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

Author Topic: Is the CMRI schismatic?  (Read 58978 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 15203
  • Reputation: +6241/-924
  • Gender: Male
Is the CMRI schismatic?
« Reply #135 on: December 05, 2014, 09:15:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I thought we all agreed that your ignorant argument was meant to be ignored since all your main argument does is attempt to justify schism. Didn't we agree on that already?

    Honestly, you really are a piece of work. Why don't you create a thread, call it "Bewildered and proud" and use that whenever you feel the need to post. It certainly would help to keep the other threads from being clogged up with your heretical opinions.
     
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15203
    • Reputation: +6241/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Is the CMRI schismatic?
    « Reply #136 on: December 05, 2014, 09:25:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • NO, no. Remember it was proven that the excuse of epikeia was a farce. You even agreed - go back and re-read your own head spinning, thread clogging post.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15203
    • Reputation: +6241/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Is the CMRI schismatic?
    « Reply #137 on: December 05, 2014, 09:52:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Stubborn
    NO, no. Remember it was proven that the excuse of epikeia was a farce. You even agreed - go back and re-read your own head spinning, thread clogging post.


    I think you have a mental problem. Is you memory that bad?

    No, my analogy about incest is what I agreed didn't have to be part of the argument. The epikeia argument is solid, and you skirted it from the start and still run from it.


    You must have missed the whole thing again, well, the only thing you can do now is to go back and try to find it so you will stop claiming epikeia justifies schism.

    Can we at least agree on that?
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15203
    • Reputation: +6241/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Is the CMRI schismatic?
    « Reply #138 on: December 05, 2014, 12:38:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Stubborn
    NO, no. Remember it was proven that the excuse of epikeia was a farce. You even agreed - go back and re-read your own head spinning, thread clogging post.


    I think you have a mental problem. Is you memory that bad?

    No, my analogy about incest is what I agreed didn't have to be part of the argument. The epikeia argument is solid, and you skirted it from the start and still run from it.


    You must have missed the whole thing again, well, the only thing you can do now is to go back and try to find it so you will stop claiming epikeia justifies schism.

    Can we at least agree on that?


    Bump!
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15203
    • Reputation: +6241/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Is the CMRI schismatic?
    « Reply #139 on: December 05, 2014, 12:50:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Stubborn
    NO, no. Remember it was proven that the excuse of epikeia was a farce. You even agreed - go back and re-read your own head spinning, thread clogging post.


    I think you have a mental problem. Is you memory that bad?

    No, my analogy about incest is what I agreed didn't have to be part of the argument. The epikeia argument is solid, and you skirted it from the start and still run from it.


    You must have missed the whole thing again, well, the only thing you can do now is to go back and try to find it so you will stop claiming epikeia justifies schism.

    Can we at least agree on that?


    Bump!


    No.

    I do not agree with you that I ever claimed epikeia justifies schism.


    Yes, I proved to you that the epikeia excuse you were using was a complete farce since even Schuckardt did not use such a farce. Then you came back with some bewildered argument which made no sense but seemed to imply that you agreed.

    Remember now?

    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15203
    • Reputation: +6241/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Is the CMRI schismatic?
    « Reply #140 on: December 05, 2014, 01:04:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Stubborn
    NO, no. Remember it was proven that the excuse of epikeia was a farce. You even agreed - go back and re-read your own head spinning, thread clogging post.


    I think you have a mental problem. Is you memory that bad?

    No, my analogy about incest is what I agreed didn't have to be part of the argument. The epikeia argument is solid, and you skirted it from the start and still run from it.


    You must have missed the whole thing again, well, the only thing you can do now is to go back and try to find it so you will stop claiming epikeia justifies schism.

    Can we at least agree on that?


    Bump!


    No.

    I do not agree with you that I ever claimed epikeia justifies schism.


    Yes, I proved to you that the epikeia excuse you were using was a complete farce since even Schuckardt did not use such a farce. Then you came back with some bewildered argument which made no sense but seemed to imply that you agreed.

    Remember now?



    Your memory has failed you.


    Ah, you are right, I am wrong.

    I thought you agreed with indisputable proof - what was I thinking?
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline APS

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 42
    • Reputation: +18/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Is the CMRI schismatic?
    « Reply #141 on: December 05, 2014, 02:47:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    I can make an argument.

    CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church.  Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold.  Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy.  Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.


