Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on June 10, 2018, 10:04:51 PM
-
Bp Pivarunas of the CMRI issued a pastoral exhortation saying that parishioners are not allowed to receive sacraments from Fr. Crawford. He says Fr Crawford was expelled from the seminary, when he was a deacon and he now was ordained by a different bishop. He says that Fr Crawford is a feeneyite and must be avoided. Coming from a Bishop who twice published "The Salvation of those outside the church" article, it is clear who is the real heretic.
Does anyone know who ordained him or what he is doing?
-
He should be avoided. His orders come from Neal Webster. That alone is a serious question mark.
.
-
He should be avoided. His orders come from Neal Webster. That alone is a serious question mark.
.
How do you know they are from Bp Webster?
-
How do you know they are from Bp Webster?
.
Because I know Reverend Crawford and those close to him.
.
Crawford had a little booklet he composed delineating all of this.
-
And an excellent booklet it is! Bishop P. has not exactly covered himself with glory. His treatment of Fr. Crawford and his avoidance of treating of the issues of NFP (the bishop is FOR it) and Fr. Feeney (the bishop is AGAINST him) in a civilized talk, reeks not only of cowardice but evasion of duty and lack of charity. What a Pharisee. He is afraid his kingdom will crumble. Fr. Crawford was one of his best, if not a star, and he is not the one that BP would have wanted to get away or question him in opposition to his liberalism. All he can do is say, "Off with his head!"
-
What Crawford has to say is only titillating to those who already agree with him. And barely at that, since a bunch of "his faithful" in St. Cloud just all decided they'd rather go to mass where they choose then only go to him.
He road the coattails of the CMRI around the country, subversively trying to establish something of a network of credulous laity who would support him once he came out of his Feeneyite closet.
There's nothing civilized about him at all. He's rude, condescending, impatient, and he writes like a middle-schooler. That's before you get to his actual arguments which are sourced improperly, rely on fraudulent material (when they're not lifted out of context and brute-forced into new meanings), and so on. Even if he actually happened to be an honest, decent person, you're still dealing with someone who is a philosophical and theological train wreck.
-
Nice try, keep throwing your ad hominems. But his little booklet is actually an excellent defense of baptism of water. Fr. Crawford is a gentleman. With integrity. More than can be said for The Bishop who is afraid of him and who just keeps dishing up all the old, tired anti-Feeney arguments which those who look into the Feeney case and cause find out are trash. Which Fr. Crawford found out - and had the courage to say so.
-
What do you think I was trying to do?
Have you hitched your wagon to Crawford? Didn't you learn from what's happened already? You realize he was kicked out of his "headquarters", yes, for being a nuisance? That he has a pretty awful habit of hubris, exhibited by him stupidly overplaying his hand in St. Cloud and also in Southern Minnesota, in both instances not only failing to "win over" those who wanted nothing to do wit him but even alienating those who were initially excited about him?
The problems with this man go beyond doctrine and his doubtful validity-- not that those problems can be set aside-- and they go to basic character and decency. And I'm not just talking about the fraudulent quotes in his cute little booklet, the quotes that aren't from where he says they are and that don't say what he says they say. He's got a bad streak, this one. Sorry to rain on the parade. Hopefully you'll see it before you suffer too much under his rotten yoke. Good luck.
-
What do you think I was trying to do?
Have you hitched your wagon to Crawford? Didn't you learn from what's happened already? You realize he was kicked out of his "headquarters", yes, for being a nuisance? That he has a pretty awful habit of hubris, exhibited by him stupidly overplaying his hand in St. Cloud and also in Southern Minnesota, in both instances not only failing to "win over" those who wanted nothing to do wit him but even alienating those who were initially excited about him?
The problems with this man go beyond doctrine and his doubtful validity-- not that those problems can be set aside-- and they go to basic character and decency. And I'm not just talking about the fraudulent quotes in his cute little booklet, the quotes that aren't from where he says they are and that don't say what he says they say. He's got a bad streak, this one. Sorry to rain on the parade. Hopefully you'll see it before you suffer too much under his rotten yoke. Good luck.
Nuisance nothing. He tried to get a hearing, to charitably discuss the Feeney/NFP issues - but it was "see ya later" from the CMRI. I am under no one's yoke - but I am familiar with his case. You defame his character. And keep throwing the garbage at his excellent booklet - it won't stick. May God have mercy on the CMRI which claims to represent Him. What a cult.
