Richard Ibranyi (RJMI), Mary's Little Remnant, johnthebaptist.us Facts, Beliefs, Heresies and Practices Exposed
Mary’s Little Remnant is a sedevacantist organization run by Richard Ibranyi, also called Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi (RJMI), who is a self-professed prophet and Witness of the Apocalypse that claims to be “filled with the spirit of Elias” (On RJMI, Current version: 1/2011).
Before starting his own organization, Ibranyi was a member of the now notorious sedevacantist “Most Holy Family Monastery” until he was allegedly kicked out in 1997 for holding the sedevacantist position contrary to the wishes and current beliefs of his superior, Michael Dimond, who at the time of the dispute was a Vatican II adherent and defender of the antipopes (On RJMI, Current version: 1/2011).
As of January 23, 2014, Richard Ibranyi and Mary’s Little Remnant rejects all the Popes and Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church “from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward as apostate antipopes because they are idolaters or formal heretics and hence not Catholic.” (RJMI’s Position & Authority, Current version: 1/2014)
Richard Ibranyi’s Crazy Beliefs and Positions
This individual Richard Ibranyi rejects canonizations as infallible and has actually denounced several canonized Catholics saints as heretics. Specifically, he has denounced St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, St. Bernard, St. Vincent Ferrer (and who knows how many else) as heretics. This proves that he is a non-Catholic heretic who has literally founded his own sect. By denouncing as heretics canonized saints, Ibranyi actually has put himself on the level of the Protestant reformers. He is now in the category of Protestant revolutionaries Martin Luther, John Calvin and other heretics (such as Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons) who founded their own “Churches.” He would literally have to hold that the Catholic Church fell into apostasy for centuries, by honoring and declaring as saints those he considers non-Catholic heretics, and that it is he who must come to “restore” the purity of the Gospel. He even said that, if he could, he would “bring St. Thomas Aquinas back from Hell, put his skin on him, rip it off, and then pour vinegar on his wounds!” (RJMI Audio) Yes, Richard Ibranyi actually said this while claiming to be Catholic.
On his website Richard Ibranyi states his official "Position & Authority" as of January 2014 (he changes his beliefs frequently).
Even though Ibranyi claims to be Catholic, it must of course be understood by the reader that he is not. (All the headers or titles before each of the sections is that of his own):
RJMI’s Position & Authority, Current version: 1/2014: “I, Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi (RJMI), am Catholic and thus a member of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. I believe in all the creeds and other dogmas of the Holy Catholic Church, which thus includes all the deeper dogmas that I am inculpably ignorant of. I believe in all the ordinary magisterium dogmas taught by the unanimous consensus of the apostles and other Church Fathers and all the solemn magisterium dogmas infallibly defined by popes. I believe in the dogmas of papal primacy, papal supremacy, papal infallibility, the hierarchic structure of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic priesthood. I vow submission and obedience to all the true Roman Pontiffs, to their dogmatic definitions and their just and valid disciplinary and governmental laws. I accept all the valid ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church. I reject all the so-called popes from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward as apostate antipopes because they are idolaters or formal heretics and hence not Catholic. I believe in the deeper dogma that non-Catholics cannot hold offices in the Catholic Church. For an in-depth profession of the Catholic faith, see The Catholic Church’s Profession of Faith, compiled by RJMI.”
To give just a glimpse of how radically his views has changed over the years, consider how his position on the same topic was just as recently as June 2012:
“I, Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi (RJMI), am a Roman Catholic, and thus a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, who has hence vowed submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff and all the teachings of the Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. I accept all the 20 Ecumenical Councils of the Church, the last being the Vatican Council in 1870. [Compare this with the January 2014 version: “I reject all the so-called popes from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward as apostate antipopes because they are idolaters or formal heretics and hence not Catholic.”] I reject the Second Vatican Council as an apostate and heretical anti-Catholic council. I also denounce John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, as well as all future leaders of the Vatican II Church, as apostate antipopes. I believe all the creeds and other dogmas of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.”
RJMI’s Position & Authority, Current version: 1/2014: “I publicly teach the Catholic faith in these days of the Great Apostasy and warn men of the apostate Catholic prelates, priests, and theologians (wolves in sheep’s clothing) who are sending the whole world to hell. I am authorized to publicly teach the Catholic faith by the Catholic dogmatic law of epikeia in these days of emergency when no access to Catholic Church authorities is possible. Epikeia exempts me from disciplinary laws that require authorization from Catholic authorities to publicly teach the Catholic faith because there are no Catholic authorities to get permission from. The public teaching of the Catholic faith consists of preaching, evangelizing, catechizing, apologetics, and written works or audios or videos that deal with the Catholic faith. Under normal conditions Catholics must get permission from Catholic authorities to publicly teach the Catholic faith.”
Why I Left Most Holy Family Monastery
Many have asked why I left the Most Holy Family Monastery where “Brother” Michael was my superior. I had held the sedevacante position a year before I was released from the monastery and was silenced by Michael from teaching this truth. He obstinately argued that he could not make a declaration that John Paul II is an antipope. Consequently, I persistently condemned him and his belief with the clear words of the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio which decrees that a heretic cannot be elected to the papacy even if all of the Cardinals were to elect him as pope, and with canon law which decrees that a pope who becomes a notorious heretic automatically loses his papal office by operation of Church law and thus without the need of a declaration, as stated in Canon 188.4 on Tacit Resignation of Office:
1917 Code of Canon Law: “Canon 188. 4. There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are: ... (4) if he has publicly defected (fallen away) from the Catholic faith.”
I vigorously resisted Michael by telling him that I would not consent to his heresy of denying these infallible teachings. I also vigorously resisted him when he ordered me not to give these Catholic teachings to others; and thus I denounced him for impugning the truth, just as apostate John Paul II impugns the truth. Consequently, I was eventually released from the monastery because of this intense dispute; but Michael has never admitted that this is the reason he let me go from the monastery.
On August 29, 1997, Michael expelled me from the monastery. He tried to release me without mentioning the real reason. He told me that he believed God was calling me to a more public preaching ministry; whereas, the monastery is more contemplative. I did not tolerate his excuse. I told him, “That is a lie! For one, we are not a totally contemplative monastery. We have produced public controversial information that obliges us to defend our teachings publicly and to try to convert souls. The real reason you are expelling me is because I hold the sedevacante position and you do not.”
Michael then banged his fist on the table and said, “Yes, that is the reason! No one can judge the pope. No one can make a declaration against a pope.”
That is when I said, “No person needs to judge a pope who becomes a notorious heretic because the Church Herself, by operation of Her laws, automatically excommunicates a heretical pope and automatically deposes him. I will say this a thousand times if I have to: Canon 188.4 teaches that ‘no declaration is necessary,’ ‘no declaration is necessary,’ ‘no declaration is necessary,’ ‘no declaration is necessary’ for a notorious heretic to fall from the papal office. That is the truth you are impugning, and I will not obey you in your sinful commands just as you do not obey John Paul II, a man you believe is the pope, in his sinful commands.”