    This is such a ridiculous oversimplification!  CMRI disagrees on Ecuмenism.  The CMRI does not agree on the issue of cuмmunicatio in Sacris which has always been taught by the Church.  It definitely disagrees on the Vatican II teaching that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.  You should really read their website so you do not make such a foolish error.

    Pax Christi

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15203
    • Reputation: +6241/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Is the CMRI schismatic?
    « Reply #142 on: December 05, 2014, 03:06:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: APS
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: APS

    To be fair all the priest of the CMRI have been conditionally ordained by Bp Musey (correct me if I am wrong).  To my knowledge Schukardt had nothing to do with the CMRI for a quarter of century.  If I did not know any better I would believe that you have an ax to grind with them.  But you quoted my post wouldn't it be more appropriate to see if CMRI under circuмstance could be non-schismatic.  I think there are alot of parallels from Church history to say that CMRI are not schismatic.


    Schuckardt was the founder and he was the only magisterium for 18 years, from 1967 to 1985 till he got the boot, he was +Pivarunas' seminary instructor, and btw, +Pivarunas was one of the one of the boots used on Schuckardt, plus the CMRI officially state right on their website they trace their origins back to 1967 - if they have nothing to do with him, then why do they officially trace their origin back to him? The SSPX have nothing to do with +ABL, yet they trace their origin and their lineage back to him. The CMRI is no different in that regard.

    As for the Thuc line ordinations, I personally do not question their validity since schism is not an obstacle to validity of Orders.

    "Valid orders" is all the CMRIers seem to focus on while completely ignoring the fact that valid Orders it is not the issue - schism is the issue.  





    Can you show me your source stating that Stukardt was the magisterium of the CMRI, as I understand he was the founder of the Order.  I do think the SSPX have something to do the Archbishop Lefbevre.  If the CMRI is schismatic only for the issue of refusal of submission to the Holy See, is there any canonical excuse for them since they have not been condemned in any forum that I know of?



    Schuckardt was the one who founded CMRI in 1967 and was superior till he got kicked out in 1984. Then in 1985, Father Dennis Chicoine became the new superior.
    All this is common knowledge and can be easily found with google.

    Here is one link that gives a brief history showing the above facts to be true.

    We know that Schuckardt had true priests available for the Mass and the sacraments up until 1971 when he was ordained and consecrated, what ever became of them is not recorded, at least not on the web that I could find.

    Whether they left or were told to leave we cannot say for sure, yet the fact remains that he had true priests available for the Mass and the sacraments, but chose to be ordained and consecrated clandestinely by a schismatic bishop instead.

    Right there at that point in time (if not sooner) is when I personally believe that the Church would certainly have declared that he severed himself from the Church.    

    And yes, certainly the SSPX have something to do with +ABL, it's founder.
     
    The same is true of CMRI and it's founder as their website states they trace their origin back to 1967 more than once.

    The reason given that the clandestine abjurations, confessions and professions of faith which were made by those CMRI clergy prior to being conditionally ordained by +Musey, is because there was doubt of the validity of the Schuckardt ordinations. Keep that fact in mind.

    Nowhere can we find that the abjurations were made in order to renounce their schism and rejoin the Church.



    Bump
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline APS

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 42
    • Reputation: +18/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Is the CMRI schismatic?
    « Reply #143 on: December 05, 2014, 03:08:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: APS
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: APS

    To be fair all the priest of the CMRI have been conditionally ordained by Bp Musey (correct me if I am wrong).  To my knowledge Schukardt had nothing to do with the CMRI for a quarter of century.  If I did not know any better I would believe that you have an ax to grind with them.  But you quoted my post wouldn't it be more appropriate to see if CMRI under circuмstance could be non-schismatic.  I think there are alot of parallels from Church history to say that CMRI are not schismatic.


    Schuckardt was the founder and he was the only magisterium for 18 years, from 1967 to 1985 till he got the boot, he was +Pivarunas' seminary instructor, and btw, +Pivarunas was one of the one of the boots used on Schuckardt, plus the CMRI officially state right on their website they trace their origins back to 1967 - if they have nothing to do with him, then why do they officially trace their origin back to him? The SSPX have nothing to do with +ABL, yet they trace their origin and their lineage back to him. The CMRI is no different in that regard.

    As for the Thuc line ordinations, I personally do not question their validity since schism is not an obstacle to validity of Orders.

