Author Topic: Richard Ibranyi (Read 18490 times)

Sneakyticks · « **on:** July 19, 2014, 12:30:00 AM »

This maniac thinks even St. Bridget of Sweden was an "apostate".

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #1 on:** July 19, 2014, 01:04:13 AM »

This is what he actually said:

Quote

NOTE: Canonizations are not infallible! Several so-called saints have been removed from the calendar because they were either notorious heretics or notoriously immoral (e.g., Thomas Aquinas, Apostate Antipopes Pius V and Pius X, Alphonsus de Liguori, Therese of Lisieux, Albert the Great, Vincent Ferrer, Bridget of Sweden). Others have been removed because they were gravely suspect of heresy or immorality. Saints for whom we have no evidence of being heretics or immoral or gravely suspect of heresy or immorality will be listed as saints even though the ones who died from 1130 onward could not be canonized because all of the so-called popes from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward were apostate antipopes.

Mabel · « **Reply #2 on:** July 19, 2014, 01:49:13 AM »

I think the only appropriate reply when that name is mentioned is "No."

roscoe · « **Reply #3 on:** July 19, 2014, 02:02:47 AM »

What does he say about E revolving around S? :smoke-pot:

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #4 on:** July 19, 2014, 02:15:02 AM »

My mistake, I thought he had said she was an apostate but apparently it's either "notorious heretic or notoriously immoral".

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2014, 02:20:18 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

What does he say about E revolving around S? :smoke-pot:

What is your thing with geocentrism/heliocentrism?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2014, 10:10:40 AM »

Stay far away from this man.

He thinks Aquinas, Liguori and many other saints are heretics. He also thinks every pope since Peter Lombard was an anti pope.

Ambrose · « **Reply #7 on:** July 19, 2014, 11:24:39 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Stay far away from this man.

He thinks Aquinas, Liguori and many other saints are heretics. He also thinks every pope since Peter Lombard was an anti pope.

People like Richard Ibranyi take the denial of Baptism of Desire to its logical ends.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #8 on:** July 19, 2014, 11:36:10 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Stay far away from this man.

He thinks Aquinas, Liguori and many other saints are heretics. He also thinks every pope since Peter Lombard was an anti pope.

People like Richard Ibranyi take the denial of Baptism of Desire to its logical ends.

So very true; He and the Dimond brothers are peas from the same pod, literally.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** July 19, 2014, 12:29:25 PM »

No, Ibranyi actually highlights the problems with sedevacantism. Of course most sedevacantists will disavow Ibranyi and denounce him as a nutjob.

But WHY is Ibranyi a nutjob? That kind of consideration is EXACTLY what led me to backtrack away from sedevacantism. I ran into a slightly less nutty person who believed that Pius XII was not a legitimate pope. Most sedevacantists would reject that position. OK, fine.

But the important thing is to understand WHY rejecting Pius XII is wrong. Based on what PRINCIPLE would it not be allowed to reject a Pius XII? It's not enough to say that you can't reject Pius XII but can reject Paul VI. You have to explain why it's OK in the case of Paul VI but NOT OK in the case of Pius XII. What is the PRINCIPLE involved? Only thing I ever hear is that Paul VI was a heretic but Pius XII was not. But that's all based on the fact that you simply say so. Those people who reject Pius XII are just as certain that he was a heretic as you are that Paul VI was a heretic.

When I have time this evening, I'll explain how it is that I came from considerations like this to investigating and coming to understand that principles that led to my sede-doubtist position.

It's exactly the kindof extreme applications of sedevacantism (such as exemplified by Ibranyi) that led to me rethinking sedevacantism.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** July 19, 2014, 12:35:27 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Stay far away from this man.

He thinks Aquinas, Liguori and many other saints are heretics. He also thinks every pope since Peter Lombard was an anti pope.

People like Richard Ibranyi take the denial of Baptism of Desire to its logical ends.

