My apologies to Jupiter for disrupting the thread, but it hopefully it will be short-lived.

Another thing from the sixties in addition to the rotary phone. This one's for Anne. Granny Clampett gives 'em what for. (Some ideas for how to deal with with us ornery trads):

I do not think that Vatican II is a valid ecuмenical council of the Roman Catholic Church.

That being said, as I mentioned in my response to RomanTheo, the primary issue of our current crisis is not Vatican II. This council can be interpreted in a way, commensurate to the machinations that gave birth to it, that is in continuity with Tradition due to the very ambiguous nature of its docuмents which were engineered to create weaponized nebulosity.

The primary issue, rather, is that the post Vatican II “Popes,” ecclesiastical hierarchy, theologians, monastic orders, and the vast majority of the laity have apostatized completely from the Catholic faith.

You don't think its a problem that several thousand bishops whose primary duty is to teach and spread the faith signed off on a docuмent containing multiple condemned heresies? 

Seems to me that any bishop who signed off on Vatican became excommunicated when they signed off on heresy.  I mean it contains blatant condemned heresies and the job of a bishop is to know and teach the faith, I don't see how they get much wiggle room with the "well i didn't know" defense.

See, what "group do you align with?" Exactly what I have been saying. Every new person here has to be slotted into some box or category so the rest of the group can approve or not and therefore bash accordingly.

Btw, since you are on this thread and I am thinking of it, there is irony in the fact that you are trying to judge people by classifying them. But please keep in mind, that I am quite certain there is at least one member here (obviously not me) that would still consider you a Jєω, even if you have converted to the Catholic Faith. In other words, if you were to walk down the street, they would judge you by appearances alone based on your phenotype. No, they don't have your DNA, thanks God, but that would not stop them from possibly doing harm to you.

Just go back and read some of the trash threads here and see the absolute HATRED for Jєωιѕн people. It is not hard to figure out.

So please keep yourself safe down there in the CRAZY White-Nationalist-White-Supremacist USA, and keep your wits about you. There ARE people going around the Internet taking notes about ALL Jєωιѕн persons with the intentions of doing harm, or making their lives miserable.

If you don't want to be judged, stop judging others. You may have converted to the Catholic Faith (which is awesome), but some people are still blind and would see you as a Jєω. They only consider the White Race as superior. Blacks and Jєωs (or any other ethnicity) don't cut it.

Learn self-defense, carry pepper spray or whatever, but just recognize the harsh reality. God bless you, Anne
P.S. And it's okay if you were "done with me" before. I forgive you. Gotta go for now.

You have a tendency to invent problems so you can then denounce them and make yourself out to be a champion: ALL THESE PRIEST BASHERS, SO MUCH GOSSIP HERE (hilarious irony in this one as you yourself were the chief gossiper in that thread), WHITE SUPREMACIST RACISTS, JEW HATERS, SO MUCH JUDGEMENT (she judged)

Ann Quixote tilting at windmills.

I remember rotary telephones. Are you old enough to have ever used one on a regular basis? Just wonderin'.

Things I remember:

Rotary phones were the only kind of phone.  When the push button phones came out, I asked my mom why we didn't get one.  She said it costs extra.

Telephone numbers that began with an exchange name:  I grew up with Emerson 3-7177.  "Emerson", was sometimes called "EM", what we now would just say 36.

Seatbelts were optional equipment.  In fact, I still remember when you got into a car that had seatbelts and you put them on, the driver would note that you didn't trust his driving.

McDonalds only sold hamburgers, cheeseburgers, fries (what is now considered small), sodas, and "triple thick shakes" (they couldn't call them milk shakes because there was no milk in them).

I was in high school when I saw my first color tv.  The rich kid that lived in the house that had a view of the lake had one, and only one, in his house.

My apologies to Jupiter for disrupting the thread, but it hopefully it will be short-lived.

Well, given the thread was originally about Heiner and the CMRI, I think it went off-topic quite awhile ago.

But LOL at Granny Clampett. I love the Beverly Hillbillies!

Right?!

I thought I'd add Bishop Pivarunas' statement from 2002 on the una cuм matter.  I can't find anything more recent. 

Although His Excellency allows for assistance there, he is certainly not encouraging it due to their theological contradictions and erroneous opinions:

The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (C.M.R.I.) holds that the Catholic faithful may petition the Sacraments from traditional Catholic priests who unfortunately offer their Masses "una cuм" (John Paul II).


Although C.M.R.I. does not accept John Paul II as a legitimate successor of St. Peter, it does not consider such traditional priests (who offer "una cuм" Masses) as schismatic. For, if such priests were schismatic in the canonical sense of the word, then they would be required, upon their recognition of the vacancy of the Apostolic See, to abjure their error and be received back into the Church.

Nevertheless, it has never been the practice of any traditional bishop or priest to require this abjuration of error of any priest who at one time mistakenly recognized John Paul II as a true pope.

This does not mean that C.M.R.I. in any way endorses the theological contradiction of those traditional priests who maintain that John Paul II is a true pope.

Lastly, we exhort the faithful to use great discretion when they approach such priests for the Sacraments. This is especially true in regard to their children, who may be confused by their erroneous opinions on the Papacy and on the infallibility of the Church.

Bp. Mark Pivarunas, C.M.R.I., Superior General
The Priests of C.M.R.I.
August 10, 2002

This.  Pretty much what Bishop Pivarunas said to m directly a few moths ago when my family could no longer deal with the inconsistencies of the SSPX.  We attend a CMRI mass 1.5 hours away every weekend as a result when we have a nice big SSPX chapel (St. Vincent de Paul  kcmo).  their Covid sellout made it much easier.    Note also:  Bishop Sanborn himself told me about the same time that CMRi was fine, their priests are sound.  

This.  Pretty much what Bishop Pivarunas said to m directly a few moths ago when my family could no longer deal with the inconsistencies of the SSPX.  We attend a CMRI mass 1.5 hours away every weekend as a result when we have a nice big SSPX chapel (St. Vincent de Paul  kcmo).  their Covid sellout made it much easier.    Note also:  Bishop Sanborn himself told me about the same time that CMRi was fine, their priests are sound. 

Have you read up on the Thuc consecrations? I'd be careful with the CMRI.
https://benedictinos.blog/2020/10/15/the-ministry-and-validity-of-mons-thuc/?amp=1

There are 2 Thuc lines: Moises Carmona and Gerard des Lauriers.  Gerard des Lauriers consecrated in secret(?) and Moises Carmona consecrated openly with supplied jurisdiction. Epikea is mentioned. Bishop Pivarunas was consecrated under Carmona.

When I hear someone saying, oh, the Thuc line is not good or right, I question if they understand there are different Thuc lines.