    "Valid orders" is all the CMRIers seem to focus on while completely ignoring the fact that valid Orders it is not the issue - schism is the issue.  





    Can you show me your source stating that Stukardt was the magisterium of the CMRI, as I understand he was the founder of the Order.  I do think the SSPX have something to do the Archbishop Lefbevre.  If the CMRI is schismatic only for the issue of refusal of submission to the Holy See, is there any canonical excuse for them since they have not been condemned in any forum that I know of?



    Schuckardt was the one who founded CMRI in 1967 and was superior till he got kicked out in 1984. Then in 1985, Father Dennis Chicoine became the new superior.
    All this is common knowledge and can be easily found with google.

    Here is one link that gives a brief history showing the above facts to be true.

    We know that Schuckardt had true priests available for the Mass and the sacraments up until 1971 when he was ordained and consecrated, what ever became of them is not recorded, at least not on the web that I could find.

    Whether they left or were told to leave we cannot say for sure, yet the fact remains that he had true priests available for the Mass and the sacraments, but chose to be ordained and consecrated clandestinely by a schismatic bishop instead.

    Right there at that point in time (if not sooner) is when I personally believe that the Church would certainly have declared that he severed himself from the Church.    

    And yes, certainly the SSPX have something to do with +ABL, it's founder.
     
    The same is true of CMRI and it's founder as their website states they trace their origin back to 1967 more than once.

    The reason given that the clandestine abjurations, confessions and professions of faith which were made by those CMRI clergy prior to being conditionally ordained by +Musey, is because there was doubt of the validity of the Schuckardt ordinations. Keep that fact in mind.

    Nowhere can we find that the abjurations were made in order to renounce their schism and rejoin the Church.



    Well the CMRI in the sixties were a group as part of the Blue Army teaching devotion s such as the rosary and the apparition at Fatima.  They saw the dangers of Vatican II and at the time had an elderly priest exiled but the conciliar church.  How would you like them to proceed.  They had no access to Arb. Lefbevre. and they had a group of faithful Catholics who had the right to Mass of their baptism.  The cannonists teach that it is not schismatic to disobey a Pope if they find something about his election or validity doubtful.

     (i) " Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation..." (Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicuм, Vol. vii, n. 398)

      (ii) " Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (Szal, Rev. Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2)

     (iii) " Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded ['probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs. to Sanchez and Palao]." (de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp. xxv, sect. iii, nn. 35-8)


    Stubborn why is 1971 the year for cutoff for legitimate priests?  Where in the US could Catholics attend the Mass of their baptism as they are entitled to under canon law.  Name a diocese or religious order where the CMRI faithful could practice their faith whole and entire in 1971?  Or lets your parlance, where was their a legitimate non-Chushingite organization attached to visible post-conciliar Church?

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4579/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Is the CMRI schismatic?
    « Reply #144 on: December 05, 2014, 03:58:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: APS
    Quote from: Ladislaus
    I can make an argument.

    CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church.  Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold.  Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy.  Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.


    CMRI disagrees on Ecuмenism.  The CMRI does not agree on the issue of cuмmunicatio in Sacris which has always been taught by the Church.  It definitely disagrees on the Vatican II teaching that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.


    CMRI disagrees with Ecuмenism in theory only, but not in practice. This is because there is a great contradiction: CMRI believes that non-Catholics can be in state of sanctifying grace, being temples of the Holy Ghost, and ultimately reach Heaven without converting explicitly to Catholicism and formally entering the Church. That being the case, their followers, who believ in salvific "Invincible Ignorance" cannot really oppose Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism because "the good willed" non Catholic could actually be in state of Justification and is free to express his religious beliefs. After all, he does not HAVE to convert to Catholicism. He can be saved while being in a false religion through the Church. It follows that there may be thousands of "good willed" members of other religions who are also justified and temples of the Holy Ghost, so why not pray with them? Under this reasoning, the Prayer at Assisi would no longer be a blasphemy.


     
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15203
    • Reputation: +6241/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Is the CMRI schismatic?
    « Reply #145 on: December 05, 2014, 04:25:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: APS

    Well the CMRI in the sixties were a group as part of the Blue Army teaching devotion s such as the rosary and the apparition at Fatima.  They saw the dangers of Vatican II and at the time had an elderly priest exiled but the conciliar church.  How would you like them to proceed.  They had no access to Arb. Lefbevre. and they had a group of faithful Catholics who had the right to Mass of their baptism.  The cannonists teach that it is not schismatic to disobey a Pope if they find something about his election or validity doubtful.


