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

 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).


 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. 


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

    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."


    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.

    3. Excellent point! I completely agree.


  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.

    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!


    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.

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


  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 :

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


  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.

    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.


  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.

    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!


    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?

    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."


    4. 1951-1958*
      Not 1953-1958

    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.
      1958 OR 1963/1964 IS TOO LONG,ITS TIME FOR A POPE.

    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.

    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,


    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.

  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.

    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,


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

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

    1. That's an interesting idea!


    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)

  8. You people are heretics. There's no "this or that interpretation" of what the Church teaches. There's only what the Church teaches. Your sorry excuse for logic would render the papal Office pointless! That's why Pope Gregory XVI, in his encyclical, Mirari Vos, on liberalism and "Religious indifferentism" and Pope Pius IX at the Vatican Council taught that the Magisterium is to be taken at its word and all Dogmas are to be understood as Holy Mother Church has once declared and there must never be a recession from that sense under the specious name of a deeper understanding totally refuting the "this or that interpretation" heresy! Furthermore, even being suspected of heresy is grounds to be regarded as a heretic! The Dimonds point this out thus refuting their own defenses of Antipopes Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII! What you apply to the Vatican 2 antipopes, you must apply to the pre-Vatican-2 antipopes!

    1. Yes, there is only what the Church teaches. To ensure we understand this teaching, Her approved theologians expound and explain it in detail. You, Mike Bizzaro, and the Dimwit brothers are not approved theologians. I have shown how these alleged “heresies” come from pulling selected sentences out of context.

      The “heresy” of Pope Benedict XV was actually the Secret Prayer for the Feast Of Corpus Christi! You might want to join the delusional Richard Ibranyi in New Mexico. Pope Pius IX was a heretic too! (According to him!) There’s been no pope for Ibranyi and his cult since 1130! Maybe you can convince him to go back further.


    2. Even the Church's approved theologians made mistakes because they weren't infallible. Only the true popes were infallible, indefectible, and authoritative when they carried out their duty as supreme pastor and duty of all Christians while teaching on Faith and moral and binding on the Catholic Church. We don't need fallible theologians to explain the clear and consistent Doctrine of the Church. Their job is simply to publically defect the Doctrine and refute all objections to it. Your false "argument" would meant that the fallible "interpretations" must be "interpreted", and those "interpretations" must be "interpreted", and it would never end. That's why we rely on the true popes, not the true Doctors or saints. Your objection that I'm not an approved is self-refuting because neither are you. The "Pope Pius IX was a heretic too" objection is also refuted by the fact that he erred in his fallible capacity speaking to only Italian bishops and actually authoritatively indefectibly, and infallibly condemned any idea that anyone could die not Catholic and still be saved; whereas Antipopes Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII repeatedly taught heresy in what would've been their authoritative indefectible infallible capacity had they been true popes! The principles that apply to John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis absolutely apply to Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII! Anyone who say otherwise doesn't know what he's talking about or is a liar and a heretic!

    3. Your objection fails miserably.

      1. Theologians are part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, which according to Vatican I (1870), is as infallible as the extraordinary magisterium.
      Proof: “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a
      solemn pronouncement or IN HER ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL TEACHING POWER [magisterium], to be believed as divinely revealed.” Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith (1870), DZ 1792.
      Proof: “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.” Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683

      According to theologian Van Noort: "Clearly if a truth is capable of being declared an object of divine-catholic faith through the force of this ordinary and universal teaching, there is required such a proposal is unmistakably definitive........The major signs of such a proposal are these: that the truth be taught throughout the world in popular catechisms, or even more importantly, be taught by the universal and constant agreement of theologians as belonging to faith." (See Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Newman Press, 3:222, 1960)

      2. I’m not an approved theologian but I follow the unanimous teaching of those theologians, whom I quote. You follow yourself. It's a distinction with a real difference!

      3. Are you sure your interpretation of Pope Pius IX is correct? Richard Ibranyi interprets it differently. Not only that but he has snippets of quotes “proving” Pope Gregory XVI, and every pope going back to 1130 AD was a false pope. Go join him in New Mexico. You may have missed some obscure “heresy.”


  9. I actually refuted all of your objections.

    1. Theologians are not part of the Ordinary or Catholic Magisterium. The document you quoted to say otherwise isn't even Magisterial. It's addressed to only one Archbishop. It's not even quoted in the Vatican Council. Anyone who's honest knows that's not enough to fulfill the requirements for a pope to speak Magisterially. A true pope alone has the Magisterium. It the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that constitution part of Tradition. The teachings of fallible theologians hold no weight against the Magisterium. Period. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what he's talking about or is a liar and a heretic and possibly fits all three categories as you do.

