Author Topic: Growth in sedevacantist chapels and networks (Read 18894 times)

Kephapaulos · « **on:** February 09, 2013, 10:29:34 PM »

What has growth been like in sedevacantist chapels during the Church crisis?

Ambrose · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2013, 03:53:42 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

What has growth been like in sedevacantist chapels during the Church crisis?

1. The only sedevacantist organization that has grown substantially and is all over the U.S. and many countries throughout the world is the CMRI which includes their chapels and the independent chapels affiliated with them. http://www.cmri.org/

The CMRI unlike other organizations has two types of clergy. They have religious that are part of the CMRI and they have secular priests who work with them and run their chapels, but they are free to leave if they choose. They also have at least 3 orders of Nuns, the CMRI sisters, the Congregation of the Mother of God, and another order located in Idhao, I can't remember their name.

2. There is the sedevacantist organizations Trento in Mexico which has many chapels. The Trento group is very friendly with CMRI and they work together at times. http://www.sociedadtrento.org.mx/

3. There are many smaller groups such as the St. Gertrude's group and there was a small Benedictine order in Alabama, but they went to the Conciliar church. I have heard that some would not go along with the return to the Conciliar church and are now trying to rebuild the order with the help of CMRI.

4. In addition to this, there are scattered all around the world, many former priests of the Society of St. Pius X, who operate independent chapels. There are other clergy too, former CMRI and some others that operate independent chapels. A few of the former SSPX clergy that I can think of offhand are Fr. Joseph Collins, Bp. Neville, Fr. Daniel Ahern, Fr. Zapp.

5. The SSPV is also a large group, but they are not strictly speaking sedevacantist.

It seems to me that if one wants to see the organization that has stood in front and has grown substantially with chapels, schools, and vocations it is the CMRI. They are the largest traditional group in the world outside of SSPX.

I hope this helps.

bowler · « **Reply #2 on:** February 11, 2013, 10:51:07 AM »

Quote

5. The SSPV is also a large group, but they are not strictly speaking sedevacantist.

I thought they called themselves sede, so, what do you mean?

Ambrose · « **Reply #3 on:** February 11, 2013, 01:56:46 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote
5. The SSPV is also a large group, but they are not strictly speaking sedevacantist.

I thought they called themselves sede, so, what do you mean?

The understanding I have of them is that it is treated more as an open question. But, I have never attended an SSPV chapel nor plan to attend one, so if there is someone on here who goes their chapels, maybe they could better address this. (I will never step foot into their chapels until they stop their schismatic usurpation of authority in denying the sacraments to Catholics who attend masses said by priests ordained through the lines of Archbishop Thuc. )

I did look up their statement of principles, and it does support the sedevacantist position, and rather well done actually.

It is here if you want to read it: http://www.realnews247.com/icc_statement_of_principles_print.htm

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 21, 2013, 09:10:43 AM »

There is an SSPV chapel near here. I know of one family who is former SSPX now SSPV. The particular priest at that particular chapel will deny Holy Communion to anyone who receives Holy Communion anywhere else.

I don't know if this is the policy in all their chapels, but they have lots of problems with lots of priests, both SSPX and Independent.

Seems rather cult-like to me.

The person I spoke with on several occasions said they were sedevacantists.

Ambrose · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2013, 02:47:53 PM »

Quote from: CathMomof7

There is an SSPV chapel near here. I know of one family who is former SSPX now SSPV. The particular priest at that particular chapel will deny Holy Communion to anyone who receives Holy Communion anywhere else.

I don't know if this is the policy in all their chapels, but they have lots of problems with lots of priests, both SSPX and Independent.

Seems rather cult-like to me.

The person I spoke with on several occasions said they were sedevacantists.

The family is most certainly correct in their description of the SSPV's schismatic and sinful policy regarding Holy Communion. Even if the SSPV erroneously thinks that Archbishop Thuc's episcopal lines are not valid, that does not give them any right to impose their conclusion on Catholics. They are usurping the authority of the Church by this act.

sedetrad · « **Reply #6 on:** February 22, 2013, 09:57:37 AM »

Quote

Plus the C.M.R.I advocates attendance at SSPX chapels if there's not a sedevacantist chapel in ones town.

The CMRI must have sanity. The above is a sound policy as members of the SSPX are not heretics.

Olive · « **Reply #7 on:** February 22, 2013, 02:32:59 PM »

Question about Bp Neville:

Is he still part of Bp Sanborn's group? If not, is he all alone (independent)? I am unclear as to what his situation is right now.

Thanks.

Matto · « **Reply #8 on:** February 22, 2013, 03:39:28 PM »

What is the CMRI's policy about going to Masses where the priest was ordained in the new rite of ordination?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #9 on:** February 22, 2013, 03:43:36 PM »

Quote from: Matto

What is the CMRI's policy about going to Masses where the priest was ordained in the new rite of ordination?

I'm pretty sure they believe a Mass celebrated by such a priest is invalid.

ora pro me · « **Reply #10 on:** February 22, 2013, 04:00:05 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: Matto
What is the CMRI's policy about going to Masses where the priest was ordained in the new rite of ordination?

I'm pretty sure they believe a Mass celebrated by such a priest is invalid.

The answer is probably on their website:
www.cmri.org

Maybe someone has the time to search through the articles to find the answer?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #11 on:** February 22, 2013, 04:51:39 PM »

You're right they do not accept the new rites of any of the sacraments, and with good reason, as CMRI is not protestant like with their sacraments.

Here at Mount St. Michael, we are getting new people, but not sure if its because of the crisis with SSPX or the fact that in the year 2015, Mount St. Michael (the building) will be 100 years old. It has lately become known to the public as the Historic Mount Saint Michael, Heritage Center & Museum, resulting with many new comers visiting us, staying for Mass, and considering to send their children to our excellent school.