No, Ambrose, this is about taking SEDEVACANTISM to its logical conclusions. Lots of people do not believe in BoD who are not sedevacantists, and these people do not go around deposing popes and saints and doctors of the Church. It's the SEDEVACANTIST BoDers (few as they are) who go around excommunicating and deposing, not because of the BoD but because of the sedevacantism. Many / most of the BoDers accept the V2 popes. It's people like the Dimonds and Ibranyi, the sedevacantists among them, who go nuts deposing popes and declaring St. Alphonsus to be a heretic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** July 19, 2014, 12:36:27 PM »

I knew someone who believed in BoD and yet rejected Pius XII (for other reasons ... in particular the Holy Week Rite changes).

Cantarella · « **Reply #12 on:** July 19, 2014, 01:17:37 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

No, Ibranyi actually highlights the problems with sedevacantism. Of course most sedevacantists will disavow Ibranyi and denounce him as a nutjob.

But WHY is Ibranyi a nutjob? That kind of consideration is EXACTLY what led me to backtrack away from sedevacantism. I ran into a slightly less nutty person who believed that Pius XII was not a legitimate pope. Most sedevacantists would reject that position. OK, fine.

But the important thing is to understand WHY rejecting Pius XII is wrong. Based on what PRINCIPLE would it not be allowed to reject a Pius XII? It's not enough to say that you can't reject Pius XII but can reject Paul VI. You have to explain why it's OK in the case of Paul VI but NOT OK in the case of Pius XII. What is the PRINCIPLE involved? Only thing I ever hear is that Paul VI was a heretic but Pius XII was not. But that's all based on the fact that you simply say so. Those people who reject Pius XII are just as certain that he was a heretic as you are that Paul VI was a heretic.

When I have time this evening, I'll explain how it is that I came from considerations like this to investigating and coming to understand that principles that led to my sede-doubtist position.

It's exactly the kindof extreme applications of sedevacantism (such as exemplified by Ibranyi) that led to me rethinking sedevacantism.

And the same reason sedevacantism will never amount to anything.

It degenerates into a Protestantized version of Catholicism which responds to no authority but self.

Also, for many, it degenerates into plain lunacy combined with a paranoiac bitter zeal.

roscoe · « **Reply #13 on:** July 19, 2014, 01:33:00 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

No, Ibranyi actually highlights the problems with sedevacantism. Of course most sedevacantists will disavow Ibranyi and denounce him as a nutjob.

But WHY is Ibranyi a nutjob? That kind of consideration is EXACTLY what led me to backtrack away from sedevacantism. I ran into a slightly less nutty person who believed that Pius XII was not a legitimate pope. Most sedevacantists would reject that position. OK, fine.

But the important thing is to understand WHY rejecting Pius XII is wrong. Based on what PRINCIPLE would it not be allowed to reject a Pius XII? It's not enough to say that you can't reject Pius XII but can reject Paul VI. You have to explain why it's OK in the case of Paul VI but NOT OK in the case of Pius XII. What is the PRINCIPLE involved? Only thing I ever hear is that Paul VI was a heretic but Pius XII was not. But that's all based on the fact that you simply say so. Those people who reject Pius XII are just as certain that he was a heretic as you are that Paul VI was a heretic.

When I have time this evening, I'll explain how it is that I came from considerations like this to investigating and coming to understand that principles that led to my sede-doubtist position.

It's exactly the kindof extreme applications of sedevacantism (such as exemplified by Ibranyi) that led to me rethinking sedevacantism.

The reason we reject Paul 6 & not Pius XII is because the former is not legally elected. :detective:

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #14 on:** July 19, 2014, 01:33:51 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Stay far away from this man.

He thinks Aquinas, Liguori and many other saints are heretics. He also thinks every pope since Peter Lombard was an anti pope.

People like Richard Ibranyi take the denial of Baptism of Desire to its logical ends.

No, Ambrose, this is about taking SEDEVACANTISM to its logical conclusions. Lots of people do not believe in BoD who are not sedevacantists, and these people do not go around deposing popes and saints and doctors of the Church. It's the SEDEVACANTIST BoDers (few as they are) who go around excommunicating and deposing, not because of the BoD but because of the sedevacantism. Many / most of the BoDers accept the V2 popes. It's people like the Dimonds and Ibranyi, the sedevacantists among them, who go nuts deposing popes and declaring St. Alphonsus to be a heretic.

That's because those people believe heretics retain Church membership and that the Church can teach all manner of error so long as it isnt solemnly defined.