Author Topic: Canonical Status of CMRI and SSPX (Read 8209 times)

Ambrose · « **on:** June 05, 2014, 10:48:20 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Ambrose
Regarding CMRI and SSPX, they are the only two large traditional groups that have any canonical claim. The CMRI was given canonical approval in 1969, by a legitimate diocesan bishop, and the SSPX in 1970, although the SSPX was only approved for a six year experimental basis.

There was a number of points to deal with but for the time being please confirm the Catholic authorities that set up both the CMRI and the SSPX.

Note that I'm happy to come back to the other points.

CMRI: Bishop Sylvester Treinen, bishop of the Diocese of Boise, approved the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen in 1969.

SSPX: Bishop François Charrière, bishop of Fribourg, Switzerland, approved the Society of Saint Pius X, on a six year provisional basis, in 1970.

Ambrose · « **Reply #1 on:** June 06, 2014, 01:44:48 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Wouldn't you consider them bishops of the Conciliar Church?

Not without proof that they knowingly left the Catholoc Church in order to adhere to a sect, or that they have fallen into heresy.

Ambrose · « **Reply #2 on:** June 06, 2014, 06:01:14 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Hermenegild
Wouldn't you consider them bishops of the Conciliar Church?

Not without proof that they knowingly left the Catholoc Church in order to adhere to a sect, or that they have fallen into heresy.

The Vatican II sect - they adhered and implemented the new religion. What more do you need?

What specific proof do you have for each of these two bishops which can demonstrate that they knowingly adhered to the Conciliar sect and by that left the Catholic Church?

Specifically, if you are going to accuse either of them of schism, I would like to see evidence of that fact. A general statement that they "adhered and implemented the new religion" is a vague assertion, not proof.

The Conciliar sect is an undeclared sect, meaning that it remains possible for a Catholic to innocently mistake it for the Catholic Church. This sect, unlike other sects has imposed itself on Catholics with the appearance and direct claim of being the Catholic Church, being led by the Pope, and it controls the entire material wealth of the Church, including all of the churches, monasteries, cemeteries, schools, and even Vatican City itself.

In order to prove your assertion, you must use evidence, not assumptions or suspicions. If a Catholic has fallen into schism, he must identify the Conciliar church as a sect, and continue to willfully remain part of it. If a Catholic erroneously adheres to this sect while thinking it is the Catholic Church, he is not guilty of schism.

If you wish to accuse them of heresy rather than schism, and by that to argue that they have lost their offices, then that also requires proof.

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** June 06, 2014, 07:06:07 AM »

At the time these two organizations were founded, the bishops who approved their existence were most likely Catholic bishops.

I think it is a mistake to attempt to try to precisely identify each and every person's exact date of departure from the Catholic Church--it simply cannot be done. The development of the Conciliar sect occurred through various stages just as the Anglican church developed over time in England.

In England, there were Catholic priests who celebrated the Catholic Mass as well as the new rite according to Cranmer's book of Common Prayer for a time. There were bishops who continued to retain the faith even while accepting the laws governing the Church promulgated by Parliament. It took time for the entire body of the clergy to become corrupted and for Catholics who rejected the New Religion to figure out who had fallen.

In 1965, almost no one in the world truly understood what was happening. In 1970, changes were coming so fast that few people could truly cope. Many were abandoning the Church because nothing seems real anymore, while those who wanted to be Catholic coped in various ways. By 1980, it still seemed that the Conciliar religion could still be the Catholic Church and the first generation of children (I am included in this figure) taught according to the new religion--which meant that we were not really taught anything--became of age.

In England, peasants could look at their local parish--the parish where they were baptized, attended Mass, married, mourned their elder relatives who died, etc.--and know that they had been taught one faith in their youth but were being taught another in their later years. Because of the punishments imposed by government forces, many accepted the new religion while other did not. But one thing was certain: One could not pinpoint the precise date that his parish was no longer Catholic!

