Author Topic: Bishop Mark Pivarunas - Bishop Francis Konrad Schuckardt (Read 8963 times)

romantheology · « **on:** October 30, 2011, 03:58:32 PM »

I read in the book (Communicatio in Sacris) by William DeTucci and Patrick Pollock the following statement which is also found in the book "Smoke of Satan."

Pivarunas knew about this and did nothing? hmmm.....Pivarunas still recognized this man as his Bishop? huh?

Bishop (?) Mark A. Pivarunas on Bishop (?) Francis Schuckardt:

“He didn’t touch me, but he was definitely sɛҳuąƖly abusing seminarians, usually at his private residence in Spokane, and he was also taking a lot of drugs. His immorality was scandalous, but I continued to regard him as my legitimate bishop."

(The Smoke of Satan, by Michael Cuneo, Published by: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 108).

sedetrad · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2011, 07:28:49 AM »

This is an important quote. It is understandable why he would keep silent in the matter of the SGG clergy and other ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ clergy that he has knowledge of.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2011, 08:09:33 AM »

IMO, such a 'response' to gross immorality that is directly affecting others (and, necessarily, the organization as a whole) is, in its own way, just as scandalous as the known, wicked behavior. It is akin to the SEC regulators, for example, who download kiddie porn instead of investigating the myriad, monumental crimes taking place right in front of their glazed-over eyes...

Is it a surprise that the one who did the 'study' that gave the CMRI a more or less clean bill of health was...Fr C?

romantheology · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2011, 09:06:32 AM »

I am horrified that Bishop(?) Mark Pivarunas could make such an observation and doing nothing about it - utterly scandlous and after reading these things I myself am suspect of his involvement and that he did not even condemn or call authorities if this indeed was the case. Pivarunas should have fled at once!

And he is a Bishop(?) Thuc line? Wow!

Who's up next for consecration? Charles Manson?

sedesvacans · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2011, 12:04:43 PM »

Interesting, RT, that you make this case about a priest subordinate to his bishop and yet you have the audacity to promote, and be in communion with a "pope" who has from the top down aided and allowed this to go on under his authority time and time again.

sedesvacans · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2011, 12:08:09 PM »

Sedetrad-

I have no knowledge of the SGG accusations. Can you provide some docuмentation, court hearings, judgements, etc? This would really help. Thanks.

sedetrad · « **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2011, 12:51:20 PM »

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior between two consenting priests in the US is not a crime. Therefore their would be no court cases. Please search previous posts made by gladius_veritatis
for the info you seek. Search under any post having to do with SGG or Father C or Bishop D.

romantheology · « **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2011, 01:03:53 PM »

Quote from: sedetrad

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior between two consenting priests in the US is not a crime. Therefore their would be no court cases.

Not a crime? What about a crime in the Court of Heaven?

sedetrad · « **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2011, 01:13:15 PM »

I was responding to sedesvacans very specific question. Of course such behavior is a grave sin, and God would damn such men to hell if they did not repent before death.

romantheology · « **Reply #9 on:** October 31, 2011, 01:16:51 PM »

pseudo-Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas is a phony....should be ashamed of knowing that going on and regarding him a legit bishop....

I want to make this clear, if these things really were true...about absue and drugs...etc.

However, what a surprise that Pivarunas makes such a statement....he must knew something was up...or is just a detractor.

sedetrad · « **Reply #10 on:** October 31, 2011, 01:27:26 PM »

Pivarunus is a "real" bishop. He may be a "bad" or "evil" bishop, but he is a "real" one. I have never contested this fact.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #11 on:** October 31, 2011, 01:45:22 PM »

"pseudo Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas"?

romantheology, are you by any chance from traditio?

romantheology · « **Reply #12 on:** October 31, 2011, 03:13:10 PM »

Quote from: sedetrad

Pivarunus is a "real" bishop. He may be a "bad" or "evil" bishop, but he is a "real" one. I have never contested this fact.

Yeah! Thuc consecrated an openly-gαy ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ who later claimed to be Head of the Catholic Church in Spain.

Thuc also was very forgetful and said New Mass....hello!

Doubtful...certainly....absolutely void....highly questionable....

Dolan and Cekada wanted a slice of the pie that is why they went to Pivarunas.

It's all a power-trip with these schismatics.

sedesvacans · « **Reply #13 on:** October 31, 2011, 03:24:34 PM »

to Sedetrad. You make rash judgement based on hearsay and spread rumors that you do not have any personal knowledge of.

to RT- you are the number one avowed supporter of child molesters, so stop your hypocrisy and slander! Don't believe everything you write on the bathroom wall at your NO church!

TKGS · « **Reply #14 on:** October 31, 2011, 05:54:03 PM »

Quote from: romantheology

I read in the book (Communicatio in Sacris) by William DeTucci and Patrick Pollock the following statement which is also found in the book "Smoke of Satan."

Pivarunas knew about this and did nothing? hmmm.....Pivarunas still recognized this man as his Bishop? huh?

Bishop (?) Mark A. Pivarunas on Bishop (?) Francis Schuckardt:

“He didn’t touch me, but he was definitely sɛҳuąƖly abusing seminarians, usually at his private residence in Spokane, and he was also taking a lot of drugs. His immorality was scandalous, but I continued to regard him as my legitimate bishop."

(The Smoke of Satan, by Michael Cuneo, Published by: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 108).

Why is this a credible source? So often we see one scandalous report quote another and suddenly we assume that the report is corroborated. I know nothing about any of these authors. Why should I listen to them?

What is the context of the quote? I've only known about the CMRI for a few years, long after Schuckardt had been expelled by the association. So...since the undisputed history of the CMRI is that they did indeed expell Schuckardt, what is the purpose of the quote above? Is it to show that Bishop Pivarunas, while still a simple priest, realized his error and corrected a problem?

Father Pivarunas (assuming the quotes are accurate) may have known about this a did nothing...for a period of time. But Father Pivarunas was involved with the ouster of Schuckardt.

This topic, and quite a number of topics started of late on this forum, seems to nothing more than an exercise in detraction. It is certainly not a legitimate discussion of the CMRI today or, indeed, of any time.