Author Topic: CMRI Contra Mundum? (Read 6012 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** March 25, 2012, 04:44:32 PM »

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).

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #1 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:14:02 PM »

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 Catholic · « **Reply #2 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:19:01 PM »

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

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #3 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:21:50 PM »

That is about the highest recommendation that Bishop Thuc could receive.

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

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:26:24 PM »

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)?

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #5 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:34:47 PM »

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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #6 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:37:36 PM »

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?

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #7 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:39:10 PM »

Dear Seraphim, I will attempt to answer specifically the three questions you have just asked.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:48:03 PM »

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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #9 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:51:44 PM »

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?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #10 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:54:12 PM »

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...

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #11 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:56:58 PM »

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.

SJB · « **Reply #12 on:** March 25, 2012, 06:12:55 PM »

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.

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 27, 2012, 09:35:18 AM »

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.

Jim · « **Reply #14 on:** March 27, 2012, 10:04:36 AM »

"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 cuм 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.