Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: 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).
-
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.
-
Pope Pius XI personally selected Fr. Thuc to be consecrated a Bishop.
-
That is about the highest recommendation that Bishop Thuc could receive.
He was personally selected by Pope Pius XI to be Consecrated a Bishop.
-
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)?
-
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.
-
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?
-
Dear Seraphim, I will attempt to answer specifically the three questions you have just asked.
-
Dear Seraphim, you asked:
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.
-
Dear Seraphim, you asked:
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?
-
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...
-
Dear Seraphim, you asked:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
What are the primary differences between the SSPV and CMRI?
-
What are the primary differences between the SSPV and CMRI?
The SSPV denies the validity of the Thuc line. That's essentially it. CMRI has chapels in the West. SSPV is limited to the East.
-
What are the primary differences between the SSPV and CMRI?
The SSPV denies the validity of the Thuc line. That's essentially it. CMRI has chapels in the West. SSPV is limited to the East.
The SSPV has several chapels in Montana, and I believe Idaho and Washington.
-
What are the primary differences between the SSPV and CMRI?
The SSPV denies the validity of the Thuc line. That's essentially it. CMRI has chapels in the West. SSPV is limited to the East.
I think the CMRI is the most credible US based sede group. And, not being a sede, I see the SSPV as having quite a bit of scandal to deal with, and very unstable views.
I wouldn't say the CMRI has chapels in the West only. From their website:
Traditional Latin Mass Locations in the U.S.A.
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Idaho
Kansas
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Mexico
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Texas
Washington
And then also:
International Traditional Latin Mass Locations
Europe:
Czech Republic
Great Britain
Germany
Russia
Switzerland
North, South and Central America:
Argentina
Brazil
Canada
Honduras
Mexico
Other Countries:
Australia
Fiji Islands
New Zealand
-
...
I think the CMRI is the most credible US based sede group. And, not being a sede, I see the SSPV as having quite a bit of scandal to deal with, and very unstable views.
I wouldn't say the CMRI has chapels in the West only. From their website:
Traditional Latin Mass Locations in the U.S.A.
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Idaho
Kansas
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Mexico
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Texas
Washington
And then also:
International Traditional Latin Mass Locations
Europe:
Czech Republic
Great Britain
Germany
Russia
Switzerland
North, South and Central America:
Argentina
Brazil
Canada
Honduras
Mexico
Other Countries:
Australia
Fiji Islands
New Zealand
Yes, that is essentially it.
The CMRI is the largest and the best of the groups of Sedevacantist clergy.
I highly recommend the CMRI.
The SSPV should be avoided for many reasons.
The SSPV should be avoideded for many reasons including those given above by s2srea:
I see the SSPV as having quite a bit of scandal to deal with, and very unstable views.
-
If anyone wants to attend a Sedevacantist Traditional Latin Mass, celebrated according to the Decree of Pope Saint
Pius V, attending the CMRI is a very good decision.
The CMRI are the largest of the groups of Sedevacantist Catholic priests.
They provide a very high calibre of priest.
Click on the links below for their contact details:
http://www.cmri.org/traditional-latin-mass-directory.shtml
http://www.cmri.org/
-
If anyone wants to attend a Catholic Sede Traditional Latin Mass, and does not know where to find one, I can
help.
Please send me a Private Message using this website’s Private Message feature.
Or just ask me on the threads.
I will try to find a Mass near to you.
If you are just reading this website, and you would like to attend a Catholic Traditional Latin Mass then I
strongly advise you to join this website, CathInfo.
Then you can send me a Private Message, and I will try to find a Traditional Latin Mass that is near you.
I will find one which is Sede.
God Bless you.
-
Veering a bit off course with this next question, but here goes:
Does a CMRI sedevacantist have an issue attending SSPX Masses (i.e., because of the "una cuм" thing)?
-
Pope Pius XI personally selected Fr. Thuc to be consecrated a Bishop.
I believe U mean Pope Pius XII
-
Pope Pius XI personally selected Fr. Thuc to be consecrated a Bishop.
I believe U mean Pope Pius XII
Yes, it was Pope Pius XII. He gave him the ability to consecrate without papal approval to protect against the communists in Vietnam; however, while they weren't in Vietnam, he still made other bishops to protect against the communists!
-
Veering a bit off course with this next question, but here goes:
Does a CMRI sedevacantist have an issue attending SSPX Masses (i.e., because of the "una cuм" thing)?
Also, there are many other reasons why a Sedevacantist would avoid the sspx.
E.g., the sspx use the A.D. 1962 Ordo, which was tampered with by Annibale Bugnini.
Yes, most Sedevacantists would not attend "una cuм", because we would not want to betray the truth by being "una cuм" an Antipope.
Also, we would not want to sin by going along with such a scandal.
And There are other reasons not to attend the sspx.
Any Sede who attends the sspx really needs to think about what God wants us to do.
-
Pope Pius XI personally selected Fr. Thuc to be consecrated a Bishop.
I believe U mean Pope Pius XII
What I said is correct, roscoe, it was Pope Pius XI who selected Fr. Thuc to be Consecrated a Bishop.
-
Pope Pius XI personally selected Fr. Thuc to be consecrated a Bishop.
I believe U mean Pope Pius XII
Yes, it was Pope Pius XII. He gave him the ability to consecrate without papal approval to protect against the communists in Vietnam; however, while they weren't in Vietnam, he still made other bishops to protect against the communists!
Yes, s2srea, this refers to the Reign of Pope Pius XII.
-
Doh! :facepalm:
I stand corrected, it was Pope Pius XII who gave him permission for consecrating bishops.
-
Bishop Thuc was a chosen to be Consecrated a Bishop in the A.D. 1930s, in the Reign of Pope Pius XI who actually
chose him.