Michael’s blood brother Bob (also known as Peter Dimond) knows the truth of the matter. He was present during this conflict, when he was not yet living at the monastery, and also held the sedevacante position in opposition to his brother. It was I who had originally given Bob the teachings that a notorious heretic cannot be the pope, in righteous disobedience to Michael who had kept these teachings from Bob and had told me not to give them to him. Eventually, when inspired by God, I had put these teachings in a box and then put the box in the back of Bob’s car when he was visiting the monastery—while Michael looked on, helplessly and pathetically. After reading these teachings, Bob held the sedevacante position in opposition to his brother. There were many other witnesses to these events.
From the time I held the sedevacante position until my expulsion from the monastery, I smuggled the sedevacante teachings out to others by mail. Michael caught some of these mailings before they went out and removed the sedevacante teachings from them.
A year or more after my departure, Michael changed his belief and held the sedevacante position; but he never admitted that he had expelled me for the real reason mentioned in this letter. Simply put, Michael was wrong and I was right, as even now I am right for denouncing the Dimonds as apostates and heretics, as is evident for all of good will to see.
Am I the Witness of the Apocalypse? Does Elias Return in Person?
On RJMI, Current version: 1/2011: “I will now address the portion of the… letter that disputed my claim of being one of the witnesses mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse, Chapter 11. I will start with a question: Would you believe me if I said, “Yes, God has called me to be one of the two witnesses mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse?” Does God’s choice depend upon the approval of [a certain group]… or, for that matter, of anyone else? Cannot God choose whom He pleases? Or does God need the recommendation of [a certain group or people]… to confirm the mission He has called me to fulfill. … God has called me to be one of the two witnesses mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse. Does that mean this is true? Yes, if I continue to do God’s will; and no, if I do not continue to do God’s will. If I disobey God and fall away from the faith, then I will prove to be unworthy and forfeit the mission God has given me. I am well aware of the fact that if I disobey God, He would annul the mission He has called me to fulfill. Over the years, starting in 1986, God has been testing me by fire and bringing me along this long road to prepare me for the day when this mission will directly oppose the Antichrist. … Some believe that Elias must return in person as one of the witnesses mentioned in the Book of the Apocalypse, Chapter 11. This is not true. John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of the coming of Elias to prepare the world for the first coming of Jesus Christ. An angel and Jesus Himself said that John was Elias, meaning John was filled with the same spirit of Elias… The same applies to the mission God has given me as one of the witnesses mentioned in the Book of the Apocalypse, Chapter 11. My mission is to expose and attack the Antichrist and his minions and his evil kingdom and to convert good-willed men, many of whom will be Jews, by turning their hearts to the one and only true God, the Catholic God, and to usher in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I am not Elias but am filled with the spirit of Elias!”
So Richard Ibranyi claims to be a prophet and witness of the Apocalypse filled with the spirit of Elias directly chosen by God to perform a mission to expose and attack the Antichrist and his minions and his evil kingdom.
Christ taught (in His own person and through His apostles):
“And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” (Matthew 23:12)
“If anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.” (Galatians 6:3)
“Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1)
To “try the spirits” of a man, his beliefs and actions must be compared to the full deposit of the Catholic faith (that is, dogmas of faith and morals) and his obedience to the other laws of the Catholic Church. All things are judged in the light of the truth: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” (Galatians 1:8) So what Gospel truth does Richard Ibranyi preach and reveal about himself? That, while claiming to be a prophet and Witness of the Apocalypse “filled with the spirit of Elias”, he has admitted to being a formal heretic that was thus outside the Church of God and salvation during all this time that he taught and claimed to be the prophet chosen by God while he held these various errors and heresies against the faith:
RJMI’s Abjuration of July 2013: “Introduction. I, Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi, held several heresies that denied basic dogmas and thus was a formal heretic and not Catholic [up until the day I renounced these heresies]. … RJMI’s Public Abjuration and Profession of Faith. On this day of July 26, 2013, I, Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi, acknowledge that I was outside the Catholic Church as a formal heretic for my doubt or denial of the basic dogmas... and the deeper dogma...”
Here Richard Ibranyi admits that he was a formal heretic that held many heresies until July 7, 2013: “Hence I was not Catholic when I held this heresy. I abjured from it on July 3, 2013. … I abjured from this heresy on July 7, 2013.” (RJMI’s Abjuration of July 2013) Thus, Ibranyi admits, in his own words, that he was outside – and not a member of – the very Church of which he claimed to be the chosen prophet, teacher, or leader with “special authority” to teach the truth for all this time in these days of the Great Apostasy!
Is Ibranyi the Witness?; Does God no Longer Speak to Men?; Prophets are tested. They are not God
Richard Ibranyi, An email conversation with Patrick: “Patrick’s Comment 10: I am not trying to make others think I am teaching with some kind of special AUTHORITY as if I was a Priest, or one of the two Witnesses St. John wrote about in the book of the Apocalypse. I do not think as you do. RJMI’s Response 10.1: Patrick, so you do admit that the two witnesses would have a special power and authority from God that would be needed in these days of the Great Apostasy in order to unite Catholics and teach the truth authoritatively. Catholic commentary: “Apocalypse 11:1. Two prophets are promised, to teach mankind.” Why the need of two prophets to teach mankind if there is a Catholic hierarchy with Catholic priests? Patrick, I am one of the two witnesses mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse, Chapter 11; and I do invoke that power and authority that God will confirm. A prophecy from a brother of St. Francis of Assisi confirms that Catholics will be saved in an unprecedented way, that is, by teachers who have no spiritual directors or prelates to authorize them—not because they don’t seek them, but because there are none to be found. … My public mission of directly opposing the Antichrist has not yet begun. This is all a preparation. God will confirm me when my teachings are pleasing to Him and when I have corrected my errors and completed my learning. … In God’s good time, if I stay faithful, He will confirm me as one of the witnesses mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse.” (On RJMI, Current version: 1/2011)
Even though Richard Ibranyi admitted that he was a formal heretic all the while claiming to be the prophet chosen by God to be “filled with the spirit of Elias”, yet he claims he’s a Catholic and that it’s a “mortal sin akin to schism” and to be on par with “the enemy camp of the Antichrist” if one do not want to be associated with him because of his claim to be one of the witnesses:
Richard Ibranyi speaking about himself: “What truly matters is the Catholic faith, the truth. If I am teaching the truth as the Catholic Church teaches it, then not to follow what I teach is not to follow what the Catholic Church teaches. Those who do not want to be associated with me because I claim to be one of the witnesses, in spite of the fact that I am Catholic in word and deed, are guilty of a mortal sin akin to schism. … It is not a matter of faith that one must believe that I am one of the witnesses, nor is it a matter of faith that one must believe that the Antichrist is the true Antichrist. However, it would certainly be imprudent and even sinful to disrespect the mission God has given me by opposing me just because you do not believe I am one of the witnesses, in spite of the fact that I am Catholic in word and deed. This would, no doubt, place you in the enemy camp, the camp of the Antichrist.” (On RJMI, Current version: 1/2011)
How can Richard Ibranyi even call himself a Catholic when he is not even certain of himself that he is one? and when he, not infrequently, discovers some new “heresy” that he has been guilty of and that thus, he was not a Catholic? Indeed, it would be more humble of him not to view himself as something special, or as if not wanting to be associated with him—the self-professed prophet who is also a heretic—is “akin to the mortal sin schism.”
