Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: 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).
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
Sedetrad-
I have no knowledge of the SGG accusations. Can you provide some docuмentation, court hearings, judgements, etc? This would really help. Thanks.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"pseudo Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas"?
romantheology, are you by any chance from traditio?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
What is the point of running down traditional Catholic priests with all these terrible accusations? Does it make you all feel really good about yourselves? This is supposed to be a site for traditional CATHOLICS. Aren't there any rules here against damaging people's reputations as you do?
-
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.
Exactly. People love to act as if they're perfect and would know what to do in each and every situation.
-
"pseudo Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas"?
romantheology, are you by any chance from traditio?
FYI,
Traditio does not think Bishop Mark is a pseudo bishop.
He was only a young boy when the Schukardt scandal was going on. Roman.......you are another "muckraker mole" coming on here to promote calumny.
Bishop Pivaronus is a very good bishop. As a boy he survived the scandal and has gone on to be a great leader of the CMRI, who are all holy priests.
Give up your comments, and disappear from this forum!!!!!!!!!!!!
Im sure if you were slandering Bishop Williamson, youd be banned from here.
I pray you will be banned! :fryingpan:
-
Emerentiana, I know traditio didn't say that about Bishop Pivarunas. romantheology's "pseudo" comment reminded me of traditio labeling Bishop Fellay as "pseudo-SSPX Bishop Fellay".
And romantheology, it's this kind of calumny you put out that makes this place look like a one-way place for gossip. You and David Hobson (and you may even be David Hobson) need to get this through your heads: CatholicInfo is NOT a place for gossip. Go post this junk elsewhere.
-
He was only a young boy when the Schukardt scandal was going on...As a boy he survived the scandal...
For the record...
He was 26 (born in 1958) when Schuckardt was sent packing (1984).
-
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?
I am pretty sure he meant civil crime, which it is not.
-
A question that will help me clarify certain things in my mind: If there is a member of the clergy who is a proven ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, people know he is involved with another man, but he does what he does in private among "consenting adults" and tries however feebly to keep it under wraps, are we bound to denounce him?
St. Thomas says that the laity of his time should denounce a priest who has a concubine. But I'm pretty sure he means a priest who is OPENLY living with a concubine, not one who tries to keep the concubine stashed away. That is because the priest who is openly living with a concubine is creating public scandal, the other isn't really.
Bishop Schuckardt, from what I have heard -- from a priest, by the way -- was involved with young men of the parish. Perhaps they were "of age," but nevertheless the manipulation is plain. Clearly this was a major public scandal, there is no ambiguity there. But others may be more discreet. What are you supposed to do in that case, if anything?
-
Good one Gladius!
pseudo-bishop Mark (gαy ?) Pivarunas...he appears like he is (gαy) acts in a way...oh...his Latin is terrible too....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb6S4hwnpik
To begin Williamson has honor and in communion with Benedict XVI.
Williamson "never" supported a bishop(?) alleged with sex with seminarians and doing drugs....and I say alleged because he (Sckhardt) cannot defend himself...
However, Pivarunas (26) at the time and regarding him as a legit bishop - which is a scandal (if these allegations are true); in itself it is evil and also Pivarunas is an accessory to the fact - not going to authorites for his drug use...again...let's try it again...drug use!!!
How did Pivarunas know this?
Also, how old was Pivarunas when consecrated (highly questionable) a bishop(?) ?????
Very young!!!!
-
Romantheology, you might want to tone it down, you're sinning wildly with all your allegations.
Bishop Schuckardt was a painkiller addict. There was nothing to go the police about; he didn't have illegal drugs. And as far as I know, Catholics are not required to report every crime to the police, though that opens another can of worms.
-
The Smoke of Satan was an "interview" with Pivarunas. It is his words....go figure.
-
romantheology,
I do not know but I am certain that you are Patrick Pollock (or one of his clones), a vainglorious, egocentric, extreme home-aloner who has no business here if all you are to do is to malign and belittle those who are striving to profess and practice the Catholic faith, something of which you obviously have no knowledge.
Keep that tinfoil Papal tiara to yourself and stay home please.
Better yet, pray the Holy Rosary for the grace of faith.
Thank you.
-
What were his words? That Bishop Schuckardt was on drugs? Yes, he was -- painkillers. They aren't illegal. But they can mess you up, just like antidepressants. Bishop Schuckardt sounds a lot like Michael Jackson in his last days, strung out, paranoid, watching TV constantly, surrounded by yes-men; and yes-women, like the nuns that left with him.
When you see things like that, that even one person supported Bishop Schuckardt after his fall from grace, to the point of running off with him and tending to his needs, it really scares you about the cult mentality that circulates among trads.
Something pretty creepy, two of Bp. Schuckardt's nuns were on a deserted road one night saying the Rosary and were murdered.
-
Home alone....wasn't that a movie?
Never! Home with Pope Benedict XVI and the good olde SSPX in communicatio in sacris with Rome.
Sucker!
hahaha
-
Home alone....wasn't that a movie?
Never! Home with Pope Benedict XVI and the good olde SSPX in communicatio in sacris with Rome.
Sucker!
hahaha
Romantheology, you are vainglorious and abysmally ignorant of Catholic theology and Catholic teaching. We will unwrap that soon, I have been watching you...
-
I have been watching you...
Better keep my shades down...get out of the rose bushes...hahaha
Your upset because Sedevacantism is a farce and Cekada, Pivarunas, Dolan, Sanborn, Mckenna...are in a false sect....
With dubie...oh I mean...dubious orders....
