Author Topic: Is the CMRI schismatic? (Read 45517 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #285 on:** December 30, 2014, 05:49:19 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Stubborn....don't stubbornly ignore my "final analysis". You hold a doctrinally IMPOSSIBLE principle that is behind your whole problem of misunderstanding Church teaching.

You believe that popes and their holy offices can quite solemnly and publicly teach against previously solemnly taught dogma....and for nobody in Christendom to notice.

That is a principle of heretics who don't have the divine virtue of Faith. You ignored that in your response. But that is what you hold, which undermines and destroys the Catholic faith.

I didn't ignore it, I proved your analysis to be wrong and gave the reason it is wrong which reason, btw, comes from the SV doctrine that "true" popes cannot err. You keep changing my quote to suit your opinion - then you say I ignore your analysis and then it's more round and round in circles you go.

You now claim popes can err, which effectively destroys any reason to hold to your opinion that the Chair is vacant and is contrary to the whole doctrine of SVism.

Which is why I keep asking, what kind of SV are you? You reject the solemn papal teaching of Pope Paul IV and you believe "true" popes can err - kinda defeats the whole purpose of declaring yourself to be an SV.

Certainly even you agree with that.

Stubborn · « **Reply #286 on:** December 31, 2014, 04:58:03 AM »

Quote from: Nado

Nope. The very first cause of your problem is that you believe this: that popes and their holy offices can quite solemnly and publicly teach against previously solemnly taught dogma....and for nobody in Christendom to notice.

Do you deny that you believe that?

You are not even asking the correct question. All your question does is exemplify your adulterated understanding of what papal infallibility even is and can only lead to more circular argumentation.

I find it hard to believe that SVs on this site have sat by and let you continually degrade their position and that they have not corralled you in to correct you a long time ago.

Stubborn · « **Reply #287 on:** December 31, 2014, 02:55:04 PM »

You're still not asking the correct question, all you did is rephrase your last question. Again, the reason is obvious - it's because you have no idea what papal infallibility is.

Stubborn · « **Reply #288 on:** January 01, 2015, 04:58:16 AM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn
You're still not asking the correct question, all you did is rephrase your last question. Again, the reason is obvious - it's because you have no idea what papal infallibility is.

Evading the question once again. This is because you yourself don't understand that "papal infallibility" is NOT the infallibility of the Church. You think the Church is only protected by infallibility at those rare and solemn instances of dogma definition, where outside those rare, solemn instances, it becomes a free-for-all. You are missing a HUGE piece of Catholicism.

You don't appear to accept the truth that you must believe, with the SAME divine and Catholic faith as you believe solemn teachings, also all the truths taught by the Church that are not solemnly taught.

I'm not evading the question - you are asking a question that by design can only result in more circular arguments which I am not going to partake of.

You need to ask the question correctly, by that I mean the question you ask should reflect your sede doctrine directly and not as the wandering argument machine that you are.

You have embraced the conundrum, I haven't, but you don't even understand the conundrum you embrace and your question demonstrates this.

Now you can attempt to actually answer the below question:

According to SV logic, a true pope cannot become a heretic because a true pope cannot err, since a true pope cannot err, how pray tell does a true pope become a heretic? How is it that you are able to embrace and promote such a conundrum as this?

You need to actually understand and believe in the doctrines of Infallibility and Indefectibility, which you don't, but if you did, you would be able to answer the above question with a coherent reply, one which while being the truth, contradicts your current opinion.

Cantarella · « **Reply #289 on:** January 01, 2015, 01:19:58 PM »

Quote from: Nado

I already DIRECTLY answered that question two days ago when Cantarella asked it, and she just dropped out of the discussion. You need to keep up with the thread if you are going to participate.