-
The trouble with these anonymous threads is that they usually contain gossip.
Gossip concerning priests is reprehensible.
-
how would it be different if it wasn't anonymous
-
Nuisance nothing. He tried to get a hearing, to charitably discuss the Feeney/NFP issues - but it was "see ya later" from the CMRI. I am under no one's yoke - but I am familiar with his case. You defame his character. And keep throwing the garbage at his excellent booklet - it won't stick. May God have mercy on the CMRI which claims to represent Him. What a cult.
.
I'm not talking about his departure from the CMRI. Evidently you don't know much about this "priest" despite your infatuation.
-
That's a calumny. There is no infatuation here. I am defending this priest against your attacks that are taking place on a public forum where people who know nothing about his case will only have your misleading hostilities to go by. The CMRI treated him, and his request for a fair hearing, with unjust highhandedness - and you here represent their spirit quite well.
-
Lol first it's gossip, then defamation, now calumny-- keep trying out different accusations until you find one you'd like to stick with.
I couldn't care less about the CMRI-- again, I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about Crawford, whose ideas, personality, and behavior are inexcusable even if the cmri dumped him in the middle of the ocean. Sounds to me like Crawford might just be your excuse to chuck turds at the cmri, given how difficult you find it to not bring them up.
-
Bp Pivarunas of the CMRI issued a pastoral exhortation saying that parishioners are not allowed to receive sacraments from Fr. Crawford. He says Fr Crawford was expelled from the seminary, when he was a deacon and he now was ordained by a different bishop. He says that Fr Crawford is a feeneyite and must be avoided. Coming from a Bishop who twice published "The Salvation of those outside the church" article, it is clear who is the real heretic.
Does anyone know who ordained him or what he is doing?
a pretend bishop excommunicating a pretend priest. all role playing fantasy. the real world is scary enough. glad i'm not in their's.
-
a pretend bishop excommunicating a pretend priest. all role playing fantasy. the real world is scary enough. glad i'm not in their's.
but i really do feel sorry for those in good faith following these pretenders. If the SSPX had kept the Faith and acted with charity many would not have felt the need to look elsewhere for the sacraments.
-
Bp Pivarunas of the CMRI issued a pastoral exhortation saying that parishioners are not allowed to receive sacraments from Fr. Crawford. He says Fr Crawford was expelled from the seminary, when he was a deacon and he now was ordained by a different bishop. He says that Fr Crawford is a feeneyite and must be avoided. Coming from a Bishop who twice published "The Salvation of those outside the church" article, it is clear who is the real heretic.
Does anyone know who ordained him or what he is doing?
It is impossible that Fr Crawford could possibly be a feeneyite and a sedevacantist.
-
It is impossible that Fr Crawford could possibly be a feeneyite and a sedevacantist.
When a man's brain runs on emotion and when he abhors logic, it's PERFECTLY possible.
-
The OP is a bit misleading.
There was no "excommunication." Bishop Pivarunas wrote a letter-- I'm not sure exactly how widely it circulated, but it was at least disseminated in the midwest. This letter was published at CMRI chapels and it was not an excommunication. It was a brief summary of how Crawford's ideas are condemned (mainly by Vatican I, who says that the pope has no judge), and it concluded by saying that faithful who continue to attend his "masses" will not be administered sacraments by any priests under the spiritual care of Bishop Pivarunas.
Crawford has caused quite a bit of turmoil in the midwest (and elsewhere). When he was a seminarian at the CMRI he was clandestinely "recruiting" people and establishing a network among the laity to support him for when he decided to finally leave (he was dismissed from the CMRI, yes, but he knew that was coming if he came out as a Feeneyite, and the exact same thing would happen if he had been a seminarian at the SSPX, SSPV, or at Brooksville. There are no traditionalist clergy organizations who are Feenyite, thank God). So since he was dismissed he went off to Tennessee or wherever it is that Neal Webster is hanging out and got ordained by him-- maybe. Who knows if Neal Webster is a bishop? Crawford's own defense of his orders is a mess, and it doesn't at all attempt to defend Webster's priestly orders, which so far as I'm aware came from the FSSP and he was never conditionally ordained, which means he couldn't make a bishop even if the man consecrating him a bishop actually was one. Anyways, after Crawford went off to get ordained (which he didn't waste any time doing; he was out of the CMRI around late 2016 and showed up in early 2017 "ordained") he activated his sleeper cells throughout the midwest and there was a fairly noticeable exodus from CMRI chapels, including one chapel which he tried to have himself installed at (no dice, Laus Deo).