Whammy!
-
He was only a young boy when the Schukardt scandal was going on...As a boy he survived the scandal...
For the record...
He was 26 (born in 1958) when Schuckardt was sent packing (1984).
Oh, so what Gladius! Hope you are not starting up again. We never hear from you unless you can link some scandal to SGG.
Please do not go into this again.
BTW, all, Bishop Pivarunus is the third father general of the congregation. Fr Denis Chicoine was the first. He took over after Schukardt left. Fr Puskorius was the second.
-
He was 26 (born in 1958) when Schuckardt was sent packing (1984).
Oh, so what Gladius! Hope you are not starting up again. We never hear from you unless you can link some scandal to SGG.
Calm down, woman. I was merely pointing out that your comment about his being a boy during all the hubbub was not exactly accurate.
While I understand that it is no cause for merit and does not mean much, the fact is that I have more posts than ANY other member about matters that have nothing to do with sgg.org/cult. Even if you got rid of ALL my posts that have anything to with sgg.org/cult, I'd still have more posts than anyone besides Matthew. Your comment is, again, more than a little inaccurate.
[FWIW, you might reconsider making every single post in bold...but tis your call.]
Carry on...
-
Roman theology is not Patrick Pollock. Patrick as far as I know is a sede that is a homealoner and a feeney follower. Roman theology is not a sede.
-
Papa Benedict XVI is Apostolic Supreme.
Patrick Pollock and Dr. William DeTucci wrote a book called:
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/communicatio-in-sacris/4818965?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/1
DeTucci I think taught before at the Angelicuм.
Communicatio in Sacris the book I do admit is highly scholarly and far surpasses anything palargist writers like Cekada have written who just pretty much copies and pastes from pre-vatican II authors.
But these guys are all heretics no matter what as SSPX runs Supreme.
-
romantheology, why are you trying to ruin people's reputations? What you're doing is spreading calumny.
-
He was 26 (born in 1958) when Schuckardt was sent packing (1984).
Oh, so what Gladius! Hope you are not starting up again. We never hear from you unless you can link some scandal to SGG.
Calm down, woman. I was merely pointing out that your comment about his being a boy during all the hubbub was not exactly accurate.
While I understand that it is no cause for merit and does not mean much, the fact is that I have more posts than ANY other member about matters that have nothing to do with sgg.org/cult. Even if you got rid of ALL my posts that have anything to with sgg.org/cult, I'd still have more posts than anyone besides Matthew. Your comment is, again, more than a little inaccurate.
[FWIW, you might reconsider making every single post in bold...but tis your call.]
Carry on...
This is precisely why this type of stuff CANNOT be discussed here without chaos being the result. Emerentiana, you are totally out of line here. A man of 26 is NOT a boy, and you need to accept the correction, admitting this FACT and then be silent.
-
I 2nd that.
-
I 2nd that.
And you are another reason there can be no truly charitable and intelligent discussion here.
-
rt:
Communicatio in Sacris the book I do admit is highly scholarly and far surpasses anything palargist writers like Cekada have written who just pretty much copies and pastes from pre-vatican II authors.
Some questions:
By "palargist" I assume you mean plagiarist. It means stealing someone else's work without proper attribution. Where has C done this?
"Copies and pastes from pre-vatican II...". Sounds like an excellent procedure as long as proper context and intent of original is observed. What do you see as its flaws? Do you demand novelty in your theological reading? See where that has gotten us.
"...the book I do admit is highly scholarly..." What are your criteria for judging (or admitting) that a book qualifies for such. What are your qualifications? I tend to think of "scholarly" as an adjective that does not work well with qualifiers. Do you have opinions that would judge something as moderately scholarly? Sort of scholarly?
Does "roman theology" have something to do with your feelings about your own qualifications? Do you have any qualifications you'd like to mention?
-
He was 26 (born in 1958) when Schuckardt was sent packing (1984).
Oh, so what Gladius! Hope you are not starting up again. We never hear from you unless you can link some scandal to SGG.
Calm down, woman. I was merely pointing out that your comment about his being a boy during all the hubbub was not exactly accurate.
While I understand that it is no cause for merit and does not mean much, the fact is that I have more posts than ANY other member about matters that have nothing to do with sgg.org/cult. Even if you got rid of ALL my posts that have anything to with sgg.org/cult, I'd still have more posts than anyone besides Matthew. Your comment is, again, more than a little inaccurate.
[FWIW, you might reconsider making every single post in bold...but tis your call.]
Carry on...
This is precisely why this type of stuff CANNOT be discussed here without chaos being the result. Emerentiana, you are totally out of line here. A man of 26 is NOT a boy, and you need to accept the correction, admitting this FACT and then be silent.
It is this kind of thing that demonstrates the insincerity of the CMRI/SGG crowd. I doubt there will be an apology.
-
This OP sounds familiar......
-
What I find interesting is that as much as this person who is attacking the Bishop is wrong, many here attack him back with "feeneysm" "home aloner" etc are acting the same way.
On one side you have one who is attacking with injustice
on the other side one answers back with injustice
Both sides are wrong.
In fact Fr. Feeney was no theologian or funded any cult.
Second, the fact the one don't attend to Mass on sunday is pretty sad but maybe he lives near a SSPX chapel where the priest don't allow sedevacantists there or he is obsessed to the point where he can't be around SSPX supporters.
Our personal issues should be put aside in this time of great apostasy. Our ego means nothing, I repeat: it means NOTHING and as much good we do is not even close to the good that God gives to us.