Because you end up with a logical fallacy. You have no better argument than "a heretical Pope ceases to be Pope", however:

1. You don't know what heresy even is.
2. You don't know what bishops are "holding the keys" or supplying to Jurisdiction... or wait yes, you respond to this that jurisdiction is not really needed or that these bishops can be "invisible" which is heresy.
3. You don't know why after more than half a century the "Citizens of Rome" have not yet elected a new Pope.
4. You don't know who the last true Pope is.
5. You cannot make a difference between what is infallible and what is not (therefore, what MAY contain errors). You don't understand the difference between infallibility and impeccability.
6. You are in complete denial of the fact that after a Pope election has been accepted by all bishops and cardinals, then this constitute proof that the elections are valid.
7. You fail to understand that the Church MUST INCLUDE a hierarchy and a visible Magisterium.
8. You fail to understand that Catholicism without the Pope is an oxymoron.

etc etc etc!!!!

...Or then you go rambling about a concept you simple have no understanding of which is "Epikeia"...you are all over the place but 99% of what you say are nothing but errors you make up as you go along the thread. That is why it gets exhausting keeping up.

You keep redefining the Church to fit your pet theory but to all of these questions you have nothing better to say than "a heretic cannot be Pope" and that is the end of your whole argument.

Very, very simplistic indeed. Sorry, but reality does not fit with your elementary understanding of things, Nado.

Cantarella · « **Reply #290 on:** January 01, 2015, 04:33:23 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Nado

I already DIRECTLY answered that question two days ago when Cantarella asked it, and she just dropped out of the discussion. You need to keep up with the thread if you are going to participate.

Because you end up with a logical fallacy. You have no better argument than "a heretical Pope ceases to be Pope", however:

1. You don't know what heresy even is.
2. You don't know what bishops are "holding the keys" or supplying to Jurisdiction... or wait yes, you respond to this that jurisdiction is not really needed or that these bishops can be "invisible" which is heresy.
3. You don't know why after more than half a century the "Citizens of Rome" have not yet elected a new Pope.
4. You don't know who the last true Pope is.
5. You cannot make a difference between what is infallible and what is not (therefore, what MAY contain errors). You don't understand the difference between infallibility and impeccability.
6. You are in complete denial of the fact that after a Pope election has been accepted by all bishops and cardinals, then this constitute proof that the elections are valid.
7. You fail to understand that the Church MUST INCLUDE a hierarchy and a visible Magisterium.
8. You fail to understand that Catholicism without the Pope is an oxymoron.

etc etc etc!!!!

...Or then you go rambling about a concept you simple have no understanding of which is "Epikeia"...you are all over the place but 99% of what you say are nothing but errors you make up as you go along the thread. That is why it gets exhausting keeping up.

You keep redefining the Church to fit your pet theory but to all of these questions you have nothing better to say than "a heretic cannot be Pope" and that is the end of your whole argument.

Very, very simplistic indeed. Sorry, but reality does not fit with your elementary understanding of things, Nado.

I will have a one-on-one discussion about anything in particular here, and you are known for dropping out of the conversation very quickly....because that is all you really can do. I have specifically answered several of the things you mention above, and after you had dropped out, you seem to spend time conveniently forgetting that you ever got an answer, and then you start up again like a parrot. It's like you had Alzheimers.

Who is the last true Pope, Nado?

Cantarella · « **Reply #291 on:** January 01, 2015, 05:07:52 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Nado

I already DIRECTLY answered that question two days ago when Cantarella asked it, and she just dropped out of the discussion. You need to keep up with the thread if you are going to participate.

Because you end up with a logical fallacy. You have no better argument than "a heretical Pope ceases to be Pope", however:

1. You don't know what heresy even is.
2. You don't know what bishops are "holding the keys" or supplying to Jurisdiction... or wait yes, you respond to this that jurisdiction is not really needed or that these bishops can be "invisible" which is heresy.
3. You don't know why after more than half a century the "Citizens of Rome" have not yet elected a new Pope.
4. You don't know who the last true Pope is.
5. You cannot make a difference between what is infallible and what is not (therefore, what MAY contain errors). You don't understand the difference between infallibility and impeccability.
6. You are in complete denial of the fact that after a Pope election has been accepted by all bishops and cardinals, then this constitute proof that the elections are valid.
7. You fail to understand that the Church MUST INCLUDE a hierarchy and a visible Magisterium.
8. You fail to understand that Catholicism without the Pope is an oxymoron.

etc etc etc!!!!