    How would I have liked them to proceed? I would have liked for them to do something similar to what we did in those days, search for other priests until one was found, then search some more and keep searching until God provided for you. Not that he had to mind you, he already had priests, which gives him even less reason to break all the rules no matter what, so he could become one.

    Heck, we drove 700 miles one way for Mass 5 or 6 times, the first time not knowing for sure if we'd even find the True Mass and sacraments when we got there - better to do that then do what Schuckardt did. At least he had priests, that was more than we had in our neck of the woods.

    In order to  keep the faith it was and remains essential to disobey the pope, so it is not about disobeying the pope to the point that you do what Schuckardt did. There can be no justification in that, especially when you already had priests who were already taking care of the sheep. How anyone could possibly think his schismatic actions could be justified is beyond me - especially since he already had priests!

    Schuckardt and his little group had priests, had the sacraments, had the Mass, he and his little group had what they needed - but no, he willingly threw that all away.


    Quote from: APS

    Stubborn why is 1971 the year for cutoff for legitimate priests?  Where in the US could Catholics attend the Mass of their baptism as they are entitled to under canon law.  Name a diocese or religious order where the CMRI faithful could practice their faith whole and entire in 1971?  Or lets your parlance, where was their a legitimate non-Chushingite organization attached to visible post-conciliar Church?


    You are on the wrong track. You are not even on the same track as CMRI here.

    From my experience, by 1971 there was no place in any diocesan church where you could assist at the True Mass - that is only based on my experience. There was however many hold out priests whom were either kicked out or left the diocesan structure or took early retirement rather than accept the NO. But no matter, the fact remains that because he had priests, he had no reason at all to find a Schismatic bishop to ordain and consecrate him so HE could save the whole Church. And even if he had no priests except for a few times every other month, that's how it goes, it's certainly does not give justification to do what he did.  
     

    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline APS

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 42
    • Reputation: +18/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Is the CMRI schismatic?
    « Reply #146 on: December 05, 2014, 04:50:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: APS
    Quote from: Ladislaus
    I can make an argument.

    CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church.  Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold.  Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy.  Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.


    CMRI disagrees on Ecuмenism.  The CMRI does not agree on the issue of cuмmunicatio in Sacris which has always been taught by the Church.  It definitely disagrees on the Vatican II teaching that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.


    CMRI disagrees with Ecuмenism in theory only, but not in practice. This is because there is a great contradiction: CMRI believes that non-Catholics can be in state of sanctifying grace, being temples of the Holy Ghost, and ultimately reach Heaven without converting explicitly to Catholicism and formally entering the Church. That being the case, their followers, who believ in salvific "Invincible Ignorance" cannot really oppose Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism because "the good willed" non Catholic could actually be in state of Justification and is free to express his religious beliefs. After all, he does not HAVE to convert to Catholicism. He can be saved while being in a false religion through the Church. It follows that there may be thousands of "good willed" members of other religions who are also justified and temples of the Holy Ghost, so why not pray with them? Under this reasoning, the Prayer at Assisi would no longer be a blasphemy.


     

    In some US courts there is a motion called a demurrer.  It is used to show that Complaint from the other side does not state fact sufficent to support the charge.  it is sometimes called a so-what motion.  Here I have to demurr to you.  No one can tell who is invincibly ignorant.  There can be no cuмmincatio in sacris like at Assisi.  There can be no sharing of the sacraments as the post-conciliar church allows.  There can be no Balmaand agreement stopping proselytizing.  If they are of good will and still alive they would convert when giving the opportunity.  Cantarella you should really understand this issue when speaking of it.

    Offline APS

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 42
    • Reputation: +18/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Is the CMRI schismatic?
    « Reply #147 on: December 05, 2014, 04:53:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: APS
    Quote from: Ladislaus
    I can make an argument.

    CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church.  Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold.  Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy.  Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.


    CMRI disagrees on Ecuмenism.  The CMRI does not agree on the issue of cuмmunicatio in Sacris which has always been taught by the Church.  It definitely disagrees on the Vatican II teaching that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.