Throughout the world, today, people have experienced the very same thing. When, exactly, each diocese or parish ceased being Catholic is nearly impossible to ascertain. But today, we don't need to look at the past and try to figure these things out. We can use our reason to understand the situation as it is now rather than trying to understand precisely how it came to this point.

We have organizations such as the CMRI and the SSPX that can provide the sacraments. We have independent priests who can likewise do the same. Let's not judge the previous generations too harshly who were trying to understand what was indeed mystifying.

Frankly, it no longer matters whether one can trace any group to a legal approval process according to the prescriptions of law. Without the unity provided by a pope (and even if you believe Bergoglio is the pope, you cannot rationally believe that he is a unifying influence) all we have is the traditional priests tracing their orders through certainly valid bishops. Whether their organization is canonically erected or not is no longer at issue. The house is burning to the ground, we care not if the people trying to extinguish the fire are from the legally established fire department or towns folk just passing the water buckets. But the last thing we should do is look for the firemen from Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 to save the day.

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 06, 2014, 08:08:44 AM »

This is why it is so important to hear the audio "Siri Thesis" in its second
part, when the true Pope was pushed aside, and a anti pope installed.
This was actually beginning of the false parallel church that has all
the outside appearance of the true church, but is not protected
from error and protected by infallibility.
This is reason since the election of PJXXIII there are so many errors
in papal docuмents and official docuмents coming out of the Vatican
2 sect.
Since the errors and heresies are in plain sight, so few can see them.
Because they sincerely believe in the unbroken apostolic uninterrupted
succession. And this extends into the Vatican 2 anti popes.

Ambrose · « **Reply #5 on:** June 06, 2014, 08:36:06 AM »

Hermenegild wrote:

Quote

Ambrose, did a new religion emerge out of Vatican II or not?

Yes

Hermenegild wrote:

Quote

It's very had to excuse a man who is a bishop - particularly one who was at the Council and put in place all of the reforms. Are you suggesting they did not know what they were doing?

It is our duty to excuse the faults of others as far as is reasonably possible. You have provided no actual evidence yet of their guilt except vague assertions, and you expect me to have moral certainty of their guilt based on that?

How much do you actually know about these bishops? What writings have you read from them? What specific evidence are you relying on about them individually?

Hermenegild wrote:

Quote

Now even if they were Catholic bishops the CMRI certainly fell into schism when Schuckardt when outside the Church to receive illicit holy orders.

That remains an unproven assumption. Do you have proof that Francis Schuckardt "went outside the Church to receive illicit holy orders"?

From my reading, Bp. Daniel Brown may have sinned mortally and committed a schismatic act by obtaining holy orders from an Old Catholic, but had renounced his ties with their sect and professed the Catholic Faith. Therefore the entire matter with Schuckardt remains unclear at the very least. If Schuckardt received orders from a Catholic, then the charge of schism falls.

Second to this point, regardless of whether the actions of the CMRI priests were worthy of censure, in 1984, the remaining priests before Bp. Musey made a formal abjuration in case their previous actions had made them deserving of ecclesiastical censure. The priests then were conditionally ordained.

If you want to make the allegation of schism, then cite sources that demonstrate that fact in this particular case. Your stating that they are in schism does not make them in schism.

Hermenegild wrote:

Quote

I'll come back to the schismatic spirit of the SSPX shortly...

I hope you go beyond their "spirit" and demonstrate with sources actual schism.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #6 on:** June 06, 2014, 08:38:44 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

At the time these two organizations were founded, the bishops who approved their existence were most likely Catholic bishops.

I think it is a mistake to attempt to try to precisely identify each and every person's exact date of departure from the Catholic Church--it simply cannot be done. The development of the Conciliar sect occurred through various stages just as the Anglican church developed over time in England.

In England, there were Catholic priests who celebrated the Catholic Mass as well as the new rite according to Cranmer's book of Common Prayer for a time. There were bishops who continued to retain the faith even while accepting the laws governing the Church promulgated by Parliament. It took time for the entire body of the clergy to become corrupted and for Catholics who rejected the New Religion to figure out who had fallen.