So how to spot a false prophet? Why not hear from Ibranyi’s own words:
On true and false prophets (teachers)
On RJMI, Current version: 1/2011: “There are many laymen who are putting themselves forward as teachers of the Catholic faith, and many contradict one another in matters of the faith. That means they cannot all be Catholic. So the same question you pose for bishops can be posed for laymen: “What layman should I follow? Should I follow Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi, or Patrick Henry, or Michael Dimond, or Hutton Gibson, etc.?” So you see, you missed the point altogether. The answer to the above question is quite simple: “I WILL FOLLOW THE ONES WHO ARE CATHOLIC.”… God shall choose between you and me, between all the false teachers and me. Why are they false teachers? –Because they do not have the humility to admit when they are wrong and to amend their position and eventually to become perfect, as God is perfect, and to become holy, as God is holy. … For what does a Catholic have to do with a non-Catholic, or the righteous with the unrighteous, or the faithful with the unbeliever, or light with darkness, or a false prophet with a true prophet (Cor. 6:14-17). … The [true] prophets and saints had the humility to admit when they were wrong; and in so doing, they progressed in perfection and holiness to the degree that made them very pleasing to God. Whereas, false Catholics who do not have the humility to accept a just rebuke and to admit and confess their sins and errors are prideful fools who are under God’s wrath; instead of correcting their sins and errors and becoming perfect, they go from worse to worse...”
Yes, Ibranyi is absolutely right when he said that we are to follow the ones who are Catholic. He is also correct in stating that the people who are false teachers and prophets are so because “they do not have the humility to admit when they are wrong and to amend their position.” As we will see in this article, Richard Ibranyi sadly doesn’t have the humility to admit that he is wrong on many positions that he holds.
It must also be pointed out that while Ibranyi claims to correct himself of many errors, heresies and false doctrines, this is only to be understood on those things which he himself believes, and admits, is wrong. He does not correct anything if he does not himself believe it’s wrong. For example, if he believes St. Thomas Aquinas is in Hell because of some “heresy” Ibranyi has made up for himself, then he will just reject canonizations flat out as not infallible, and the Pope’s declaration that St. Thomas Aquinas is in Heaven, just so that he can condemn him without having to worry about rejecting this infallible proclamation—that St. Thomas Aquinas is in Heaven.
As we will see in this article, he has totally made up his own doctrines, definitions and belief systems and has – by his own authority – declared teachings, beliefs and practices which are not heretical, to be heretical (among many other errors); whereas obvious heresies and errors that he holds, even when they have been pointed out to him (just because he don’t want to accept they are errors and that he is wrong) he refuses to correct and amend. All of this will be shown as we move along in this article.
Matthew 7:16-20: “By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the bad tree bringeth forth bad fruit. A good tree cannot yield bad fruit, neither can an bad tree yield good fruit. Every tree that yieldeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.”
So, what are the fruits of this self-professed prophet—Richard Ibranyi? Let’s take a look, in his own words.
Apostate antipopes and anticardinals and their invalid acts
On RJMI’s Works (1/14), Current version: 1/2014: “As of January 2014, I have discovered conclusive evidence that all the so-called popes and cardinals from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward have been idolaters or formal heretics and thus were apostate antipopes and apostate anticardinals. Also all of the theologians and canon lawyers from 1250 onward have been apostates. … Hence all their teachings, laws, judgments, and other acts are null and void. Therefore, all of the ecumenical councils, canon laws, and other acts from Apostate Antipope Innocent II onward are null and void. In my works before January 2014, I may have referred to these apostate antipopes as popes and to their councils, canon laws, and other acts as valid. Until I correct these works, keep in mind that these so-called popes are actually apostate antipopes and all their acts are null and void. However, the teachings, laws, and judgments of the apostate antipopes, invalid ecumenical councils, and invalid canon laws can nevertheless be useful to quote if they reflect dogmas, good laws, or good judgments or show how corrupt some of their teachings, laws, or judgments were.”
One could ask the question: How does Richard Ibranyi know that the popes, councils and canon laws etc. “reflect dogmas” if he reject as false and invalid their dogmatic decrees and definitions and teachings? We only know certain doctrines are dogmas because the Church said so. But Ibranyi rejects the Church, just as the Eastern “Orthodox” schismatics reject the Church, and so he can have no way of knowing what is of the Faith unless he makes up for himself what this is consisting of; by choosing to believe in some teachings, while rejecting others. And this is exactly what he has done, as we have seen, and will see.
Scholasticism and scholastics
On RJMI’s Works (1/14), Current version: 1/2014: “As of the year 2012, I have acknowledged and thus held the dogma that scholasticism, which I call Theophilosophy, is heresy. It glorifies philosophy in any one of the three following ways: 1) by using the philosophical method of questioning and inquiring, as did the notorious heretic Peter Lombard in his heretical Books of Sentences, which was published in 1150; 2) by glorifying pagan philosophers and their pagan philosophies; or 3) by using philosophical terminology. The notorious heretic Thomas Aquinas’ Summa uses all three of these scholastic methods. Scholasticism, which took root in the 11th century, corrupted not only theology but also canon law. Hence all the scholastic theologians, such as Abelard, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and John Pecham, are formal heretics and thus not Catholic [for simply using the philosophical method]. While some scholastics did not always use the scholastic method, they still used it nevertheless. For example, the notorious heretic Bonaventure did not always use the scholastic method but many times he did. And even though he did not glorify philosophers and their philosophies, he glorified philosophy nevertheless by using its method of speaking, questioning, and inquiring and its terminology in some of his works. Hence in my works before 2012 when I condemn scholasticism as evil but not heretical, know that it is also heretical. … To be guilty of the mortal sin of the heresy of scholasticism, one must be well acquainted with it and must like it. Hence a baptized man who used scholasticism in some of his own works is a formal heretic because this is proof that he liked it.”
The Church has never opposed scholasticism, yet he condemns it as a heresy and calls people who teach using this method as formal heretics, by his own authority!
As we can see, this man is clearly a dangerous heretic who makes up heresies out of nothing.
