Monday, February 1, 2010

Richard Ibranyi, Gate Keeper Extraordinaire

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians: "Do not err, my brethren. (James 1:16) Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) If, then, those who do this as respects the flesh have suffered death, how much more shall this be the case with any one who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such an one becoming defiled [in this way], shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him."

St. Ignatius, pray for us!

Richard Ibranyi of 'Mary's Little Remnant' (MLR) in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, claims to be the "prophet Elias" one of the witnesses of the Apocalypse. He has a compound called "Mary's Little Remnant" in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, where he invites people to come and live who wish to profess the Catholic Faith and live a life of holiness.

Richard Ibranyi, "On RJMI": "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!"

The problem is that he is not Catholic and never has been, nor does he even closely resemble one whose spirit is of God. This article outlines very briefly that his true nature is that of a heretic, schismatic and false prophet. This is unfortunate, because he otherwise professes many of the correct positions, such as that one may not receive sacraments from or attend the Mass of a heretic.

This article will explain his main heretical and schismatic positions, and will present some audios of his very own words to demonstrate the pure evil of this man.


First, his most obvious heresy:

On his website, has a "Heretic and Schismatic List", in which he lists various errors against the Catholic Faith. However, under the error code "BWS" he says the following:

"They wrongly believe that it is heretical, instead of only erroneous, to hold one of the following opinions: 1) Baptism by water is absolutely necessary for justification and salvation. 2) Baptism by water is absolutely necessary for salvation but not always for justification. 3) Baptism by water is not always necessary for justification and salvation; that is, catechumens can be justified by baptism of desire, if they have perfect contrition, or by blood martyrdom, which implies perfect contrition."

Richard Ibranyi believes that the dogma of the absolute necessity of receiving the sacrament of Holy Baptism, administered in water, not only may have exceptions, but is not even a dogma!

He is in fact completely wrong. The statement "Baptism by water is not always necessary for justification and salvation" is not only erroneous, it is heretical and here is the explanation why, the Magisterial proof. It involves three premises:

1) Just because something has never been explicitly condemned by name as heretical (such as something like "We preach, profess and define that baptism of desire is heresy if it contradicts the absolute necessity of the sacrament of Baptism in water") that it is still heresy if it is contrary EVEN IN THE LEAST DEGREE to a dogmatic definition of the Holy See.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 3, #8-9: "Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end."

Deny any part of the dogmatic Magisterium, and you are not a part of God's family - you are a heretic.

That being said, you can't get much more explicit than the Council of Trent, which stated:

"If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema."

2) The Magisterium has ALREADY defined the absolute necessity of the SACRAMENT of baptism for every single person who is to be regenerated in Christ:

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, AD 1311-1312 (Tanner Vol. 15, p. 361) (the first dogmatic definition which rendered it unlawful to believe that a person may be saved without the sacrament of Baptism - and it behooves us to look first at the Latin): Ad hoc baptisma unicum baptizatos omnes in Christo regenerans est, sicut unus Deus ac fides unica, ab omnibus fideliter confitendum, quod celebratum in aqua in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, credimus esse tam adultis quam parvulis communiter perfectum remedium ad salutem.

As anyone can see who takes pains to translate it, this is one sentence (contrary to the English translation in Tanner, which breaks it up into two sentences), and that it says in no uncertain terms:

"To this one Baptism which baptizes all people who in Christ are regenerated, as one God and one Faith, all the faithful must confess, which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, we believe to be, in common for adults and infants, a perfect remedy unto salvation."

Conversely, even the English translation offered by Tanner is undeniable:

"All are faithfully to profess that there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith'. We believe that when baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit, it is a perfect means of salvation for both adults and children."

If the dogmatic definition says that there is one Baptism which regenerates ALL who are baptized in Christ, and it is celebrated in water, then it is heresy to say that a person may be saved without receiving it, because this would be a recession from the authoritative Magisterium (as demonstrated by premise 1).

