I have posted this elsewhere. I think they should go as well.
I am sick to death heresies from these self-made pontiffs and the idiocy of people pretending that all sedes believe this way.

For the record I did try to help David Landry but he denounced me as a heretic.

Ibut he denounced me as a heretic.

not unusual

There is not that much info about Landry out there.  But he is leading people away from the Catholic faith with his antics.  While the crises in the Church worsens he comes out of nowhere and declares Pope Leo XIII and his successors to be anti-popes.  Landry’s motives are suspicious to say the least.

he has pushed that vacant chair back then since he was here by about 2....

No one has to pay any attention to him.  Like most misbehaving children, he will eventually go away if you starve him of attention.

Please explain so this layman can understand, Emerentiana.  I haven't read the poison.  Can we lay it out, one line at a time and paint the skull and crossbones on it?

Not so.  Pope Pius IX was the last Catholic Pontiff who did not lose office for heresy.  I have DEFENDED HIM against accusations of heresy (on my blog) and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (Cathinfo).




Matthew, I'm being called out, but I will nevertheless refrain from "busting out the quotes", but I will defend myself against the false and unjust charge of heresy.

Please explain so this layman can understand, Emerentiana.  I haven't read the poison.  Can we lay it out, one line at a time and paint the skull and crossbones on it?

Foundational principles, which are then applied to the various teachings of men claiming to be the ones who safeguard Catholic orthodoxy, but who taught contrary to the same (Leo XIII - Benedict XVI), in light of the dogmatic fact that a pope cannot be a heretic and a heretic cannot be pope.
 

After the destruction of the faith of my dear friend (started by  reading Feeney..............now listening to Landry),  I received the same tripe from him via e mails.  I deleted them.

In other words, you dislike anyone who denounces BoD, as I do.

This man posts on his website, and NOW his found a new wider audience here!  I doubt any other forum would allow him to post his poison.

An unqualified appellation of "poison".  Unpopular positions, yes, but only because most evidently people do not bother to go to the foundational principles of the Faith they claim to believe, and see how they practically affect the circuмstances of our age.

It one thing for trad Catholics to discuss our differences.......its another to allow blatant heresy, discrediting the Holy fathers of hundreds of years ago!

The Fathers made mistakes.  This is undeniable.  Cyprian's error on the baptism of heretics was later condemned as heresy, but the Church had made no decision on it in his day, thus Pope St. Stephen did not anathematize him; he was not a heretic.  There are other examples.  Many Fathers believed BoD before the dogma was defined that Baptism in water was the only means of salvation and justification.  St. Gregory Nanzianzen just happened to be one of the very few Fathers who was staunchly against BoD.  But the numbers do not give a doctrine the mark of de fide, only the unanimous consent of the Fathers can do so.

Do any of you have a bio of this David Landry????
  Im not able to find one.  I submit he is a disinfo agent!

Your opinion is false.  Why should there be a bio on me?  I am nobody.  You know the name of my family and that which my parents gave me at birth, what more do you want?  Finally, I cannot be a disinfo agent, because every quote I use is readily available and VERIFIABLE to anyone with a computer or a copy of the Ecuмenical Councils.  These men (papal claimants) have said what I am saying they said, and the Church has taught what the consequences of saying such things are.

He, like my friend, never answers questions, but just keeps going forward posting his poison.  My friend is like a zombie.  If I try to talk to him and ask him a question, he immediatly plugs in David Landry's answers.  Scarey![/b]

You haven’t asked me any questions, so how would you know?  The only disinfo agent here is you.  You have posted threads ABOUT me but never TO me.

And so it seems your friend agrees with me, fine.  But how do you know they are my answers if you delete and do not read what I have written?  And how can you say that I am in error if you do not know the sources of Catholic authority I quote and submit to?  And, if you do not know what these are, then how can you know that they are wrong or how to refute them?

Please note, Emerantiana, that I would appreciate it if you would address every sentence above that I direct at you and that ends in a question mark.