Bishop Thuc was actually selected by Pope Pius XI himself.
So Bishop Thuc should be regarded very highly based on the recommendation of Pope Pius XI.
-
Any Sede who attends the sspx really needs to think about what God wants us to do.
What about sedes who's only option is an SSPX Mass? What should they do in that situation?
-
They should not attend.
Some people move house to attend a Mass which is pleasing to God.
Other people spend hours travelling each Sunday in order to attend a Mass which is pleasing to God.
The Faith should be the most important thing in our lives.
We should never compromise it due to human respect or sloth or any other reason.
If it takes a real effort for a Sede to get to a Sede Traditional Latin Mass, then he should put that effort in.
-
I do not advocate becoming a home-aloner.
We all need the Sacraments.
Our Lord instituted the Sacraments.
The Sacraments are a vital means of Salvation.
Obviously people should make whatever effort is necessary to attend Mass.
Also, in the present situation in the Church, it may not be possible to attend weekly Mass.
Perhaps only monthly.
-
There are possibly several hundred Sede Traditional Latin Mass Churches or Mass centres in North America alone.
So it should not be impossible to get to a Sede Traditional Latin Mass.
-
There are possibly several hundred Sede Traditional Latin Mass Churches or Mass centres in North America alone.
So it should not be impossible to get to a Sede Traditional Latin Mass.
Agreed. But it is not sinful to miss mass if you live more than an hour away. For example - I live an hour and 15 minutes from Omaha and we attend Mass , usually three or four times a week. But my Son lives an Hour and 20 minutes from Omaha as was told by the Priest that it was ok due to finanicial hardship to attend Mass once a month so long as he kept each Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation - Holy.
We moved to Omaha in the Late 90's to not only attend Mass but Holy Week and for the School. So it does all boil down to what is most important for each of us - to save our souls.
The more we can do to accomplish this the better off we are IMO
-
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).
Why not CMRI, just because some want to believe in the Thuc "issue", is their problem. There are just as many if not more information that prove Thuc is valid.
CMRI has proven over and over that they represent a large part of the remnant Catholic church, it is as if God is protecting them from the lies the world tries to spin. Just as the Church has always continued in spite of the evil forces against it, so CMRI, also stands, and will as long as it preaches sound doctrine.
CMRI IS the Church, an order, within the Church. Just as St. Athanasius in his letter to his flock states. "EVEN IF CATHOLICS FAITHFUL TO TRADITION ARE REDUCED TO A HANDFUL, THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST."
(source: Coll. seleta SS. Ecci. Patrum, Cailiau and Guillou, Vlol. 32, pp. 411-412)
Not to say, they are the only order, but since you asked about CMRI...
As I said previously in another thread, the problem with many traditional Catholics is, they do not see their priests as being The Church. This however, is not my problem. CMRI in spite of what others here like to spin, is THE CHURCH.
-
Pope Pius XI personally selected Fr. Thuc to be consecrated a Bishop.
I believe U mean Pope Pius XII
Yes, it was Pope Pius XII. He gave him the ability to consecrate without papal approval to protect against the communists in Vietnam; however, while they weren't in Vietnam, he still made other bishops to protect against the communists!
It is my understanding that both Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII gave Bishop Thuc the ability to consecrate without papal mandate.
-
Pope Pius XI personally selected Fr. Thuc to be consecrated a Bishop.
I believe U mean Pope Pius XII
Yes, it was Pope Pius XII. He gave him the ability to consecrate without papal approval to protect against the communists in Vietnam; however, while they weren't in Vietnam, he still made other bishops to protect against the communists!
It is my understanding that both Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII gave Bishop Thuc the ability to consecrate without papal mandate.
Thank you GC. I knew it was Pius XII, I did not know about Pius XI, so thank you for informing me!
-
You are not required to hold the Sedevacant veiw or even believe that the new ordination rites are invalid to attend a CMRI chapel. The only thing that they require is that you stop going to the Novus Ordo mass.
CMRI does not tell you that you can't go to a SSPX chapel. Some of the priest might advise against it but they don't forbid it.
Some of the people who attend CMRI would never go to an SSPX chapel, others have no problem with it. I've heard interesting points for and against attending "una cuм" masses. Personally, I'm against going to "una cuм" masses, but If I lived in an area where the only place around was an SSPX chapel and I had not received the sacraments for a long time, I might be more flexible.
-
You are not required to hold the Sedevacant veiw or even believe that the new ordination rites are invalid to attend a CMRI chapel. The only thing that they require is that you stop going to the Novus Ordo mass.
CMRI does not tell you that you can't go to a SSPX chapel. Some of the priest might advise against it but they don't forbid it.
Some of the people who attend CMRI would never go to an SSPX chapel, others have no problem with it. I've heard interesting points for and against attending "una cuм" masses. Personally, I'm against going to "una cuм" masses, but If I lived in an area where the only place around was an SSPX chapel and I had not received the sacraments for a long time, I might be more flexible.
Precisely correct. I personally do not attend "Una cuм" Masses either however , I have never questioned whether or not they are Valid. The question has always been raised as to whether or not the SSPX Priest is using the proper intent and that point has been raised by Father Cekada as you all well know as well as the home aloners. Since we do not have a hierarchy to go to - to decide the issue - I think these questions will always remain questions until this heresy is no more. If I had to choose between No Sacraments and Una cuм Masses - I would go to Una cuм Masses without hesitation. I do not go now because we moved to Omaha and attend CMRI. But I cannot criticize anyone who goes to Church to offer the Body and Blood of Our Lord fulfilling his Sunday Obligation. The intent by the Faithful to do so is , I think , what Almighty GOD wants from us. And once a Priest always a Priest and the Supreme law seems to take precedence over the arguments against.
Pax