Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 22

Author Topic: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?  (Read 14041 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?
« Reply #90 on: August 07, 2018, 09:36:47 AM »
Quote from: MyrnaM on August 02, 2018, 06:16:50 PM
CMRI's beginnings began when Vatican II left them staying firm to the teachings they have learned from the beginning as did other groups scattered.  Yet, Lad clings to the idea that somewhere there has to be a head, he doesn't know where but somewhere in his fantasy because he forgets that Jesus Christ is the head of His church, and the Popes are His representatives on earth, he forgets that a doubtful pope is no pope, yet he clings to his mirage.

Sedevacantism had nothing to do with my criticism of the CMRI.  I don't fault them for that.  Talk about flawed logic.  No, "CMRI's beginnings began" as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ network which then obtained doubtful orders from Old Catholic schismatics.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?
« Reply #91 on: August 07, 2018, 09:38:09 AM »
Quote from: Neil Obstat on August 07, 2018, 12:48:21 AM
.
Someone who thinks there is salvation outside the Church, someone who is coming from the Old Catholics (schismatics since Vat. I), and someone who rejects Francis as Pope, and who believes that BoD is a dogma of the Faith and belief in which is more necessary than in EENS, is welcome at CMRI.

Don't forget about the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and pedophiles.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?
« Reply #92 on: August 07, 2018, 09:40:06 AM »
Quote from: Neil Obstat on August 07, 2018, 12:48:21 AM
They interrupt conversations, acting like Communist informants, in an effectively de facto effort to control freedom of speech within property limits. This is made obvious by the fact that their priest will later approach you and request a private meeting in the back office, when he will inform you that certain things cannot be discussed on their property, which see, and if you don't conform to this rule, you will be forbidden from attending the chapel. That is because the priest was informed by one of his groupies of the conversation you were having with a friend.
.
Their behavior is far more like a trepidatious cult than like a truly Catholic group.

Hmmm.  So they still retain their cult-like characteristics ... with which they had been immersed since the beginning.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?
« Reply #93 on: August 07, 2018, 09:43:05 AM »
Quote from: Centroamerica on August 07, 2018, 09:13:56 AM
Again, what is telling is that the moderators support the cleric that organized the reception of sacraments at a Feenyite chapel by a resistance bishop. This is in light of the ex resistance priest of the sede vacante position who has been asking for confirmation at his Canadian chapel for months to only be ignored.

:confused:  What are you talking about?  These are public events, so you needn't be this cryptic about it.
Logged

Offline MyrnaM

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?
« Reply #94 on: August 07, 2018, 10:30:01 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on August 07, 2018, 09:36:47 AM
Sedevacantism had nothing to do with my criticism of the CMRI.  I don't fault them for that.  Talk about flawed logic.  No, "CMRI's beginnings began" as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ network which then obtained doubtful orders from Old Catholic schismatics.
Again you mislead ...

Once Bishop Musey took over CMRI in Spokane, all of Bishop Schuckardt’s priests took an Abjuration of Error and got conditionally ordained by him. 

You seem to forget that God can work good from evil, we are all born in sin, REMEMBER! 

Why not or if you don't know; RESEARCH what really happened in regard to Schuckardt:  
Episcopal Consecration
Bishop Brown soon became acquainted with Brother Schuckardt and tried to persuade him to accept ordination from him. Later he proposed to consecrate Brother Schuckardt to the episcopacy in addition to ordaining him to the priesthood. After Bishop Brown had repented of having received consecration from the Old Catholics, Brother Schuckardt agreed to receive consecration from Bishop Brown: "[T]hese past months have been spent in intense soul searching and continuous prayer to know and follow God's holy will. Thus I could not give you a reply until I felt fairly certain in my heart and mind. Now, finally, in concluding our novena in honor of the Annunciation, I have come to a decision. It is with holy trepidation that I accept your offer..."[7] Between October 28 and November 1, 1971, Schuckardt was ordained and consecrated a bishop[8] in a rented ballroom in Chicago, as they were not welcome in the churches of the Catholic Church.In 1969, Daniel Quilter Brown received episcopal consecration as an Old Catholic (English-line Old Catholic) bishop in the line of Arnold hαɾɾιs Mathew. Brown had been born and raised a Roman Catholic, but became disenchanted with the reforms of Vatican II, and had chosen to become an Old Roman Catholic bishop in order to perpetuate valid episcopal orders, believing that the Old Catholics still retained valid Orders.[5] Despite the fact that Bishop Brown obtained his consecration in the Old Catholic Church, he and his followers called themselves Roman Catholics and refused to use the title of "Old Catholic." Shortly after his consecration, he broke all ties and communications with the Old Catholics.[6]


Quote
Also you state here --->I stated the fact that the CMRI published this heretical-sounding article twice.  Readers can draw their own conclusions.  Whether the CMRI agree with it or not doesn't matter.  Had they disagreed with it, of course, they could have simply added an editorial footnote.  Yet the fact is that they published it.  It's just as reprehensible as if they had printed an article questioning the perpetual virginity of Mary ... even if they didn't "agree with" it.  

If you ever read the article past the Title you might have a different opinion, I would hope so!


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 22
« previous next »