The use of quotes from heretics
On RJMI’s Works (1/14), Current version: 1/2014: “In some of my works, I quote from notorious heretics while not always referring to them as notorious heretics, such as the notorious heretics Charles Hefele, Louis Pastor, Ludwig Ott, Heribert Jone, Rev. John Laux, Rev. Philip Hughes, William Walsh, Alphonsus de Liguori, Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine, Bonaventure, authors of Bible commentaries (such as the notorious heretics George Haydock, Cornelius Lapide, Richard Challoner, and the commentators of the original Douay-Rheims Bible), and the authors of the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907, which is full of heresies. For lack of other sources, I use these sources if they reflect dogmas, good laws, or good judgments or to show how corrupt their teachings, laws, or judgments were.”
It is true that the Catholic Encyclopedia contains heresies; and that some Catholic Bible commentaries contain baptism of desire, and possibly some other errors and false doctrines; and that perhaps a few of those people he mentioned have taught some error or formal heresy or heresy in ignorance. However, without having direct proof that a person is obstinate against a doctrine against the Divine Law, or that a person holds a heresy against the Natural Law, one cannot actually declare these people as formal heretics on one’s own authority without definitive proof of that this is true; otherwise it is to slander them and to be uncharitable towards them, since everyone on this earth can be mistaken about many things without being evil or heretics for that matter. (We will look into this in more detail soon since this is one of the principal errors of Ibranyi that needs to be directly refuted and that is the reason for that he is rejecting all popes, cardinals and ecumenical councils from 1130 onwards.) The pervert Heribert Jone that he mentioned, however, we know was a heretic since he broke the Natural Law by teaching that one could sodomize one’s wife without committing mortal sin and that this act would not be sodomy at all provided one did not consummate the act.
Saints who are not saints
On RJMI’s Works (1/14), Current version: 1/2014: “Because there have been no popes from Innocent II forward, every person canonized as a saint from Innocent II forward [A.D. 1130–] is not a canonized saint. That does not mean they cannot be saints but only that they have not been canonized. If I do not have evidence that they were formal heretics, idolaters, or immoral, then I will continue to refer to them as saints. However, if I do have evidence [that they were formal heretics, idolaters, or immoral], then they cannot be saints and thus I will not refer to them as saints since they would be either formal heretics, idolaters, or immoral. Evidence against them means either notorious evidence or evidence of grave suspicion (the third and highest degree of suspicion). Hence in my works before January 2014, not every person I mention as a saint is a saint if I have since discovered that he was a formal heretic, idolater, or immoral.”
False apparitions and messages
On RJMI’s Works (1/14), Current version: 1/2014: “Any supposed apparition or message from heaven that refers to an apostate antipope as a pope [i.e., from A.D. 1130– onwards] is a false apparition or message, such as the messages and apparitions of LaSalette in 1846 and Fatima in 1917. Hence in my works before 2012 when I refer to the apparitions and messages of LaSalette or Fatima as true, know that they are false and from the devil.”
So according to Richard Ibranyi, approved apparitions of Our Lady is actually the Devil in disguise as Our Lady. Ibranyi, the false prophet, is thus equating Our Lady with the Devil (what blasphemy!), teaching that all of these apparitions of Our Lady are False and originating from Hell. And as if that was not evil enough, any other of Heaven’s messages from A.D. 1130– onwards, whether it be from a Saint, an Angel, Our Lord Jesus Christ, or Our Lady etc., are all False and from the Devil and Hell if they referred to a pope as the Pope if he deems them be non-Catholics, heretics, antipopes, etc...
Introduction to Richard Ibranyi’s Principal Heresy
For those of you not familiar with Richard Ibranyi, the following information may not have tremendous relevance. However, this information is written specifically for that small number of people who may have been influenced by Richard Ibranyi’s writings. This article is not meant to be an in-depth refutation of Richard Ibranyi’s beliefs, but primarily an expose of his chief heresy, which is the dynamic at work behind almost all of his heretical and schismatic conclusions.
Richard Ibranyi holds that every person above the age of reason who holds to a specific teaching or doctrine that he deems to be a violation of a true basic dogma of the Church, or any other dogma that he has simply made up for himself, is a heretic.
On RJMI’s Works (1/14), Current version: 1/2014: “As of the year 2012, I have acknowledged and thus held the dogma that scholasticism, which I call Theophilosophy, is heresy. … To be guilty of the mortal sin of the heresy of scholasticism, one must be well acquainted with it and must like it. Hence a baptized man who used scholasticism in some of his own works is a formal heretic because this is proof that he liked it.””
It must be pointed out that Ibranyi changes his views frequently, and so he may not hold this view anymore in the future, however, his principle heresy – if it remains the same – is this: that he condemns and declares others as heretics or schismatics based on his own authority, made up dogmas or personal understanding of the Church’s true dogmas; and that he condemns others as definitive heretics without giving them the benefit of a doubt if they have made some erroneous or heretical statement.
I will start with the first point: “I quote from notorious heretics while not always referring to them as notorious heretics, such as the notorious heretics Charles Hefele, Louis Pastor, Ludwig Ott, Heribert Jone, Rev. John Laux, Rev. Philip Hughes, William Walsh, Alphonsus de Liguori, Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine, Bonaventure, authors of Bible commentaries (such as the notorious heretics George Haydock, Cornelius Lapide, Richard Challoner, and the commentators of the original Douay-Rheims Bible), and the authors of the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907, which is full of heresies.” (On RJMI’s Works (1/14), Current version: 1/2014)
We Catholics reject this position, as it is untenable from a theological perspective. We acknowledge, rather, that all those who obstinately reject the Catholic teaching on any particular doctrine – once the evidence has been presented to them and they have digested it – such as the dogma that heretics are not members of the Church and hence the Vatican II claimants cannot be popes – are heretics.
Canon 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”
However, the excuse of ignorance does not apply in the case of the Divine Mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation as well as the Natural Law. Hence that no one can not be mistaken about these things since they must be absolutely known about in order to be saved and be Catholic.
The natural law is written on the heart of all men, so that all men know that certain things are against God’s law and that certain things are in accordance with the natural law of charity, etc.
The natural law is the law that every person knows by instinct from birth. It is planted by the Creator in our heart, and everyone – even pagans who have never heard about God or the true Catholic religion – receive this gift from God. Examples of sins that break the natural law and that are easy to recognize are abortion, murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, homosexuality, slander, and lying. The conscience always convicts a person who does these things and thus there can never be an excuse for people who commit such sins.
Romans 2:14-16: “For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.”
As the Haydock Bible and Commentary correctly explains about Romans 2:14-16:
“these men are a law to themselves, and have it written in their hearts, as to the existence of a God, and their reason tells them, that many sins are unlawful...”
Breaking down R. I.’s Principal Heresy
Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra #12, Jan. 6, 1873: “… every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.”
Never is this statement more true than in the case of Richard Ibranyi and the schismatic sect which he has created. Please bear with me as I prove this. Suppose I were to ask you the question: “how many wills does Jesus Christ have, one or two?” I have posed this question to many traditional Catholics, and almost all of them have responded “one.” This is not correct. Jesus Christ has two wills, a divine and a human will. Jesus Christ is one Divine Person with two natures (He has a Divine nature and a human nature) and therefore He has a Divine will and a human will. If Our Lord did not have a human will then He would not be truly man as well as truly God. The idea that Our Lord has only one will was solemnly anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople.