In 1965, almost no one in the world truly understood what was happening. In 1970, changes were coming so fast that few people could truly cope. Many were abandoning the Church because nothing seems real anymore, while those who wanted to be Catholic coped in various ways. By 1980, it still seemed that the Conciliar religion could still be the Catholic Church and the first generation of children (I am included in this figure) taught according to the new religion--which meant that we were not really taught anything--became of age.

In England, peasants could look at their local parish--the parish where they were baptized, attended Mass, married, mourned their elder relatives who died, etc.--and know that they had been taught one faith in their youth but were being taught another in their later years. Because of the punishments imposed by government forces, many accepted the new religion while other did not. But one thing was certain: One could not pinpoint the precise date that his parish was no longer Catholic!

Throughout the world, today, people have experienced the very same thing. When, exactly, each diocese or parish ceased being Catholic is nearly impossible to ascertain. But today, we don't need to look at the past and try to figure these things out. We can use our reason to understand the situation as it is now rather than trying to understand precisely how it came to this point.

We have organizations such as the CMRI and the SSPX that can provide the sacraments. We have independent priests who can likewise do the same. Let's not judge the previous generations too harshly who were trying to understand what was indeed mystifying.

Frankly, it no longer matters whether one can trace any group to a legal approval process according to the prescriptions of law. Without the unity provided by a pope (and even if you believe Bergoglio is the pope, you cannot rationally believe that he is a unifying influence) all we have is the traditional priests tracing their orders through certainly valid bishops. Whether their organization is canonically erected or not is no longer at issue. The house is burning to the ground, we care not if the people trying to extinguish the fire are from the legally established fire department or towns folk just passing the water buckets. But the last thing we should do is look for the firemen from Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 to save the day.

Thanks for explaining the crisis in a way that could be easily understood.

songbird · « **Reply #7 on:** June 06, 2014, 09:16:04 AM »

Heremengild: IMO, what we go through on this earth is biblical. How would you explain chapter 12 of Daniel that says the "continual" sacrifice will end. Are we there now, or have we been there for a long time? It is stated that we will be without the Mass for 3 and a half years. If this is so, then we will be without all sacraments, for the Precious Blood is in all sacraments. The enemy knows where the power is, in the True Precious Blood. IMO we are not exactly there yet, but very close. IMO there are priests, and like Bishop Pivarunus, made Bishop by Carmona. But the Remnant we are and we know it is coming down the tube of no Precious Blood one day. And as we are right now, the evil is so thick about us and more to come as the Precious Blood dwindles.

Ambrose · « **Reply #8 on:** June 06, 2014, 12:58:39 PM »

Hermenegild wrote:

Quote

Vague assertions? Setting up a new religion is hardly a vague assertion. If you implement a wholesale revolution - you know what you are doing.

I guess Cranmer of Canterbury may have been an honest Catholic too.

There were clear differences between Cranmer, and many Catholic bishops of the 1960s and 70s. Cranmer, a de facto political appointee worked to support Henry's agenda in justifying the "dissolution of his marriage." He was a schismatic in spirit with these actions, but at what point should Catholics have severed communion with him, absent a judgment of the Holy See? I am not aware of any that had severed themselves from him, until he was excommunicated.

The Catholic bishops of the 1960's and 70's were a mixed bunch. Some were open supporters of the Conciliar sect, and actively sought to undermine Catholic teaching and the liturgy within their diocese. Others, were clearly not revolutionaries, and followed along with this program thinking that it could be reconciled with the Catholic teaching of the past, and wished to remain in peace and communion with "Pope" Paul VI.

For those latter bishops, their spirit was not one of a schismatic, and they were not heretics, so they remained in their offices.

Hermenegild wrote:

Quote

That doesn't magically turn him into a Catholic bishop - you have no idea what you are talking about.