Unless he is banned,

I was banned.  For denouncing people.  I'm not here to denounce people, but to see if anyone will have the charity to not only say "You're wrong!  You're wrong!  You're wrong!", but to actually explain how this may be so.  And if they cannot, I would think it only reasonable that they admit they were wrong.  It's not that hard to do.  we're all stupid wretches, but we just have to admit it and change and move on when it is reasonably and truthfully shown to us.  Do you agree?  (note the question mark)

this man will continue to post and post his poison without expending any of his energy on debates (you notice he says that).

Very well.  Matthew, may I please have permission to start one thread and one thread alone, wherein I may debate BoD and the pre-Vatican II antipopes?  I will not do so if you should tell me not to, but I do not want to give the impression that I am running from debate.  I most certainly am not.

By a person privately contacting him........he can expend is energy one person at a time.  Reminds me of a spider.  Only one fly at a time in the web.

Seriously, that is just mean.

By sinful curiosity, you will be sucked in, as my friend was!

It is not sinful to want to resolve the obvious conflicts that one must certainly be aware are existent in the various positions espoused by certain institutions bearing the Catholic name.

His writings are so very dangerous because they are so subtle.  While pretinding to defend the church, he starts tearing it down bit by bit.....a little poison at a time.  

How on earth would you come to a decision like that if you admit that you don't read what I write?  you delete them, remember?

He cloaks his pride in false humility "Im just a layman doing what I can"

I don't cloak my pride in any way whatsoever.  But I certainly don't lie when I say that I am just a layman and a nobody.  I work a dirty low paying job and I don't even own a car.  Even nobodies have to work on their pride.

The newcomer here can read his posts and click on his links...............imbibe his poison.

Why exactly do you call it poison?  You never did explain that.  (question mark again Emerantiana)

The end result  of his poison is the "converted" will stop attending mass.  Isnt that the devils final end game????[/b][/size] :heretic:

Interesting.  Do you think that every Mass is licit?  Don't you think that satan wants people to go to false or illicit Masses?

I am sick to death heresies

No heresies Dawn.

from these self-made pontiffs

That is incorrect.  I'm a layman.

For the record I did try to help David Landry but he denounced me as a heretic.

As I see it we were helping each other.  You recognized the truth and then went back on it.

There is not that much info about Landry out there.

Why should there be?  I pray, go to work, pray a bit more I exercise, I recreate, I read, post, pray, sleep and do it again.  It's not exactly a public life I live.

But he is leading people away from the Catholic faith with his antics.

No, I am inviting people to ask harder questions than some want to.

While the crises in the Church worsens he comes out of nowhere and declares Pope Leo XIII and his successors to be anti-popes.

If I am wrong, refute me please.  if I am wrong I am schismatic.  Do you think I'm not aware of where such as these end up after their blink of an eye lifetimes?  But the positions I hold have stood up to all scrutiny thus far.

Landry’s motives are suspicious to say the least.

You only say this because you disagree with my positions (without having dissected and refuted them, that is).  Everybody's motives are suspicious.  

he has pushed that vacant chair back then since he was here by about 2....

The principles upon which I understand the Faith have not changed.  They are those proposed in my blog.  NOBODY has ever even attempted to refute these principles.  Nobody has so much as started an argument about them.  

The article has been there for a year, and is a paraphrasing of an article by a friend of mine that I read longer ago than that.  All we have done is been exposed to various instances that show a necessity to apply the principles earlier on in history than we had thought.

But of all the articles on my blog, this one has received ZERO comments.  People are arguing with me about all sorts of other things over there, but never this.

And the sad thing is that whenever I say to someone who doesn't know my positions (and who claims to be Catholic) "Please look at this and tell me if you agree or disagree", they almost invariably comes back and says "Oh yeah I agree with that."

Then they see that I reject Pius XII as an antipope and they get scared and don't want to read anything else.  Whoops, they have already admitted that my foundational premises are sound and in accordance with Catholic common sense.  Better not see how far the rabbit hole goes.

I think your premises are wrong, CM, but I think you are right that they should be brought out and treated.  

Your opening salvo, as I called it, on Pius IX was refuted by me on the basis of its source---always consider the source.  I wouldn't take freemason's word for the time of day and I wouldn't trust them with my trash.

As for the rest of it, I'm no theologian.  But I will bet on the popes over anything you can throw against them.  They must fail beyond a shadow of a doubt, for the simple reason that it is impossible to prove a negative.