    CMRI disagrees with Ecuмenism in theory only, but not in practice. This is because there is a great contradiction: CMRI believes that non-Catholics can be in state of sanctifying grace, being temples of the Holy Ghost, and ultimately reach Heaven without converting explicitly to Catholicism and formally entering the Church. That being the case, their followers, who believ in salvific "Invincible Ignorance" cannot really oppose Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism because "the good willed" non Catholic could actually be in state of Justification and is free to express his religious beliefs. After all, he does not HAVE to convert to Catholicism. He can be saved while being in a false religion through the Church. It follows that there may be thousands of "good willed" members of other religions who are also justified and temples of the Holy Ghost, so why not pray with them? Under this reasoning, the Prayer at Assisi would no longer be a blasphemy.


     

    In some US courts there is a motion called a demurrer.  It is used to show that Complaint from the other side does not state fact sufficent to support the charge.  it is sometimes called a so-what motion.  Here I have to demurr to you.  No one can tell who is invincibly ignorant.  There can be no cuмmincatio in sacris like at Assisi.  There can be no sharing of the sacraments as the post-conciliar church allows.  There can be no Balmaand agreement stopping proselytizing.  If they are of good will and still alive they

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4579/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Is the CMRI schismatic?
    « Reply #148 on: December 05, 2014, 05:26:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: APS
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: APS
    Quote from: Ladislaus
    I can make an argument.

    CMRI strongly advocates the notion that there can be salvation outside the Church.  Yet all the alleged error in Vatican II derives logically from the same position on EENS that the CMRI hold.  Consequently, they have no doctrinal justification for refusing to be subject to the Vatican II hierarchy.  Consequently, the CMRI are schismatic.


    CMRI disagrees on Ecuмenism.  The CMRI does not agree on the issue of cuмmunicatio in Sacris which has always been taught by the Church.  It definitely disagrees on the Vatican II teaching that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.


    CMRI disagrees with Ecuмenism in theory only, but not in practice. This is because there is a great contradiction: CMRI believes that non-Catholics can be in state of sanctifying grace, being temples of the Holy Ghost, and ultimately reach Heaven without converting explicitly to Catholicism and formally entering the Church. That being the case, their followers, who believ in salvific "Invincible Ignorance" cannot really oppose Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism because "the good willed" non Catholic could actually be in state of Justification and is free to express his religious beliefs. After all, he does not HAVE to convert to Catholicism. He can be saved while being in a false religion through the Church. It follows that there may be thousands of "good willed" members of other religions who are also justified and temples of the Holy Ghost, so why not pray with them? Under this reasoning, the Prayer at Assisi would no longer be a blasphemy.


     

    In some US courts there is a motion called a demurrer.  It is used to show that Complaint from the other side does not state fact sufficent to support the charge.  it is sometimes called a so-what motion.  Here I have to demurr to you.  No one can tell who is invincibly ignorant.  There can be no cuмmincatio in sacris like at Assisi.  There can be no sharing of the sacraments as the post-conciliar church allows.  There can be no Balmaand agreement stopping proselytizing.  If they are of good will and still alive they would convert when giving the opportunity. Cantarella you should really understand this issue when speaking of it.  


    Of course, but that was not the intended point. The point was that the CMRI shares the same error in doctrine with the Post Conciliar Church, the liberal Vatican Curia. This is, the heretical denial of the thrice defined dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, because as everyone knows the CMRI promotes the idea of salvation for non-Catholics (not even catechumens) via last minute Baptism of Desire, or its colollaries, Salvation by Implicit Desire , or Salvation by Justification Alone, all these of course novel doctrines. Yes, no one can know for sure who is the invincible ignorant, but God's Providence will ensure that this "invincible ignorant" will be enlighten and brought to the Faith if he truly seeks Him. He will send an angel if necessary. This Invincible Ignorant cannot be in the state of sanctifying grace and will not be saved unless he explicitly converts to Catholicism because it is dogma that nobody can be saved without the Catholic Faith. Yet, CMRI denies this.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6882
    • Reputation: +3852/-406
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
    Is the CMRI schismatic?
    « Reply #149 on: December 05, 2014, 05:35:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nado

    So says "Special Olympics Cantarella". You have no clue about the subject you are attempting to talk about.

    You insult her intelligence by comparing her to mentally challenged people. That's a great way to win an argument. Are you in the third grade?
    R.I.P.
    Please pray for the repose of my soul.