You should try to read what I write more accurately. I never claimed that Bp. Brown was a Catholic bishop, he was a Catholic who possessed (apparently) valid episcopal orders derived from outside the Church. If you ever want me to clarify a statement, I will, but please do not assume I mean something when I do not say it.

Now, the scenario is this: in the absence of the Pope, when the church is in crisis, and the hierarchy is no longer reliable, what happens if a layman seeks orders from another a man who had illicitly obtained orders outside the Church, but had reconciled himself with the Church?

Is this a schismatic act? If so prove it. Or, is it an act of grave imprudence deserving of censure, but not a schismatic act?

Hermenegild wrote:

Quote

Bp. Musey had authority to receive these men back into the Church and to function as priests? Highly doubtful - Old Catholic "priests" were simple layman when they returned to the Church in the past.

Bp. Musey had no authority to send priests, but neither does any "traditional" bishop.

I believe it could be argued that he could accept one back into the Church, as that act could be supplied by the Church.

These priests, like all traditional priests have no authority and only operate on a legal basis by the request of the laity, not the commission of the Church. (Canon 2261)

When a Pope comes again, he along with his bishops will judge their (all traditional priests) vocations and determine whether they will be given a mission, sent for further training, or return to the lay state.

Ambrose · « **Reply #9 on:** June 08, 2014, 11:11:30 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Ambrose
Now, the scenario is this: in the absence of the Pope, when the church is in crisis, and the hierarchy is no longer reliable, what happens if a layman seeks orders from another a man who had illicitly obtained orders outside the Church, but had reconciled himself with the Church?

Ambrose, have you ever read this: Untrained and Un-Tridentine: Holy Orders and the Canonically Unfit

Yes, several times.

SJB · « **Reply #10 on:** June 09, 2014, 06:34:18 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

So you would disagree with Fr. Cekada?

This seems to be written in response to your comments:

Quote from: Father Cekada
The laity sometimes tolerate the untrained and un-Tridentine ï¿½traditionalistï¿½ priest because they do not understand the exacting requirements for priestly ordination. In other cases, laymen may feel that ï¿½valid sacramentsï¿½ are all that count, and that the rest is legalistic window dressing ï¿½ so why be fussy?

Experience, though, teaches that an unschooled, unformed priest is a time-bomb waiting to go off. When the explosion comes, scandal follows and souls are driven away from the traditional Mass.

And when such a priest or bishop emerges from an ecclesiastical underworld where no one had proper training, is it really safe to assume that his ordination or consecration was valid anyway?

But in any case, valid or not, such a personï¿½s presence at the altar and in the confessional degrades the priesthood and endangers souls.

Rama Coomaraswamy was certain this piece was written and aimed directly at his ordination. Did you know that?

Ambrose · « **Reply #11 on:** June 09, 2014, 04:06:22 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

So you would disagree with Fr. Cekada?

This seems to be written in response to your comments:

Quote from: Father Cekada
The laity sometimes tolerate the untrained and un-Tridentine “traditionalist” priest because they do not understand the exacting requirements for priestly ordination. In other cases, laymen may feel that “valid sacraments” are all that count, and that the rest is legalistic window dressing — so why be fussy?

Experience, though, teaches that an unschooled, unformed priest is a time-bomb waiting to go off. When the explosion comes, scandal follows and souls are driven away from the traditional Mass.

And when such a priest or bishop emerges from an ecclesiastical underworld where no one had proper training, is it really safe to assume that his ordination or consecration was valid anyway?

But in any case, valid or not, such a person’s presence at the altar and in the confessional degrades the priesthood and endangers souls.

Fr. Cekada wrote that article long before my comments.

In general I agree with his comments, but in our times, the only priests with approved training are the very old priests ordained long ago. There are not very many of them left.

Catholics have essentially three choices:

1. Go to "unsent and unapproved" priests, such as SSPX, CMRI, and others, while knowing that they lack approved seminary training and a canonical mission.

2. Find a priest who was trained by the Church and then sent by the Church, and considering that there are so few left, maybe get to Mass once a year at best for most of us.

