) as the last pope; and the followers of cult leader Richard Ibranyi of New Mexico, who have the last pope as being Pope Honorius II (d. 1130 AD!). Now, there are those who have targeted Pope Pius XII in particular, putting the last pope as Pius XI.
- Recognize and Resistors: Those who recognize all Vatican II "popes" yet feel free to decide when, how, and if they will obey them. (Groups like the Society of St. Pius X [SSPX] and Bp. Williamson's (d. 2025) St. Marcel Initiative, and the notorious false pope-defenders,Robert Siscoe and John Salza).
- Apparitionists: People who exalt private revelations and apparitions whether approved by the Church (such as Our Lady of Fatima) or not (such as Our Lady of the Roses) over the teaching of the Church. They obsess over the alleged "true meanings" of messages (as if salvation depended on them), or even accept them to the exclusion of authentic Church doctrines in some area(s). The late "Fr." Gruner falls squarely in this category.
- Home Aloners: Like an ecclesiastical version of the 1990 movie, these poor souls think that you cannot go to any Traditionalist priest, but must remain "home alone" without the Mass or sacraments because no one (according to them) has been properly "sent" by the Church. As a consequence, Traditionalist clergy allegedly have no authority to offer Mass and administer the sacraments.
- Conclavists: The men and women who believe that, like in the case of David Bawden ("Pope" Michael), you can run a "conclave" with your mommy, daddy, two nice neighbors, and a self-anointed female "theologian" as "electors" on a Kansas farm, thereby producing a "pope." Some Conclavists, like the Palmar de Troya cult, claim "divine intervention," as when Clemente Dominguez said Christ Himself appeared to him in a vision and declared he would become pope upon the death of Montini ("Pope" Paul VI).
- Science Deniers: My term for those who think that in order to preserve the faith, they must deny modern science. You must believe that the Earth is exactly 6,000 years old, and/or Earth is the center of the universe. They treat these opinions as "dogma." It is the opposite of some atheists who think that to preserve science you must deny God.
- NEW !Private Revelation Minimizers: My term for those who have the temerity to set themselves up in judgement against the Church and reject approved private revelations as "useless" or worse, "demonic" with no pope to defend the Church's ruling.
So what's causing these pseudo-Traditionalist groups? All of them either do not understand, or willfully reject, the Magisterium of the Church. As a result, they get things seriously wrong, and most place themselves outside the Church. Know the Faith! "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15).