So there's the Cliff's notes history. Crawford, a man with doubtful orders and dubious doctrine, has been sowing discord among the faithful (his Feeneyism is not his only problem doctrinally speaking) and getting them to patronize him. Given that his doctrine is bad, his orders a mess, and everywhere he goes he leaves a path of disgruntled, agitated faithful, Bishop Pivarunas waited about two years and now he's telling faithful that if they want to go to Crawford they're not going to be able to come to the CMRI. Is that a good reaction? We can certainly debate it. It was obviously a deliberated and not hasty decision given the lapse in time between when he started causing problems and now. I don't have a problem with it; in fact, I think that many of Crawford's "faithful" near one of the CMRI chapels were only at the CMRI chapel because the local SSPX had already kicked them out for being Feeneyites. You're not going to find any traditionalist organization that suffers Feeneyism. To varying degrees they all condemn it. If anything, what the CMRI is at fault for is suffering Feeneyites for too long. For turning a blind eye to them and being pitiful and merciful toward them, even thought many of them aren't sedes, but because they had been run out of the SSPX.
Point being-- besides providing some background on the case-- Bishop Pivarunas didn't (and didn't even try) to "excommunicate" anybody.
-
Best to always avoid CMRI.
-
Why is a controversy that is solely within sedevacantist circles something that the "de-facto discussion headquarters for the SSPX Resistance" cares about?
But if there is anything to discuss, the OP has the duty to publish the letter (or a link) here so that members can actually discuss the docuмent itself rather than what may or may not be a proper characterization of it.
-
.
Not in TX, they haven't. They married a feenyite young man to an sspx member at the sspx chapel without the young man having to change his beliefs. Further, the sspx gives the young man's parents and siblings sacraments whenever they show up and they are WELL KNOWN feenyites.
That's because SSPX is only passively and not strictly anti-feeneyite, whereas CMRI is strictly and vehemently anti-feeneyite due to their belief that salvation can be had outside of the Catholic Church.
-
That's because SSPX is only passively and not strictly anti-feeneyite, whereas CMRI is strictly and vehemently anti-feeneyite due to their belief that salvation can be had outside of the Catholic Church.
Well that's a strange thing to say given that the whole Crawford fiasco was exacerbated in part precisely because the CMRI, or at least a particular CMRI chapel, was accepting and non-interferent of Feeneyites.
-
Well that's a strange thing to say given that the whole Crawford fiasco was exacerbated in part precisely because the CMRI, or at least a particular CMRI chapel, was accepting and non-interferent of Feeneyites.
Strange perhaps, but true.
-
Lol first it's gossip, then defamation, now calumny-- keep trying out different accusations until you find one you'd like to stick with.
.
How about detraction? Or slander? Or since this is written material, libel? Take your pick, it's SINFUL.
.
You could say Mohammedans worship a false god, Mohammed, who was a pervert, pedarist, rapist and murderer.
That would be the truth, and it could do a lot of good.
Because they say they don't worship Mohammed, but they'll cut your head off for saying he's a murderer and a rapist.
Looks like worship to me! Plus, their Allah has been found to have demonic possession of Moslems. (sic)
.
But smearing the name of a priest who's being attacked for daring to say, there's no salvation outside the Church?
What good could ever come of that?
-
These people of the CMRI and the like have more problem with "Feeneyites" than they do with Novus Ordites.
Crazy!
-
Best to always avoid CMRI.
Amen.
-
There are no traditionalist clergy organizations who are Feenyite, thank God).
It is just a matter of time. "Feeneyites" are found across ALL organizations.
-
These people of the CMRI and the like have more problem with "Feeneyites" than they do with Novus Ordites.
Crazy!
.
Nor can they even tell you WHY they're so up-in-arms against "Feeneyism." They can't define what that means.
Mithradylan is a prime example.
Ignorance loves company.
-
.
Nor can they even tell you WHY they're so up-in-arms against "Feeneyism." They can't define what that means.
Mithradylan is a prime example.