Pope St. Agatho, Third Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “And so we proclaim equally two natural volitions or wills in Him and two natural principles of action which undergo no division, no change, no partition, no confusion, in accordance with the teaching of the holy fathers. And the two natural wills not in opposition, as the impious heretics said, far from it, but His human will following, and not resisting or struggling, rather in fact subject to His divine and all powerful will.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 128)
To assert that Our Lord Jesus Christ has only one will is precisely the monothelite heresy. So, were these Catholics that I questioned on this issue heretics and outside the Body of Christ for answering that Christ has “one will”? No, they were not heretics, because 1) they thought this was the Catholic position and didn’t understand all the ramifications of the issue; and 2) they weren’t aware that it has been defined that Christ has two wills: one for each nature. (Note: If they had comprehended beforehand that to say that Christ has one will is actually to deny Our Lord’s humanity then they would be heretics, but this was not the case). Therefore, to put it simply, these Catholics were not obstinate or pertinacious in their belief that Christ has one will (i.e., they did not deliberately or knowingly deny this teaching of the Church) and therefore they were not heretics.
Canon 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”
And this is a good example of how pertinacity or obstinacy is a requirement for heresy. Thus, these Catholics who held that Christ had one will were not heretics unless they demonstrated obstinacy in this belief; but, being of good will, after I informed these persons that it is a defined dogma that Christ has two wills (which is intimately connected to the fact that He has two natures) they immediately changed their position. If after that point they had affirmed that Christ had only one will, they would have been heretics and outside the Church.
Therefore, this dogma (Christ’s two wills) is an example of a dogma or a truth of faith or a dogmatic fact that doesn’t have to be known positively by all in order to be saved. It can never be rejected, but some people could be innocently ignorant of it or confused about it until the Church’s teaching is pointed out to them or explained to them, because a Catholic is not bound to have a positive knowledge of all the teachings of the Church to be a Catholic. I hope that the reader is following me so far.
However, with a mystery of faith that must be positively known by all to be saved, there can be no confusion or ignorance like that described on Christ’s two wills. With these mysteries – such as the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation – you must positively know them in order to be saved, and you must know them positively in all ages above the age of reason. This is why “invincible ignorance” cannot save anyone, and this idea is a horrible heresy, because no one above reason who wishes to be saved can be ignorant of the principal mysteries of Catholicism and be saved.
Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 1), June 26, 1754: “We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even those matters which must be known by necessity of means; consequently they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments.”
Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4): “See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”
Here we see Pope Benedict XIV confirming the Catholic teaching that there are certain mysteries of faith that no one above the age of reason can be ignorant of and be saved (such as the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation). But this does not apply to all the truths of the Catholic faith, as stated above when discussing the dogma of Christ’s two wills. A Catholic could be ignorant in good faith of some of the other truths of the faith; but he can never be ignorant of the Faith itself (i.e., the principal mysteries). Pope St. Pius X confirms the exact same teaching.
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”
The following is a question concerning the above information from a friend of Richard Ibranyi and that is relevant to the discussion and in understanding their heresy:
“Can a self-professed Protestant—assuming he is validly baptized—who never heard of Catholic dogmas ever be a heretic? If so, then explain how? If not, then you would have to admit that all self-professed Protestants who never heard of Catholic dogmas are actually Catholics, inside the Church, and thus can be saved. Do you agree with this last statement?”
The answer: All baptized infants are Catholics, even if they are baptized in a Methodist church-building, etc. This is de fide.
The Catholic Church has always taught that anyone (including a layman or a non-Catholic) can validly baptize if he adheres to proper matter and form and if he has the intention of doing what the Church does.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denzinger 696)
The Church has always taught that infants baptized in heretical and schismatic churches are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who baptized them are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because the infant, being below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or schismatic. He cannot have an impediment which would prevent Baptism from making him a member of the Church.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.”
This means that all baptized infants wherever they are, even those baptized in heretical non-Catholic churches by heretical ministers, are made members of the Catholic Church. They are also made subject to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one). So, at what one point does this baptized Catholic infant become a non-Catholic – severing his membership in the Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff? After the baptized infant reaches the age of reason, he or she becomes a heretic or a schismatic and severs his membership in the Church and severs subjection to the Roman Pontiff when he or she obstinately rejects any teaching of the Catholic Church or loses Faith in the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
So, one must be clear on these points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims, Mormons, pagans, etc.) must all join the Catholic Church by receiving Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost. 2) Among those who are baptized validly as infants, they are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff by Baptism. They only sever that membership (which they already possess) when they obstinately reject any Catholic dogma or believe something contrary to the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, or something contrary to the Natural Law. Indeed, teachings against the Natural Law is very common in the heretical and Protestants sects, which shows us that these people sadly are damned in their heresies against the Natural Law, since these heresies can never be excused by claiming ignorance. In the teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we see this second point clearly taught: all who receive the Catholic Faith in Baptism lose that Faith and become schismatic and heretical if they become “obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”
The fact is that all Protestants who obstinately reject the Catholic Church or its dogmas on the sacraments, the Papacy, etc. have separated from the Faith of the Roman Church and have therefore severed their membership in the Church of Christ. The same is true with the “Eastern Orthodox” who obstinately reject dogmas on the Papacy and Papal Infallibility. They need to be converted to the Catholic Faith for salvation.
Therefore, all baptized infants (Catholics), when they reach the age of reason in a Protestant building, if they hold the Trinity and the Incarnation (which are the two essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith) hold the absolutely essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity...
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ... the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
If they don’t know about any other Catholic dogmas (other than the Trinity and Incarnation) then they are not heretics but Catholics (Christians), unless they hold a position that is incompatible with Faith in the Trinity and Incarnation or deny a truth that all know about God and the natural law or deny something that they know to be clearly taught in Scripture. For instance, if the baptized person described above claims to believe in the Trinity and Incarnation but holds that all religions are more or less good, then he is a heretic and does not have the Catholic Faith (even before he knows that such a position is condemned by the Church) because his belief is incompatible with true Faith in the Trinity as the one true God, which belief he must have to be said to have the Catholic Faith in its simplest components.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “…that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy... Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it...”
Another example would be if the baptized person who believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation (which are the simplest components of the Catholic Faith) and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas holds that man does not have free will (which some Protestants teach). This person would become a heretic because he is rejecting a truth which all know to be true from the natural law, namely, that man has a free will. Thus, he is denying a truth all know about man from the natural law and he is a heretic.
Another example would be if the baptized person who believes in the Trinity and Incarnation (the Catholic Faith in its simplest components) and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas refuses to believe that God is a rewarder and a punisher. This person is a heretic because he rejects a truth he knows to be true from the natural law, that God is a rewarder and a punisher of our actions (see Heb. 11:6).