    2. You don't follow the unanimous teaching of the Fathers or the Magisterium of the true popes. You follow "theologians" who apostatized with the "Vatican 2" Antichurch and whatever false "traditionalist" sect you go to for false "Mass" and false "Sacraments" from schismatic, heretical, and apostate Lefebvre "line" "priests" who deny the necessity of baptism and the Dogma of nulla salus extra Ecclesiam as Holy Mother Church has once declared. You've clearly demonstrated you dishonest inability to tell between the two.

    3. I already refuted you on the "interpretation" heresy. You have no answer that. You just ignore it and recycle the same "theological" trash I just refuted in your sorry excuse for an article. According to your sorry excuse for "logic", how do you know your "interpretation" of "Vatican 2" is right? According to your sorry excuse for an argument, you might as well submit to the "Vatican 2" antipopes. Richard Ibranyi's delusions of being one of the two witnesses has nothing to do with what's said but leave it to dishonest schismatic and heretics like you to try to bring heretics like him into it as a desperate attempt to win a losing argument after you've clearly proven yourself to be the epitome of a blind spiritual fool. Anybody can say anything. Any heretic can say anything. Your words mean nothing.

    1. You are the typical Feenyite:

      a) Reject all teaching that is not ex cathedra

      b) Accept only YOUR interpretations of those infallible decrees

      c) Reject the teaching of the approved theologians which is how the Church teaches us through Her Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, as infallibly defined at Vatican Council (1870). This makes you a heretic and you begin "Pushing Back The Time of The Vacancy" Like Michael Bizzaro, who has Pope St Pius X as the last pope, and Richard Ibranyi, who puts it back to 1130 AD--all based on their private interpretations.

      1. The theologians are part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium which you reject. This makes YOU a heretic. A Catholic who does not assent to the Ordinary Magisterium, but rejects it as "optional" and only adheres to ex catherda pronouncements, rejects Vatican I and is a heretic. You claim the universal teachings of the theologians carry no weight...and where did the Church declare this? You give no citation.
      heologian Salaverri, after having explained the important and unique role of the theologians, goes on to list their adversaries, to wit; Humanists, Protestants, Rationalists, Modernists, and Jansenists. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa I B [1955], pg. 327-328) You clearly put yourself in their evil company.

      2. According to you the theologians already apostatized way before Vatican 2! Back to 1878 when Pope Pius IX died. We need the theologians to explain in detail to us

      For example Trent in Session 6, Chapter 4 states that after the promulgation of the Gospel, man cannot pass to the state of grace without the "water of regeneration OR THE DESIRE FOR IT.."
      Likewise, Session 7, Canon 4 states the sacraments of the New Law are necessary for salvation ".....without the sacraments OR THE DESIRE OF THEM.."

      The canon on baptism (Canon 2) was formulated against Luther who taught that beer or milk could substitute for natural water. It was clearly not meant to repudiate the very doctrine taught by the same Council as St Alphonsus Liguori teaches. How did such a brilliant saint not understand the Council of Trent? How did such a heretic, liar and idiot become a saint and Doctor of the Church??

      I’ll gladly follow St Alphonsus before two sad sack, make believe “Benedictines” from upstate NY, an excommunicated Jesuit, or Mike C, all of whom “understand things better.”

      3. The interpretation stops with the popes, bishops AND the theologians who together compromise the Magisterium. Take away one is like ripping out half the pages of a book and expecting to understand the story. That is my direct answer to you. The idea of an infinite regress is thereby refuted.

      How do I know my interpretation of V2 is correct? Because it contradicts word for word the teachings of past popes and the theologians. It is not some jerk pulling sentences out of context as I’ve demonstrated. Bizzaro attributes to Pope Benedict XV “heresy” what was actually part of the Mass!!

      I’ll be praying for your conversion.


    2. I reject (1) all teaching that's clearly inconsistent with the aforementioned, (2) your recycled "theological" "interpretation" trash used by sedeoccupists to deny the sedevacantist reality in the first place, (3) and even unanimous OPINIONS of even true theologians truly approved by the true popes when they CONTRADICT ex Cathedra teaching from true popes AS HOLY MOTHER CHURCH AS ONCE DECLARED. (What part of those words don't you schismatic and heretics get!?)

