You overstate your case.  Show me one pope who taught baptism of desire in his formal capacity, the only person you can propose is Pius XII, but this is a fallacy, since he was heretical on this point AND OTHERS.

Show me one Pope that declared the doctrine to be erroneous, let alone "heretical."  Why would a Pope need to teach the doctrine in his "formal capacity" whatever that means?  Are we to assume that short of defining doctrines, no Popes believed anything?  Are we to assume that all Popes have been utterly negligent in allowing this doctrine to be infused into every possible organ of tradition?  That Pope Pius X's very own catechism, which was drawn from his catachetical lectures as a bishop, taught flagrant heresy?  A heresy so obvious that every dogmatic theology missed it?  Are you implying that the Church had abandoned the true Gospel for centuries, by obscuring the pure truth of God's word?  See where this is going?  You've adopted the stance of the early protestant rebels.  You've adopted numerous implicit positions which no catholic can hold and call himself a catholic.  Just be honest with yourself and everyone else: YOU REJECT THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM.  

1) Ratzinger is not to be trusted, and neither is anyone who professes to be Catholic, while asserting that the Primacy of St. Peter is not binding on the Orthodox, but is only a "Primacy of honour", and then proceeds to pray with them (oh yeah and Jєωs and Muslims).
2) Ratzinger did not even say that the Catechism was written by Pius X, but that it stemmed from a text written by him.  Two different things.
3) The Catechism of Pius X was neither intended to be binding on all the faithful, nor was it approved in forma specifica by the pope.
4) The Congregation of the Index would be at fault for the catechism's heresy, not the pope, since he delegated the proscription of heretical literature to them.

More on the Pius X Catechism.

Why was John XXIII an antipope then?  Answer me that one right now.

Says you........proof other than your own judgment.try that answer right now......

Pius XII was a legitimate pope.

You might want to read CM's ideas on that point before "teaming up" with him.  Btw, I am actually rather fond of him.  It is my hope, as he knows, that we can one day (perhaps after this incredible, cleansing shakedown is over) meet and share an ale. :cheers:

Quote from: ProphecyFilm.com

What I have learned from studying (mostly mhfm's site) is...

So, your magister is a group of kleptomaniac non-monks?  Wise choice.

At least they adhere to Church magesteriums teaching and dogmatic definitions. Many of traditional catholics either completely deny the dogmatic definitions or give them other meanings besides from what they actually say. Baptism of blood and baptism of desire are completely false and rejected with the dogmatic definitions on baptism, yet how many false Catholics disregard this, rejects dogmas, and follow their own faith and mind?

Yet I have failed to see them teach anything wrong or against the real Catholic Faith. Not that I know much of the Catholic Faith. But to know that accepting the Church dogmas, is to accept the Faith, is enough for me to know. Therefore, anyone teaching contrary to dogma, is wrong, such as bod & bob activists, since dogmas refutes their position, yet they obstinately hold on to their false believes, embracing all kinds of heresies, as salvation outside the Church, for people rejecting Christ, etc...

Whats your opinion on this? Should we not adhere to Church dogmatic definitions? If so, why then not learn from most holy family, when they teach according to the Church teachings?