A large majority of Protestants today believe in the doctrines of “faith alone” and “eternal security.” These doctrines contradict both the natural law and reason which says that every man shall be rewarded or punished for his deeds. It also contradicts, word for word, the teaching of James 2 in scripture, which teach that faith without works is dead, and that man is not saved by faith alone. This person who believes in faith alone or eternal security is a heretic, even though he has never seen that his position is condemned by the Church and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas, because he rejects a truth he knows to be true from the natural law, that God is a rewarder and a punisher of our actions, and that faith alone does not justify a man only, but our deeds also.
Other common heresies against the natural law is, 1) to deny the existence of God, 2) to hold as opinion that birth control or natural family planning (also called NFP) is acceptable, 3) to hold that abortion is acceptable or a so called “human right”, 4) to hold that the consumption of mind altering drugs to the point where the conscience is impeded is acceptable, 5) or to hold that masturbation or any other shameful, perverted sexual act, such as foreplay, is acceptable. To hold any or all of these positions as “acceptable” or “right to do” would all fall under the category of the mortal sin of heresy against the natural law, because he who is guilty of this sin is rejecting a truth which all know to be true from the natural law, namely, 1) that God exists, 2) that abortion is murder (of the most innocent too!), 3) that contraception, NFP or masturbation (which, in addition to being inherently shameful, unnatural and perverse) deliberately frustrates the natural power to generate life, and 4) that the consumption of mind altering drugs and getting intoxicated by it – such as by smoking marijuana – is a mortal sin just like getting drunk is, because when “a man willingly and knowingly deprives himself of the use of reason, whereby he performs virtuous deeds and avoids sin... he sins mortally by running the risk of falling into sin. For [Saint] Ambrose says (De Patriarch. [De Abraham i.]): "We learn that we should shun drunkenness, which prevents us from avoiding grievous sins. For the things we avoid when sober, we unknowingly [or knowingly] commit through drunkenness.” Therefore drunkenness, properly speaking, is a mortal sin." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 150, Article 2. Whether drunkenness is a mortal sin?)
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
We can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church that a man is severed from the Church and Salvation by heresy, schism or apostasy.
The baptized children who reach the age of reason in Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, etc. church buildings and believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential components of the Catholic Faith) and who don’t reject any Catholic dogma because they don’t know of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and who don’t embrace any of the positions like those described above, which are directly incompatible with Faith in God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law or what they know to be clearly taught in Scripture, would be Catholics in a heretical church building.
Okay, now that we have established that there are certain mysteries of Catholicism that everyone above the age of reason must positively know in order to be saved, and that there are many other deeper dogmas (such as Christ’s two wills) that Catholics above reason could be ignorant in good faith about, the next important point to realize is that the former category (i.e., the mysteries of faith that all must positively know to be saved) ALWAYS REMAINS THE SAME! I REPEAT, THESE PRINCIPAL MYSTERIES OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH THAT ALL ABOVE REASON MUST POSITIVELY KNOW IN ORDER TO BE CATHOLIC AND BE SAVED ALWAYS REMAIN THE SAME IN EVERY GENERATION.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists #22: “Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles.” – Condemned statement by Pope St. Pius X.
It is a defined dogma that Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, ended with the apostles. This means, among other things, that the object of Catholic faith (i.e., what everyone above reason must positively know in order to be Catholic and be saved) was the same in the time of the apostles as it is now.
So the logical question then is: Is the fact that John Paul II is an Antipope; or that one is invincibly ignorant about deeper dogmas; or the fact that, according to Ibranyi, “a baptized man who used scholasticism in some of his own works is a formal heretic because this is proof that he liked it” (not that we agree with him that scholasticism is a heresy, but the point is, if it was, would this be) a truth of faith/ dogmatic fact that has to be positively known by all in all ages to be saved (like the Natural Law, the Trinity and Incarnation)? Or is it a something that must be acknowledged once all the facts from the Magisterium have been presented to him (like the dogma on Christ’s two wills, or the fact that Christ founded one universal or Catholic Church)? Obviously, it is not a truth of faith or a dogmatic fact that had to be known positively by all in all ages to be saved, because this dogmatic fact only became knowable when one has been instructed about it. Therefore, the dogmatic fact that Antipope John Paul II is not the Pope (flowing from the dogma that heretics are not members of the Church) or the dogmatic fact that the SSPX is not the Catholic Church (flowing from the dogma that heretics, even if they call themselves Catholic, are not members of the Church) is obviously something that must be acknowledged once the facts have been presented to him, like the dogma on Christ’s two wills, and the dogma that obstinacy is required for a baptized Catholic person to leave the Catholic Church of which he was always a member through valid baptism, even if he do not know the Catholic Church by name, provided he believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential components of the Catholic Faith) and don’t reject any Catholic dogma because he don’t know of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and if he don’t embrace any of the positions like those described above, which are directly incompatible with Faith in God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law or what he know to be clearly taught in Scripture. Thus, it does not have to be known positively by all Catholics in all ages in order to be saved.
Therefore, in light of these facts, what does one conclude about the following statement in Richard Ibranyi’s books Baptized Non-Catholic Infants and Children and Heresy and Heretics?
Heresy and Heretics, Current version: 4/2012: “The opinion that some baptized men who adhere to non-Catholic sects, such as Protestants, are not formal heretics if they do not obstinately deny a dogma is allowed provided it [the opinion] also holds the dogma that these men are nevertheless outside the Catholic Church and thus on the road to hell.”
Baptized Non-Catholic Infants and Children, Current version: 7/2012: “… It is a solemn magisterium dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation or remission of sins. This is known as the Salvation Dogma. … Hence it is a solemn magisterium dogma that all baptized children with the use of reason who adhere to non-Catholic sects, churches… are formal schismatics because they do not adhere to the true Catholic Church.”
Baptized Non-Catholic Infants and Children, Current version: 7/2012: “For example, an infant is baptized into a non-Catholic Church, such as the Anglican Church, and hence is baptized [validly as a Catholic by his parents] outside the Catholic Church… and therefore when their infant attains the use of reason he adheres to the Anglican Church and thus remains outside the Catholic Church for the mortal sin of schism. … Hence all baptized children who adhere to a non-Catholic Church… are outside the Catholic Church and thus are not Catholic regardless of whether or not they were Catholic at any time previous to their adhering to a non-Catholic entity.”
Baptized Non-Catholic Infants and Children, Current version: 7/2012: “A baptized Catholic infant who attains the use of reason and adheres to a non-Catholic Church… falls outside the Catholic Church as a schismatic for the mortal sin of schism because he is not in communion with the Catholic Church and thus not in communion with the members of the Catholic Church. Hence a baptized person [above the age of reason] who believes in the supremacy of the papacy and professes that he is subject to the Roman Pontiff but does not adhere to the true Catholic Church and thus to true Catholics [i.e., his own sect and members that is the only thing he considers as the “Catholic Church”] is guilty of the mortal sin of schism and thus is outside the Catholic Church [and salvation]. All that is required to be guilty of the mortal sin of schism and thus be a formal schismatic is that a baptized person does not adhere to the true Catholic Church or to true Catholics, even if he does not adhere to any non-Catholic sect… One way that baptized men manifest their beliefs is by the local church they adhere to. A local church is the church that people go to for religious services and to learn their faith. If that church is a non-Catholic church, even if it calls itself a Catholic church, then all the people with the use of reason who adhere to it are guilty of the mortal sin of schism because they adhere to a non-Catholic church [for example, SSPX] and thus do not adhere to the true Catholic Church even if they think they do.”
