Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: CMRI Contra Mundum?  (Read 5638 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4272
  • Reputation: +3957/-1255
  • Gender: Male
CMRI Contra Mundum?
« on: March 25, 2012, 04:44:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •    So, I was just curious:

       There is another thread going that in entering into a discussion of which sede groups are legit, good, wacko, etc.

       Question: There seems to be a strong preference on this forum for the CMRI.  Why is that so?

        I would have thought that the former SSPX sedes would have the most followers, and the CMRI the fewest (because of the Thuc validity issue).

    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Sede Catholic

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1306
    • Reputation: +1038/-6
    • Gender: Male
    CMRI Contra Mundum?
    « Reply #1 on: March 25, 2012, 05:14:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In Sacramental Theology, the Church stipulates that it is a actually gravely sinful to cast doubt on the Validity of

    Holy Orders
    , unless a positive doubt exists.

    The Vatican say that the Thuc Lineage is valid.

    Marcel Lefebvre admitted that the Thuc Lineage was valid.


    So any sspx-ers had better acknowledge the validity of the Thuc Lineage, or else they are claiming that he,

    Marcel Lefebvre, was actually wrong about something.

    There is no reason at all to doubt the validity of the Thuc Lineage.

    According to the mind of the Church, to create doubts about it would be gravely sinful.


    Offline Sede Catholic

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1306
    • Reputation: +1038/-6
    • Gender: Male
    CMRI Contra Mundum?
    « Reply #2 on: March 25, 2012, 05:19:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • Pope Pius XI personally selected Fr. Thuc to be consecrated a Bishop.



    Offline Sede Catholic

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1306
    • Reputation: +1038/-6
    • Gender: Male
    CMRI Contra Mundum?
    « Reply #3 on: March 25, 2012, 05:21:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That is about the highest recommendation that Bishop Thuc could receive.

    He was personally selected by Pope Pius XI to be Consecrated a Bishop.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4272
    • Reputation: +3957/-1255
    • Gender: Male
    CMRI Contra Mundum?
    « Reply #4 on: March 25, 2012, 05:26:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Sede Catholic
    In Sacramental Theology, the Church stipulates that it is a actually gravely sinful to cast doubt on the Validity of

    Holy Orders
    , unless a positive doubt exists.

    The Vatican say that the Thuc Lineage is valid.

    Marcel Lefebvre admitted that the Thuc Lineage was valid.


    So any sspx-ers had better acknowledge the validity of the Thuc Lineage, or else they are claiming that he,

    Marcel Lefebvre, was actually wrong about something.

    There is no reason at all to doubt the validity of the Thuc Lineage.

    According to the mind of the Church, to create doubts about it would be gravely sinful.


    Sede-

       Let's not get off track.

       I don't want this thread to be pro v con on sedevacantism.

       I want it to be about why, on this forum, the preference is for the CMRI.

       There was another thread on the validity of the Thuc consecrations (30+ pages long) regarding their validiy, so I think it safe to say the questionability of his consecrations is fair game.

       Question:

    1) If you are going to be sede, why not Fr. Cekada, Sanbourn, Dolan, Pope Michael I, etc?

    2) If you were to rank the various sede groups, how would you stack them in terms of most clergy?

    3) How about in terms of most laity (if different)?
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Sede Catholic

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1306
    • Reputation: +1038/-6
    • Gender: Male
    CMRI Contra Mundum?
    « Reply #5 on: March 25, 2012, 05:34:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The reasons why so many Sedes have such a strong preference for the CMRI are many.

    Some of the reasons are:

    The CMRI priests are definitely valid, according to the mind of the Church.

    They lack the scandal that has engulfed both the conciliar church and much of traditional Catholicism.

    They are simply remarkably good priests.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4272
    • Reputation: +3957/-1255
    • Gender: Male
    CMRI Contra Mundum?
    « Reply #6 on: March 25, 2012, 05:37:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Sede Catholic
    The reasons why so many Sedes have such a strong preference for the CMRI are many.

    Some of the reasons are:

    The CMRI priests are definitely valid, according to the mind of the Church.
    They lack the scandal that has engulfed both the conciliar church and much of traditional Catholicism.

    They are simply remarkably good priests.


       Let's say that all you say here is true.

       Is it questionable for the other sede congregations?

       What would you say is the next best option?
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Sede Catholic

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1306
    • Reputation: +1038/-6
    • Gender: Male
    CMRI Contra Mundum?
    « Reply #7 on: March 25, 2012, 05:39:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dear Seraphim, I will attempt to answer specifically the three questions you have just asked.


    Offline Sede Catholic

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1306
    • Reputation: +1038/-6
    • Gender: Male
    CMRI Contra Mundum?
    « Reply #8 on: March 25, 2012, 05:48:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dear Seraphim, you asked:

    Quote
    Question:

    1) If you are going to be sede, why not Fr. Cekada, Sanbourn, Dolan, Pope Michael I, etc?

    2) If you were to rank the various sede groups, how would you stack them in terms of most clergy?

    3) How about in terms of most laity (if different)?


    Answers:

    1) To take just Michael I - he was elected by a conclave of a few laity, and which included members of his own family.  :roll-laugh2:



    2) The CMRI have one Bishop, Bishop Mark Pivarunas, and 32 Priests.

    They also have many Brothers and Nuns.

    The CMRI have the most clergy.



    3) I would think that the CMRI would have the most laity. That seems a logical deduction to make.



