What good does it avail you to go through history pope by pope, trying to anathematize any one you can? This is so absurd that eventually someone will say that Peter was an anti-pope because he disagreed with Paul at times.

Why do you outright and openly lie when anyone can look up this encyclical on the Internet?  

Benedict XV does indeed say that Christ shed His blood for all mankind.  The implication is that Jesus' blood was SUFFICIENT to save all mankind, and that Jesus WISHED that they would all be saved, though He knew they wouldn't.  Do you think God wishes for anyone to be damned?  No, it is Feeneyites who wish for that.

As you'll see if you read the very next sentence:  "Hence the Divine Pastor has one part of the human race already happily sheltered within the fold,  the others He declares He will lovingly urge to enter therein."  In other words, Benedict XV right here says that many, many people are not within the fold, meaning they are not Catholics.  If they do become Catholics, Jesus' blood will be sufficient to save them.  Do you have any objection to this?

Does this sound Freemasonic to you?  "Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: "Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down." In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: "Old things, but in a new way."

Michael, there is no lie in my post.  His words are clear.  He taught universal salvation by saying that everyone was redeemed from the slavery of sin, when the truth is only those baptized are redeemed.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, February 4, 1442: "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God..."

Unless you want to assert that the dominion of the devil and slavery of sin are different things.

Feeneyite is not a correct term to apply to me.  I recognize Feeney as a heretic.

You accuse me of denying Trent.  Why don't you provide the quote from the Holy Synod that you think I am denying, then?  If it is true that I am denying something from Trent, then I will repent, of course.