Baptized Non-Catholic Infants and Children, Current version: 7/2012: “Invincible ignorance does not excuse these baptized children from the mortal sin of schism for not adhering to the Catholic Church. … Beware, then, of the salvation heretics... who heretically teach that baptized children who adhere to non-Catholic entities are inside the Catholic Church as long as they do not… obstinately deny it [the Catholic faith]... [this] heresy applies not only to baptized children who adhere to non-Catholic entities but also to adults. According to this heresy, all of the Amish from generation to generation, no matter what their age, young or old, are inside the Catholic Church and can never be formal heretics because they have never heard of the Catholic faith from a Catholic source and hence never had a chance to obstinately deny it.”
The Catholic position is this: The baptized children who reach the age of reason (and become adults) in Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, etc. church buildings and believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential components of the Catholic Faith) and who don’t reject any Catholic dogma because they don’t know of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and who don’t embrace any of the positions like those described above (like sins against the Natural Law), which are directly incompatible with Faith in God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law or what they know to be clearly taught in Scripture, WOULD BE CATHOLICS IN A HERETICAL CHURCH BUILDING.
Council of Elvira, Canon 22, 300 A.D.: “If someone leaves the Catholic Church and goes over to a heresy, and then returns again, it is determined that penance is not to be denied to such a one, since he has acknowledged his sin. Let him do penance, then, for ten years, and after ten years he may come forward to communion. If, indeed, there were children who were led astray, since they have not sinned of their own fault, they may be received without delay.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 611n)
This means that the children above reason who were attending the church of a heretical sect with their parents were not heretics because they were not obstinately against something they knew to be taught by the Church! This fact is also true of all people of all ages who go to a heretical church without being obstinately opposed to any Church teaching. This is exactly the Catholic position and what the Church has always taught (as we will see) – which is that to be a heretic one must obstinately reject something they know to be taught by God or the Catholic Church. So please, dear reader, if you hold Richard Ibranyi’s heresy: Recant your accusation. Cease condemning Catholics who don’t hold to heresy; stop leading others into schism.
Pope Leo XIII, Exima Nos Laetitia, 1903: “The Sacraments, which some people keep and use outside the unity of Christ, can preserve the appearance of piety; but the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than feeling can remain in an amputated part of your body. … They no longer have the Sacraments, with the exception of Baptism, which they confer, so it is said, without ceremonies on children; a fruitful baptism for the children provided that, once the age of reason is reached, they do not embrace the schism.”
Notice that Pope Leo XIII taught that baptism is a fruitful Sacrament for children of non-Catholic sects provided that, “they do not embrace the schism.” But how do one embrace the schism? By obstinacy!
And this truth is exactly what is expressed by Pope Clement VI in the following statement:
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, IF THEY REMAIN OBSTINATELY SEPARATED [i.e., in schism!] from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.” (Denz. 570b)
To illustrate the difference between our views of what it takes to become a heretic, let’s look at the case of two members of the SSPX. First, I should note again that Richard Ibranyi holds that all people who attend the SSPX are heretics, whereas we correctly say that only those who obstinately agree with them once they become familiar with the issue are heretics. Okay, let’s say there are two members of the Society of St. Pius X who obstinately agree with the SSPX that souls can be saved in false religions, that John Paul II is the Pope (after seeing the evidence against him) and who believe that they are free to reject the “Canonizations” of the man they deem to be the Pope. Unfortunately, these two SSPX members are, in fact, heretics for obstinately holding such positions. But what about their baptized children? All infants who are baptized are Catholics. So do the baptized children of these SSPX heretics become heretics when they reach the age of reason? The answer is no, because in order to be a heretic one must obstinately reject a Catholic teaching. If one is not aware of the Catholic teaching or is not familiar with the issue involved, he is not necessarily a heretic.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 5., A. 3: “Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error.”
St. Augustine, Against the Manichees: “In Christ’s Church, those are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions, and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly, offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their pernicious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them.” (quoted by Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 11. A. 2.)
Canon 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”
The children of these SSPX heretics don’t become heretics at the age of reason; they become heretics at the point when they hear about and understand the issue at stake and then obstinately reject the Catholic position. Thus, it would be totally false and schismatical to assert that all the children above reason at the SSPX chapels are heretics. But this is exactly what Richard Ibranyi asserts, as we have seen.
One rightly concludes that this assertion is completely false, and heretical and schismatical, as should be obvious to those who have followed the points made already. Richard Ibranyi has fallen precisely into the heresy that Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic Faith (namely, what must be positively known by all in all ages), was not completed with the apostles! R. I. says that the object of Catholic Faith (i.e., what everyone above reason must positively know without excuse for ignorance) is different today than in the 1st century or even 50 years ago.
One should see that Richard Ibranyi has transformed the dogmatic fact (flowing from the dogma that heretics are not members of the Church) that the SSPX sect (who claims to be Catholic) is not the Catholic Church into a truth of faith that must be known positively by all to be saved (like the Trinity and the Incarnation). And in transforming the dogmatic fact that the SSPX is not the Catholic Church into a truth of faith that must be known positively by all to be saved without excuse for ignorance, Richard Ibranyi clearly teaches that Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic Faith – and what we must know positively in all ages to be saved – did not end with the death of the last apostle, which is heresy!
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists #22: “Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles.” - Condemned
Furthermore, what renders Richard Ibranyi’s (R. I.’s) denial of this dogma all the more blatant is the fact that R. I. even admits that certain Catholics could have been ignorant in good faith of the dogmatic fact that Antipope John Paul II is not the Pope just a matter of a few years ago!
R.I., The Abjuration and…, p. 9: “... the Conciliar Church and Antipope John Paul II, whose crimes in these latter days of the great apostasy are manifest to all with no excuses.”
R. I. has admitted to me that Catholics living in the 1970’s and 1980’s could have been ignorant in good faith of the fact that John Paul II is an Antipope, because it “was not manifest to all then”! But then R. I. proceeds to assert that in the year 2003 (a period of time which he defines as “the latter days of the great apostasy”) no one could possibly be ignorant of the fact that John Paul II is an Antipope; that is, all above reason must possess a positive knowledge of it or they are damned. But to admit that the dogmatic fact that John Paul II is an Antipope was not a fact that everyone had to positively know in 1985 (as R. I. did) and then to say that everyone has to know it positively (like the Trinity and Incarnation) in 2003 under pain of damnation, even before the facts are presented to him, is to say that there has been a public revelation between 1985 and 2003 (“between the early days of the Great Apostasy and “the latter days of the Great Apostasy”) a revelation which, according to R. I., has transformed the dogmatic fact that John Paul II is an Antipope from something that had to be known once the facts were presented to him into a mystery of faith that must be positively known by all without excuse for ignorance (like the Trinity and Incarnation).