3) To reiterate premise 1, here is the Magisterial proof that a definition of the Holy See may never be contradicted even in the slighted, and in fact the first quote even comes from Richard Ibranyi's own website:

Richard Ibranyi, "The Salvation Dogma": "To justify their denial of a dogma, heretics either misinterpret a dogma or believe that a dogma is not a dogma or believe that a dogma can change its meaning according to time, place, or other circumstances. The heretics who believe that a dogma can change its meaning are guilty of yet another heresy—the heresy that a dogma can change its meaning. I call this heresy “the dogma-changer heresy” and these heretics “dogma changers.” Several times the Catholic Church has infallibly defined that the meaning of a dogma cannot change for any reason and hence its meaning remains eternally the same:
"Vatican Council, 1870: “For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained which Holy Mother Church has once declared and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”"

Oh the irony when Richard says "heretics either misinterpret a dogma or believe that a dogma is not a dogma"! Is it a dogma or isn't it that there is one Baptism that cleanses every single person who is to be regenerated in Christ, and that this one Baptism is the SACRAMENT in WATER? Is it or is it not a dogma that anyone who says Baptism is not necessary is anathema? Do you accept the declaration of Vienne as it has once been declared, as well as those, which came afterward at Florence and Trent?

Or do you make an exception where they left no room for any? Do you reform the dogmatic definition to be no longer dogmatic? Or do you make untenable excuses to deny the dogma?

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, 1870: "[W]e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."

Richard even admits that dogmatic definitions can have no exceptions - and yet he ignores the fact that he is a heretic and contradicting himself for his denial of the dogmatic definitions on Baptism from the Councils of Vienne, Florence and Trent, as well as the definition that ex cathedra decrees are of themselves irreformable.

Here is a quote from him regarding the "invincible ignorance" controversy and Pope Pius IX:

Richard Ibranyi, "The Salvation Dogma": "Not only have past popes never taught any exceptions, but the clear wording of their infallible decrees condemn anyone who would teach there are exceptions."

So he should know better than to say that the absolute necessity of water baptism is not a dogma. His position is untenable and is damning souls.


Next, his schism:
Out of his own heretical mouth

Richard Ibranyi says that it is not enough for a person to believe everything he believes (which as we have seen above is not the Catholic Faith anyway, but a heretical sect), but that you have to be in contact and communion with HIM specifically and his group, or you are not Catholic. In other words, he refuses communion with you even if you believe all that he believes (which ironically includes his heresy) but you just don't feel the need to have anything to do with him or his group.

Here it is, stated in many different ways, and from his own mouth:


Here Richard states that the ONLY place where the Catholic Church exists now is his own little flock in New Mexico:



He explicitly calls people to get up and move to his location:


"You need us, we don't need you"!

And if they don't he considers them to be schismatic, even if they believe his heretical version of the Catholic Faith. Listen to him in this next clip and note the irony that he talks about trumping up heresies (despite that he is himself heretical) and it's VERY interesting indeed to hear one of the young men in his audience tell him that his cross is flipped over. Was he wearing an upside down cross!?




At one point a group of people had left his camp, after writing a letter to all the members who remained there. In the letter accused Richard of moral contradictions and transgressions, although they never accused him of heresy or of schism. In other words, they felt that he was a sinful, dishonest and hypocritical man and that they could not be subject to him anymore as a result. However, Richard accused them of schism, and refused to acknowledge them as Catholics as a result.


Of course none of these people were Catholic while subject to Richard. But if he had been a Catholic at that time, the actions of those who wrote the letter would not have been schismatic. If anyone would have lost their Catholicity and communion with the Holy Mother Church in that event, it would have been Richard for wrongly pronouncing them schismatic, as well as those who remained subject to him, for being subject to the 'authority' of a schismatic superior. That's right, he considers himself to be a religious superior with authority:


Moses' Authority (!?!?!)

And how about a perfect example, straight out of the DESERT of New Mexico, of fulfillment of the prophetic warning given by Christ so many centuries ago.

St. Matthew 24:24-26: "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not"

"I'm like Christ" (!!!!!!!)


He really seems to believe this, because he has taken it upon himself to grant 'absolution' to people when they confess to him, despite that he is not ordained:

'Absolving'

Richard Ibranyi is more concerned about being called a fast talker, or "having the gift of gab" than he is about being called a heretic. Probably because he is a heretic. And wouldn't one think it a far worse charge to be called a heretic than anything else?

"Call me a heretic, but don't say I have the gift of gab!"

Psalms 95:5: "For all the gods of the Gentiles (or heretics and schismatics) are devils: but the Lord made the heavens."

Finally, since it is now clear that Ibranyi is inventing his own depraved religion, it is therefore also clear that his god is a false god (i.e. devil), and not the one true and Triune God of the Holy Catholic Church. Bear this in mind while he we turn it over to him and let him finish this article off in his own words:

No comments:

Post a Comment