Ignorance loves company.
It would help them to read Fr. Crawford's booklet in defense of Fr. Feeney and baptism of water.
But probably it is too theologically correct for them to follow - too deep, you know.
-
That's because SSPX is only passively and not strictly anti-feeneyite, whereas CMRI is strictly and vehemently anti-Feeneyite due to their belief that salvation can be had outside of the Catholic Church.
.
Precisely. Just like Vatican II says, with which they objectively agree.
.
CMRI has no problem with Protestants, Mormons, Buddhists, Jєωs, Hindus, or atheists (including Communists), etc., because they firmly believe that there IS salvation outside the Church. They believe it as if it were defined dogma. You see, the problem is, they don't know what definition IS when it comes to dogma.
.
If the CMRI seem to be opposed to Vat.II, it's only because they pretend it's not a Council of the Church -- because John XXIII wasn't a real pope, you see. That explains EVERYTHING, you see! At least they're consistent. They accept the liturgical changes in Holy Week under Pius XII for the same reason, even though that was the opening of Pandora's box, because, "He was a valid Pope." Never mind he's the one who put Fr. Annibale Bugnini (the Freemason) into his office of destruction of Sacred Tradition, etc... Just never mind that.
.
Just never mind the fact that some Freemason (Bugnini?) put into the ear of Pius XII that all these octaves on the calendar are "too confusing!" and bowing to the name of Jesus in the rubrics is "too confusing!" so, then, let's get rid of them! Just never mind that. Rip these things out of the missal so that by 1962 a "new and improved" version can come out, one that the SSPX even will be tricked into accepting. Yeah. That's the ticket!
.
The CMRI don't have any doctrinal difficulty with Vat.II. (They say they do, but that's just a game in deception they like to play.)
.
Frs. Dominic & Francisco Radecki CMRI, for example, have been coming out with a "new book" that's over a year late now, supposedly about Vat.II, but it's looking a lot like they had to re-write it. Gee. Wonder why? Their previous book, Tumultuous Times, is overstocked, undersold, and full of glaring problems.
.
Perhaps they're having a hard time avoiding the same problems with the new book! (What a shocker! :o )
.
-
It would help them to read Fr. Crawford's booklet in defense of Fr. Feeney and baptism of water.
But probably it is too theologically correct for them to follow - too deep, you know.
.
I would suspect they've already seen the booklet, and they wouldn't dare touch it like it's Kryptonite to Superman.
You know, radioactive.
.
Don't want to get cooties.
.
-
CMRI was founded using cult like tactics enabling them to coerce a seemingly large number of vocations. They basically manipulated many young people attending their week long Espiritu Seminars. The attendees were told that if they even had a thought of becoming a Priest or a Nun then they had a vocation. If they didn't follow this supposed vocation, then they would damn their souls. This was all carried out with little sleep or food allowed. After their founder was kicked out, several Priests attempted to reform them to no avail. These good Priests were also kicked out or left and some were slandered. The CMRI clergy are and always will be self taught and have fabricated their own private brand of theology. Unfortunately, there are a lot of good lay people who got caught by them. Some were desperate for the Mass and Sacraments. CMRI will dangle those out there as part of the production they portray as Catholicism. They are well trained in putting on a good exterior show and front. It is really quite a tragedy for all involved. I realize that it is not entirely their fault, but it still is not good. God bless you all!
-
Did Bp. Pivarunas actually “excommunicate” this man, or is the OP just making this up? So I am clear, excommunication is a specific canonical term. Was the term used? If not, then this entire thread is misinformation.
-
Did Bp. Pivarunas actually “excommunicate” this man, or is the OP just making this up?
Yes.
-
Yes.
No.
-
No.
This.
-
Please provide tangible docuмentation Pivarunis received a papal mandate from Pius XII and/or his clergy.
-
Did Bp. Pivarunas actually “excommunicate” this man, or is the OP just making this up? So I am clear, excommunication is a specific canonical term. Was the term used? If not, then this entire thread is misinformation.
The OP is just making it up.
-
Please provide tangible docuмentation Pivarunis received a papal mandate from Pius XII and/or his clergy.
That’s not pertinent to this thread.
-
That’s not pertinent to this thread.
Nothing is pertinent to this thread, because it is not a thread at all, as it contains no enlightening information, and who cares after all?