Therefore, R. I. clearly rejects the dogma that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, by rejecting that the mysteries of faith that must be positively known by all to be saved without excuse for ignorance are the same today as they were at the death of the last apostle. Since R. I. and his followers are obstinate in this heresy (I have pointed it out to them repeatedly), they are not Catholics, but unfortunately, they are obstinate heretics and schismatics. And this issue alone shows, on dogmatic grounds, that R. I. and his schismatic sect do not possess the true faith. In fact, this was proven in striking fashion by an e-mail exchange that I recently had with R. I.
R. I. Cracks and Repudiates His Own Abjuration Under My Interrogation
Off and on for some time, I had been conversing and debating these points with the followers of R. I. Each time I would present the above facts, which show that R. I.’s abjuration is heretical and schismatical, my words would seemingly fall on deaf ears. R. I. and his followers had no explanation for the heretical portions of R. I.’s abjuration that I was exposing. So, after I had answered some of R. I.’s questions, I demanded his followers to answer a few of mine. R. I. obliged and the debate – for reasons that will soon be clear – came to an abrupt end.
My question to R. I. was the following:
Q. It is a dogma that Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, ended with the apostles.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists #22: “Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles.” - Condemned
How, then, can you say that Catholics could be innocently ignorant of the fact that John Paul II is not the Pope in 1985 (and therefore that this is not part of the object of faith which must be known by all to be saved), but then say that all Catholics must positively know it without exception for any ignorance in 2003? This is clearly to say that Revelation, the object of Catholic faith which we all must know without excuse for ignorance, changed since 1985, which is heresy.
I knew that neither he nor any of his followers could answer this question, but he tried, and in so doing he made a fatal mistake.
R. I.’s Answer, (9/2/03), 5:07 P.M. Eastern Time:
A. “This is an illogical question, but I will make an attempt to untwist your words. I do teach that it is part of the Catholic faith that a notorious heretic cannot be pope, but I also teach it is a deeper dogma, which Catholics in good faith could deny if it was not taught to them. However, Catholics can never deny a basic dogma for any reason. I have never taught this dogma, or any dogmas, changed, but Catholics who are ignorant of this teaching are free from guilt if they deny it because it is a deeper dogma.”
Did you get that? R. I. is admitting here that the dogmatic fact that a notorious heretic (such as Antipope John Paul II) cannot be Pope involves a deeper dogma which Catholics in good faith could deny (i.e., be ignorant of) if it had not been taught to them! This means that, according to R.I., Catholics today could be in good faith and hold that John Paul II is Pope if the facts were not taught to them! This statement completely rejects the positions set forth in his own abjuration, an abjuration that he and his followers demanded others to sign if they would be accepted by them. I quote the statements from his abjuration again:
R. I.’s Abjuration, #31: “I acknowledge all those in these latter days of the Great Apostasy with the use of reason, who are associated with the Conciliar Church and Antipope John Paul II as non-Catholics who have been latae sententiae excommunicated, and are outside the Catholic Church with no exceptions or excuses for ignorance.”
R. I.’s Abjuration, #32. “I reject, in these latter days of the Great Apostasy, all priests who pray in communion (una cum) with Antipope John Paul II in the Te Igitur prayer of the Canon of the Mass. I reject and condemn all the laymen who attend these [heretical] churches and chapels, and acknowledge them as apostates and heretics who are outside the Catholic Church.”
(Note: these statements are no longer present in his current abjuration.)
As anyone can see, when pressed by my interrogation, R. I. completely changed his position from what is written in his abjuration. He blatantly rejected the position of his heretical abjuration which he nevertheless (at the time) still demanded others to sign. Thus, rather than attempting to defend his indefensible and heretical abjuration form, R. I. cracked like an egg and proved the very point that I had been attempting to point out to he and his followers for some time. He proved the point that the dogmatic fact that Antipope John Paul II is not the Pope is something which all must acknowledge once the relevant facts are available to him (like the dogma on Christ’s two wills); it is not a mystery of faith that must be positively known and believed by all above reason for salvation without any exceptions or excuses for ignorance (such as the dogma of the Trinity).
R. I.’s Cowardly Retreat
After R. I. sent me the e-mail wherein he completely repudiated the position of his abjuration under my interrogation, I sent him a final e-mail pointing out this fact and demanding that, in honesty, he acknowledge that his abjuration is heretical. So on 9/4/2003 at 3:35:27 PM he wrote a final e-mail:
“Do not send me anymore emails, as I will delete them without reading.”
R. I.’s conscience was obviously convicted by the fact that I had just pointed out a clear heresy in his abjuration, and that I had caught him totally changing and repudiating his position. He did not want to see any more of this. He could not even bear to read anymore e-mails from us, as he knew that his lying abjuration had been exposed (by his own responses!) and he had no explanation for it (as there is none). He also told his few followers to read nothing of what we would send them, obviously hoping that they would not catch wind of what had just been exposed. He then simply disregarded the clear heresy in his abjuration, disregarded the fact that he had just repudiated his abjuration and completely changed his position under interrogation, and went on his way.
R. I.’s own testimony speaks for itself. He witnesses against himself that he is a false prophet who, if he continues to promote schism and heresy, will end up being burned. In fact, R. I.’s rashness leads him to make statements such as the following diabolical one:
R. I., On the Crimes of Fr…: “Your children deserve to be molested by these priests, because the Catholic faith is not your primary concern, because you have put the Mass before the Faith, and thus you are not Catholic. God has forgotten you and your children, because you have forgotten Him.”
While R. I. makes a valid point here, that most so-called “traditional Catholics” today despicably deny the Faith and care only about the Latin Mass (i.e., the “Latin Mass alone” heretical mentality) and are therefore not Catholic, this does not justify the egregious claim that because this is so the children of such persons who have been molested deserve to be molested. This is another example of R. I.’s invalid reasoning, whereby he states a truth and then proceeds to conclude something that is not warranted by that truth and which is even evil. While God certainly punishes people who reject Him by allowing evil things to happen, we as humans are not allowed to make such judgments, as God is perfect and morally pure, while we are not; and since we don’t know why such things happen unless through supernatural revelation. In truth, there are many things only God can do, such as killing a person whenever he wants.
Luke 6:45: “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”
There are other problems with R. I.’s positions, but the above should suffice for the purposes of this article. In the meantime we pray for the conversion of R. I.
Those who have signed R. I.’s schismatic abjuration must repudiate it and confess having signed a heretical and schismatic profession of faith which unjustifiably condemns as heretics and schismatics certain people that cannot be proven to be heretics and schismatics.