    I hope these answers help.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4272
    • Reputation: +3957/-1255
    • Gender: Male
    CMRI Contra Mundum?
    « Reply #9 on: March 25, 2012, 05:51:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Sede Catholic
    Dear Seraphim, you asked:

    Quote
    Question:

    1) If you are going to be sede, why not Fr. Cekada, Sanbourn, Dolan, Pope Michael I, etc?

    2) If you were to rank the various sede groups, how would you stack them in terms of most clergy?

    3) How about in terms of most laity (if different)?


    Answers:

    1) To take just Michael I - he was elected by a conclave of a few laity, and which included members of his own family.  :roll-laugh2:



    2) The CMRI have one Bishop, Bishop Mark Pivarunas, and 32 Priests.

    They also have many Brothers and Nuns.

    The CMRI have the most clergy.



    3) I would think that the CMRI would have the most laity. That seems a logical deduction to make.

    I hope these answers help.



    Sede-

       What about groups overseas, like Palmar de Troya (may not have spelled that right)?

       Are sedevacantist groups international, or strictly regional (i.e., due to smaller numbers?)?

       Are there larger groups anywhere than the CMRI?
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    CMRI Contra Mundum?
    « Reply #10 on: March 25, 2012, 05:54:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Seraphim
    If you are going to be sede, why not Fr. Cekada, Sanbourn, Dolan, Pope Michael I, etc?


    "Pope" Michael I is insane. He was elected by a few conclavists. He is not a true Pope.

    The CMRI is probably liked because they are good Catholics and are not wackos like some other sedes I mentioned...


    Offline Sede Catholic

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1306
    • Reputation: +1038/-6
    • Gender: Male
    CMRI Contra Mundum?
    « Reply #11 on: March 25, 2012, 05:56:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Seraphim
    Quote from: Sede Catholic
    Dear Seraphim, you asked:

    Quote
    Question:

    1) If you are going to be sede, why not Fr. Cekada, Sanbourn, Dolan, Pope Michael I, etc?

    2) If you were to rank the various sede groups, how would you stack them in terms of most clergy?

    3) How about in terms of most laity (if different)?


    Answers:

    1) To take just Michael I - he was elected by a conclave of a few laity, and which included members of his own family.  :roll-laugh2:



    2) The CMRI have one Bishop, Bishop Mark Pivarunas, and 32 Priests.

    They also have many Brothers and Nuns.

    The CMRI have the most clergy.



    3) I would think that the CMRI would have the most laity. That seems a logical deduction to make.

    I hope these answers help.



    Sede-

       What about groups overseas, like Palmar de Troya (may not have spelled that right)?

       Are sedevacantist groups international, or strictly regional (i.e., due to smaller numbers?)?

       Are there larger groups anywhere than the CMRI?


    Dear Seraphim,

    The Palma de Troya groups are not actually Sedevacantist. They are to be completely avoided.

    The CMRI are the only international goup which spans many countries.

    The CMRI is the largest group of Sedevacantist Catholic Priests anywhere in the world.

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    CMRI Contra Mundum?
    « Reply #12 on: March 25, 2012, 06:12:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Seraphim
      So, I was just curious:

       There is another thread going that in entering into a discussion of which sede groups are legit, good, wacko, etc.

       Question: There seems to be a strong preference on this forum for the CMRI.  Why is that so?

        I would have thought that the former SSPX sedes would have the most followers, and the CMRI the fewest (because of the Thuc validity issue).



    CMRI has been very stable in recent years and has many hard-working and humble priests. This is why their overall apostolate is well respected, even by those who have disagreements with them on various issues.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Malleus 01

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 484
    • Reputation: +447/-0
    CMRI Contra Mundum?
    « Reply #13 on: March 27, 2012, 09:35:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Sede-

       Let's not get off track.

       I don't want this thread to be pro v con on sedevacantism.

       I want it to be about why, on this forum, the preference is for the CMRI.

       There was another thread on the validity of the Thuc consecrations (30+ pages long) regarding their validiy, so I think it safe to say the questionability of his consecrations is fair game.

       Question:

    1) If you are going to be sede, why not Fr. Cekada, Sanbourn, Dolan, Pope Michael I, etc?

    2) If you were to rank the various sede groups, how would you stack them in terms of most clergy?

    3) How about in terms of most laity (if different)?[/quote]

    IMO:

    1) CMRI is merely one.  CMRI doesnt claim to be the sole purveyor of truth - this approach seems most reasonable to most people.

    2) CMRI is growing and SSPV is growing - thanks be to GOD.

    3) Praying and sacrificing for vocations is the duty of laity.  How well we do is reflected in the fact of whether our numbers of vocations are growing or shrinking which translates eventually into Laity as the Faith is spread by these vocations in GOD's Grace. The fact that both CMRI and SSPV are growing exponentially in both Vocations and numbers of Laity is attributed to the Grace of GOD. It is for that reason that many have embraced Sedevacantism - in order to remain in union with the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering. As a lay member of CMRI - I have nothing but respect for Father Cekada , Bishop Sanborn and Bishop Dolan.   As for "Pope Michael" it is my opinion that those who claim the Chair of St Peter for themselves are never to be taken serious.  

    Offline Jim

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 235
    • Reputation: +61/-1
    • Gender: Male
    CMRI Contra Mundum?
    « Reply #14 on: March 27, 2012, 10:04:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Why not" Dvid Bawden? Because he is no a sedevacantist, but a post-conclavists. As far as Fr. Cekada & the two bishops, I disagree with them on Masses una cum as well as on the 1955 Holy Week.

    Lastly, I live in the Western United States. The CMRI has a presence here, as well as independent sede priests allied with them. If I were on the East Coast and a Fr. Cekada Mass the only sede option available, I'd go without hesitating.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16