...Or then you go rambling about a concept you simple have no understanding of which is "Epikeia"...you are all over the place but 99% of what you say are nothing but errors you make up as you go along the thread. That is why it gets exhausting keeping up.

You keep redefining the Church to fit your pet theory but to all of these questions you have nothing better to say than "a heretic cannot be Pope" and that is the end of your whole argument.

Very, very simplistic indeed. Sorry, but reality does not fit with your elementary understanding of things, Nado.

I will have a one-on-one discussion about anything in particular here, and you are known for dropping out of the conversation very quickly....because that is all you really can do. I have specifically answered several of the things you mention above, and after you had dropped out, you seem to spend time conveniently forgetting that you ever got an answer, and then you start up again like a parrot. It's like you had Alzheimers.

Who is the last true Pope, Nado?

Is CMRI schismatic?

IOW, I think you need to start a new thread.

Classic Nado!

He says he is willing to one-on-one discuss any of the 8 points presented and then at the first question, he is evasive.

What happen Nado, don't you have an speculation about who the last True Pope may be?

CMRI says Pope Pius XII. What say you?

Nishant · « **Reply #292 on:** January 03, 2015, 05:33:12 AM »

Quote from: Nado

why would receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders in an emergency from that same [schismatic Old Catholic] bishop, make the recipient in schism?

Where on Earth did you learn this? Stubborn is right here. Cite the provision in the law that allows for this, or a theologian who teaches this is allowed, or retract your statement, because anyone who follows the advice you give them will find it gives them a one way ticket straight to hell. Canon Law, Pope Pius XII and innumerable theologians on the contrary teach you that you will incur an automatic excommunication reserved to the Pope for doing so.

We are not talking about one Catholic consecrating another Catholic and awaiting Papal confirmation, something that has happened before. You are claiming that a schismatic "Old Catholic" can consecrate a Catholic, and that the Catholic who receives that can just continue the schismatic lineage, is that correct?

The truth is something completely different and should be well known, Bp. Fellay aptly explained a while ago, "There is a principle of action in the Catholic Church that says if a Catholic receives ordination outside of the Church from a schismatic movement, (the Orthodox, etc.), he may come back into the Church, but may never exercise the sacramental power he has stolen from outside the Church. It is a general principle applied up to the present."

We have basically two issues here 1. When a Catholic dares to "steal" Holy Orders from the hands of a schismatic bishop outside the Church, he incurs an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. This means only the Pope can remit that censure, which according to you is not possible now. 2 Second, even after he submits to the Papacy and the keys, abjures his error, repents of his sin, and is received back to the communion of the Church, he is never ever allowed to exercise that order, because receiving orders and especially consecration from a schismatic is a heinous and intrinsically schismatic act. That line is forever tainted, and though the Pope may forgive the sin later on, as a penalty for that sin, that "stolen" order cannot be exercised.

This is a far cry from what you are claiming, that one can receive and continue a schismatic lineage at one's pleasure and without scruple. It is heretical and it shows just how far into error you have fallen once you have dispensed with any necessity of the Papacy for the continuation of the hierarchical Church.

Do you also believe now that you can attend a schismatic Old Catholic Mass, or an Orthodox (not Eastern Catholic) Divine Liturgy celebrated outside the Church, given the state of necessity? And are you really claiming that if one of us can find a schismatic "Old Catholic" kook out there willing to commit the sacrilegious, illicit and criminal act, any of us can actually lawfully obtain episcopal consecration from him if we wished, given the state of necessity? Utterly heretical garbage. Even the CMRI has never ever claimed what you are claiming. In charity I must warn you, what you claim puts you in danger of heresy.