One young adult even wanted to join the convent, but the nuns told her she had to become Catholic first.

Ambrose · « **Reply #12 on:** February 23, 2013, 01:05:00 AM »

Quote from: mboucher

Quote from: Ambrose
schismatic usurpation of authority

Ambrose, hi. Please bear with me. What do C.M.R.I's leaders tell their people about the Catholic teaching that for a bishop to have canonical mission they must have received a papal mandate? Yes it is a crisis Ambrose, however the Faith can't change, as you know. There seems no end in sight for the crisis if they
continue to follow this new and never before advanced path.

Plus the C.M.R.I advocates attendance at SSPX chapels if there's not a sedevacantist chapel in ones town. This doesn't sit well with my sensus catolicus for many reasons, such as the essential una cuм matter, and the rejection of the SSPX of the papal bulla cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio [which simply is heretical on their part]. Also C.M.R.I. teach una cuм Benedict XVI people can receive communion at their chapels. Therefore the C.M.R.I. receives and countenances people under anathema for heresy, which is condemned.

“All heretics of every name and every sect, and those who give them
credence, or who receive or countenance them, and generally all those who
take up their defense, are hereby excommunicated”. -Pope Pius IX

So, the need of a papal mandate and receiving and giving countenance to the enemy are my questions, if you have time to reply.

In Christ,

Mark B.

Hi Mark,

To answer your questions, and some questions for you:

1. Bishop Pivarunas does not claim jurisdiction, but he would justify the use of power of a bishop in the use of of sacraments or blessings by supplied jurisdiction. In regards to the mission given to a bishop by the Pope, I am sure he must be aware that he lacks that. Due to this, Bishop Pivarunas and all traditional bishops have no authority over Catholics. They are bishops consecrated only for the continuation of the sacraments that require a bishop, i.e. ordination, confirmation.

2. I am having some trouble following your next questions. Are you arguing that Catholics who have formed the judgment that Benedict XVI is pope are guilty of heresy? You seem to say that, but you do not state the heresy.

3. I am not aware of the SSPX rejecting any papal bulls. Can you quote them on that?

4. Do you understand that in order to be a heretic, that the heresy must be a direct denial of a a de fide proposition?

Ambrose · « **Reply #13 on:** February 23, 2013, 01:12:41 AM »

Quote from: Olive

Question about Bp Neville:

Is he still part of Bp Sanborn's group? If not, is he all alone (independent)? I am unclear as to what his situation is right now.

Thanks.

He is no longer part of Bp. Sanborn's group, and is independent.

You can find more about Bp. Neville and what he is doing currently here: http://www.stdominicchapel.com/clergy.php

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #14 on:** February 23, 2013, 07:44:52 AM »

Quote from: mboucher

Quote from: Ambrose

To answer your questions, and some questions for you:

1. ... In regards to the mission given to a bishop by the Pope, I am sure he must be aware that he lacks that.

Ambrose so logically you are saying the Church law requiring a papal mandate for episcopal consecrations, as for several decades now purposely disregarded by the C.M.R.I., is traditional Catholic practice and a good thing to do (i.e., not to obey this teaching).

The so called Palmarian Church in El Palmar de Troya, Spain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmarian_Catholic_Church which claims to have at least 60 Thuc bishops at last count, differs with their American "brother Thuc bishops" Mark Pivarunas (NE), Dennis McCormack (NY), Paul Petko (IN), on this "issue" and currently says papal mandates are good. Will they flip-flop on this down the road like Donald Sanborn (FL) did on his initial meticulously researched conclusion that Thuc's consecrations were worthless?
Quote from: Ambrose

2. I am having some trouble following your next questions. Are you arguing that Catholics who have formed the judgment that Benedict XVI is pope are guilty of heresy? You seem to say that, but you do not state the heresy.

Those who have the ability to read and understand the Catholic Churches teachings on the impossibility of Benedict XVI being pope are guilty of both schism and heresy, as were those intellectually capable souls who nonetheless chose to follow the wrongful authority of the heretical "head of a church" Henry VIII in the 16th Century.

Quote from: Ambrose

3. I am not aware of the SSPX rejecting any papal bulls. Can you quote them on that?

It is done tacitly of course, which has the same ipso facto effect. I mentioned one above, Pope Paul IV's cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. All know one has to be obedient and adhere to a pope or they will be damned. SSPX currently adheres to an individual who was a manifest heretic prior to his own claim of being made a bishop (in the new rite) in Germany and Rome. Thus SSPX and its patrons cannot possibly be in obedience to a pope currently, and fall under numerous anathemas in consequence.

Quote from: Ambrose

4. Do you understand that in order to be a heretic, that the heresy must be a direct denial of a a de fide proposition?

Yes, of course. An individual I spoke with who recently left the C.M.R.I., in the Cornhusker state told me there is no such effort whatsoever by Pivarunas to end the crisis by creating a pope. The individual had all they could take after an incident where Pivarunas was defining exactly what size (and no larger) one mother's son could have a tattoo of, carved on his arm (mutilation). You mentioned Pivarunas role was solely to administer two sacraments?

The individual said the people in Nebraska realy like it the way it is, as C.M.R.I. just keeps ordaining more priests. The next generation there will never know what a papal mandate remotely means. No need to "send in the clowns".

So... with what authority do you pronounce these things so categorically? Where were you awarded your baccalaureate, licentiate, doctorate, &c., in theology, Canon law, &c.? What treatises have you published, what research have you made on your own, to enable to speak in such a tone?

Do you not know there are distinctions to be made when speaking of theological error?

I think some people should read the celebrated treatise De imitatione Christi and study logic before writing or speaking on such matters.