      1. I disproved your modernist "theological" trash about how even true theologians truly approved by the true popes constituted the Magisterium which anyone who's honest and knows what he's talking about knows it doesn't because you're compulsive liar. People were questioning Antipopes "Leo XIII", "Pius X", "Benedict XV", "Pius XI", and "Pius XII" long before Richard Ibranyi stupidly started denouncing every true pope after Innocent II all the way up to Pius IX but leave it to dishonest schismatics and heretics like you to mention radical schismatics and heretics like him, the Dimonds, and 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. You know nothing about the Catholic Faith. You understand nothing. Anyone who's ever honestly read the Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, which you obviously haven't, knows what exactly constitutes the Magisterium.

    3. 2. You're assuming there were no theologians, priests, pastors, or bishops recognized Antipopes "Leo XIII", "Pius X", "Benedict XV", "Pius XI", and "Pius XII" for the heretics that were who taught nearly the whole of Doctrine but added just a drop of poison as Antipope "Leo XIII" hypocritically pointed out. Bishop Doctor Saint Alphonsus made the same mistake when talking about the Tridentine Council. The difference is he made an honest mistake whereas you're just looking for anything to deny the absolute necessity of baptism and the Catholic Faith for salvation which anyone who's honest and sees this knows you reject. The sentence you quote has to do with justification of the IMPIOUS, NOT THE PIUS WHO WANTS BAPTISM. It's saying you can't be saved without the laver of regeneration nor can you receive it without the desire for it (or your parents' desire to have you baptized if you're a kid). In other words, it's saying forced "baptisms" are null and void. That's all it's saying. This just demonstrates how little schismatics and heretics know or care about Catholic Doctrine. Bishop Doctor Saint Augustine recanted his own theory on "baptisms of blood and desire". Bishop Theologian Doctor Saint not only rejected the concept but he made fun of it. You say we should follow Father Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas in all things. He didn't believe in the immaculate conception. To believe that after the Dogma of the immaculate conception and have access to the information now would be heresy. He was in error. He said Faith in the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are an absolute necessity for salvation. None of you "triple baptism" heretics believe that. He'd have condemned all you "invincible ignorance" heretics as such. You don't have a devotion to him. You just use that when he says something you like. The majority of the true Fathers rejected "baptism of blood and desire". They all rejected "invincible ignorance". That doesn't phase schismatics or heretics like you. You just ignore and deny it. You practically worship fallible men and place their opinions when you like them above the Magisterium. You couldn't care less about Catholic Doctrine but you're not a Christian. I'll follow the true popes in there Magisterium over some heretic looking for anything to deny nulla salus extra Ecclesiam AS HOLY MOTHER CHURCH HAS ONCE DECLARED. (What part of those words don't you schismatic and heretics get!?)

    4. 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.

      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.

      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)!

    5. Wow! I think you need some lithium more than prayers! Here we go:

      1. You ask me what part of “AS HOLY MOTHER CHURCH ONCE DECLARED” don’t I get. It’s not that I don’t’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:
      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".
      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."
      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."
      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."
      (Continued below)

    6. 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?

      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?
      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.

      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.
      (continued below)

    7. 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.
      (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)

      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!

      I’ll still be praying for your conversion.


  10. What you need is some good will and honesty.

    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!?)
    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!
    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"?
    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."?
    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""!

  11. 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"?
    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"?
    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"?
    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."?
    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!

    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.

  12. 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?

    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 It's pathetic that you think that passes for true theologians truly approved by the Church. Nice going!

  13. 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.

    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!

  14. 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.

    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)!

    1. To my readers:
      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.
      What the Magisterium is according to the Church Herself.
      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)
      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.

      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)

      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.

      "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."
      (continued below)

    2. 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.

      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.

      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.

      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."

      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:
      (Continued below)

    3. "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."

      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.
      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.

      Equally condemned is the proposition that Catholics are obliged to believe only those matters infallibly proposed as dogmas. (Condemned by Pius IX.)
      “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.
      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.
      (Continued below)

    4. 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.”

      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."

      If these are just private teachings, Mike C must push back the time of the vacancy because as St. Alphonsus teaches:
      "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."Oeuvres Completes. 9:232.
      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!
      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.
      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.
      (continued below)

    5. 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.

      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.

      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?”
      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.

      (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 among others)