Author Topic: Is the CMRI schismatic? (Read 64256 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #110 on:** December 03, 2014, 04:55:53 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado

That's not a rebuttal. That is a little-boy denial. It means nothing intellectually.

Pope Michael wasn't elected by Roman clergy, so he is not pope.

So what? Schuckardt was not ordained and consecrated by the Roman clergy either and the CMRI officially trumpet that they trace their lineage back to him.

You foolishly claim epikeia is justification for schism as if that's a universally accepted fact or something.

Again, all you continue to offer is that schism is a permissible option under certain circuмstances - and it seems you understand that only schismatics think that way - Question: you do understand that only schismatics think that way, don't you? - yes or no?

Bump!

Schism is never permissible, that is what the Church thinks. And the Church thinks also that receiving certain Sacraments stolen by a non-Catholic, in an emergency, is a good thing, and is therefore not schism. I will tell you what the Church thinks; you can tell me what schismatics think.

Then try replying to my re-post below without justifying the schism below.

In his post against the Dimond fools, ascent describes some of the facts of the CMRI, namely;

*1) they are not organic, they cannot trace their lineage back to a member of the Church who was consecrated in the Holy Orders,
*2) the CMRI is not organic because it is 100% lay founded, hence lacking any authenticity and
*3) their monastery is no different than some bozo waking up tomorrow morning and allotting his barn and land for a few lay people to start their "monastery" while they call themselves "monks" and "brothers" and "priests".

1) They trace their lineage back to Bishop Francis Schuckardt who was ordained and consecrated in 1971 by Old Catholic Bishop Daniel Q. Brown, who traces his lineage back to Old Catholic Bishop, Arnold hαɾɾιs Mathew whom Pope Pius X himself excommunicated.

2) CMRI was founded in 1967 by lay man Francis Schuckardt. The CMRI officially trace their lineage back to this lay man.

3) The difference here is that "some bozo" woke up one morning and ended up buying authentic Catholic buildings with all the authentic statues and furnishings and started a community - but he took it a few steps further by hooking up with and getting ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop, then called that community "Catholic".

The above are historical facts which are indisputable.

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #111 on:** December 03, 2014, 05:13:33 PM »

Stubborn, thank you for taking the time to explain the reason for your username. I must have missed it in other posts. It is sound reasoning and I guessed as much.

Interestingly, Nado, you are as staunch in defending your position as Stubborn. As I said previously, his username can easily apply to you also. To most of us! One thing we all have in common, we love the Faith. We defend our position vigorously, many times going overboard and venturing into uncharitable action, projecting "enemy" on the one we are debating. I did the same with a member here, and publicly and privately apologized. I'm still ashamed that I fell into that temptation during our back and forth commentary. Humble pie is sometimes hard to swallow. :ready-to-eat:

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #112 on:** December 03, 2014, 05:31:41 PM »

Quote

There is nothing reasonable about being stubborn. It is intrinsically unreasonable. Staunch defense is not being stubborn as long as a person thinks he is truly conforming with truth and reason. Whether I am ever stubborn or not has nothing to do with the fact that you don't promote being stubbornness as being something good.

intrinsically unreasonable - no, not a bit in this context. Did you read his reasoning? He has an admirably holy intent, one that we all on this forum follow. You included.

You are a tough cookie. I see it is very difficult for you to admit you are wrong. Let's leave it at that and pray for each other.

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #113 on:** December 03, 2014, 06:06:13 PM »

This username has context because it is his name on Cathinfo, a Catholic forum, where members love and practice the Faith. Most members know why he chose the name. For those of us who don't, we have merely to ask him. But to attribute evil intent for his use, and to keep wielding that sword even after he provided his reasoning, which actually indicates a holy intent, is wrong.
This isn't just any old internet forum where a username might be misunderstood. We are Catholic and should always presume the best about each other and give the benefit of the doubt. In this case, the benefit of the doubt was warranted.

Stubborn · « **Reply #114 on:** December 03, 2014, 07:52:32 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn

Then try replying to my re-post below without justifying the schism below.

In his post against the Dimond fools, ascent describes some of the facts of the CMRI, namely;

*1) they are not organic, they cannot trace their lineage back to a member of the Church who was consecrated in the Holy Orders,
*2) the CMRI is not organic because it is 100% lay founded, hence lacking any authenticity and
*3) their monastery is no different than some bozo waking up tomorrow morning and allotting his barn and land for a few lay people to start their "monastery" while they call themselves "monks" and "brothers" and "priests".

1) They trace their lineage back to Bishop Francis Schuckardt who was ordained and consecrated in 1971 by Old Catholic Bishop Daniel Q. Brown, who traces his lineage back to Old Catholic Bishop, Arnold hαɾɾιs Mathew whom Pope Pius X himself excommunicated.

2) CMRI was founded in 1967 by lay man Francis Schuckardt. The CMRI officially trace their lineage back to this lay man.

3) The difference here is that "some bozo" woke up one morning and ended up buying authentic Catholic buildings with all the authentic statues and furnishings and started a community - but he took it a few steps further by hooking up with and getting ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop, then called that community "Catholic".

The above are historical facts which are indisputable.

I have already fully replied on what epikeia is, and that obtaining Catholic sacraments from a non-Catholic in an emergency is warranted by the Catholic Church. Nothing else to say.

And I already refuted that reply because aside from it being crazy, all you replied with was the same attempt to reason that there can be justification for schism. Even Schuckardt would disagree since he allegedly got the schismatic bishop abjure his errors and make a profession of faith in his attempt to avoid your epikeia.

Like to try again?