3. Stay home and wait for approved priests to come to us again, and live with with no sacramental life, no mass, no Holy Communion, no sacrament of Penance, etc.

For myself, I believe the best course of action is #1, provided that safeguards are followed. I believe that canon 2261 justifies this course of action, and provides a legal basis for traditional priests.

With that said, no Catholic is obliged to go to any priest not sent by the Church, but it is an opposite error to say that we cannot request and then receive the sacraments from such priests.

Ambrose · « **Reply #12 on:** June 10, 2014, 11:14:56 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Ambrose, it doesn't seem that you agree with Fr. Cekada. Nor do you agree with the decision of the Holy Office which he quotes:

Quote
While the Church usually permitted those who had been raised and ordained in schism to exercise their orders when they abjured and were received into the Church, a Catholic who went outside the Church to receive Holy Orders — even if their validity was certain — was not permitted to exercise them, even if he repented of his action.

In 1709 the Holy See was asked the following question about the reception of orders from a schismatic:

“Because there is a need for priests to serve Armenian Catholic churches both in Aspaan and Giulfa where there are no Armenian Catholic bishops, is it permitted to send someone to be ordained and receive Holy Orders from one of the schismatic and heretical bishops?”

The Holy Office responded: “This is in no way permitted, and those ordained by such bishops are irregular and suspended from the exercise of Orders.”

Your option 1, which you believe to be the best course of action has been rejected by the Church - which Fr. Cekada details in his article.

Your point is moot, post 1984. The CMRI's orders drive through the line of Archbishop Thuc. No CMRI priest is exercising Holy Orders derived from outside the Church.

Regarding option 1, I said it was the best course of action with safeguards.

Fr. Cekada's article is based on ordinary times. We are not living in an ordinary situation. The only priests on earth with approved training and a mission from the Church are the old priests trained in approved seminaries and sent by the lawful bishops of the hierarchy.

obediens · « **Reply #13 on:** June 11, 2014, 04:04:54 AM »

Treinen approved the "Oblates of Mary Immaculate Queen of the Universe" in 1967 and as a pious union, not as a religious congregation.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Hermenegild
Quote from: Ambrose
Regarding CMRI and SSPX, they are the only two large traditional groups that have any canonical claim. The CMRI was given canonical approval in 1969, by a legitimate diocesan bishop, and the SSPX in 1970, although the SSPX was only approved for a six year experimental basis.

There was a number of points to deal with but for the time being please confirm the Catholic authorities that set up both the CMRI and the SSPX.

Note that I'm happy to come back to the other points.

CMRI: Bishop Sylvester Treinen, bishop of the Diocese of Boise, approved the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen in 1969.

SSPX: Bishop François Charrière, bishop of Fribourg, Switzerland, approved the Society of Saint Pius X, on a six year provisional basis, in 1970.

Ambrose · « **Reply #14 on:** June 11, 2014, 07:12:30 AM »

Quote from: obediens

Treinen approved the "Oblates of Mary Immaculate Queen of the Universe" in 1967 and as a pious union, not as a religious congregation.

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Hermenegild
Quote from: Ambrose
Regarding CMRI and SSPX, they are the only two large traditional groups that have any canonical claim. The CMRI was given canonical approval in 1969, by a legitimate diocesan bishop, and the SSPX in 1970, although the SSPX was only approved for a six year experimental basis.

There was a number of points to deal with but for the time being please confirm the Catholic authorities that set up both the CMRI and the SSPX.

Note that I'm happy to come back to the other points.

CMRI: Bishop Sylvester Treinen, bishop of the Diocese of Boise, approved the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen in 1969.

SSPX: Bishop François Charrière, bishop of Fribourg, Switzerland, approved the Society of Saint Pius X, on a six year provisional basis, in 1970.

The same can be said for SSPX. Both organizations clearly saw the need to "stretch" their mandate, in light of the extraordinary state of the Church.