Cantarella · « **Reply #293 on:** January 03, 2015, 01:36:18 PM »

Nado has been told repeatedly that the concept of Epikeia des not apply to Jurisdiction issues. Therefore a false and schismatic Bishop will not become a real and true Bishop by means of Epikeia. Epikeia is not a concept to be carelessly toying around, is used in extremely rare cases, and is not a free pass to do whatever you want with the law. But as all schismatics and heretics do, they twist the real meaning of the concepts in order to obliterate Catholic dogma.

Nado's claims are actually quite dangerous and no Catholic, who has a real concern for his soul, should listen to this type of heretic and schismatic speech. Perhaps Nado does not have an ill intention but he just does not see how serious this can be.

Nado, do you understand that only Jesus enters Heaven? This means that anyone outside the Body of Christ (The Church) will perish forever in Hell.

All those consecrated by Bishop Thuc or by others of his line (or by any other heretic or schismatic) cannot exercise their orders lawfully since they (in addition to being heretics and outside the Church) lack the canonical mission which the Council of Trent dogmatically teaches to be necessary for a bishop to be a legitimate minister of the word and the sacraments:

Quote

“If anyone say… that those who have not been rightly ordained by ecclesiastical and canonical power and have not been sent [by the Church], but come from some other source [such as a heretical or schismatical source], are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Canon VII; Denzinger 967).

If illegal bishops and priests, such as the Thucites, want to enter the Catholic Church and have their sins forgiven, they must abjure by renouncing their schismatic crime and any heresies they believe in, along with the public crimes of schism and heresy of the non-Catholic bishop who consecrated or ordained them.

Quote

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] If they had embraced any errors, they had previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced any errors, they had nevertheless to renounce the schism of their ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made either publicly or secretly, as the facts in the case directed.”

MyrnaM · « **Reply #294 on:** January 03, 2015, 01:50:36 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Nado has been told repeatedly that the concept of Epikeia des not apply to Jurisdiction issues. Therefore a false and schismatic Bishop will not become a real and true Bishop

Yet, you believe a false schismatic pope can become a true pope just because he has possession of worldly things (Catholic Property), yet lacks the Faith.

Stubborn · « **Reply #295 on:** January 03, 2015, 02:36:20 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Nishant
1. When a Catholic dares to "steal" Holy Orders from the hands of a schismatic bishop outside the Church, he incurs an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. This means only the Pope can remit that censure, which according to you is not possible now.

Any valid Sacraments existing outside of the Catholic Church are considered to have been stolen by the non-Catholic, not the other way around. The excommunication is by ecclesiastical law, not by divine law. Epikeia applies to ecclesiastical law. I will skip a lot of things you said, because they are all excused by epikeia in an extreme circuмstance.

Don't you remember we already went over this? As Nishant said: "Even the CMRI has never ever claimed what you are claiming."

Quote

Schuckardt and his little group had priests, had the sacraments, had the Mass, God saw to it that he and his little group had what they needed to persevere in the faith, crisis or no crisis - but no, Schuckardt willingly threw that all away, this is why you cannot claim epikeia.

Also

FYI, if there is an Old Catholic who is able to administer the sacraments in an emergency - THEN YOU DO NOT NEED TO GET ORDAINED SO THAT YOU CAN DO IT YOURSELF. Try to always remember this, it's a good thing to know.

Also

It is because it is an absolute MUST that one MUST receive Holy Orders from a bishop of the Catholic Church, which is to say conversely that one CAN NEVER receive Holy Orders from a bishop in schism without themselves entering schism - EVEN SCHUCKARDT KNEW THAT HE COULD NOT PLEAD EPIKEIA, THAT IT COULD NOT APPLY. You are worse than Schuckardt to keep harping on about this ridiculous reasoning in your attempt to justify schism.

Stubborn · « **Reply #296 on:** January 03, 2015, 02:46:18 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Cantarella
Nado has been told repeatedly that the concept of Epikeia des not apply to Jurisdiction issues. Therefore a false and schismatic Bishop will not become a real and true Bishop

Yet, you believe a false schismatic pope can become a true pope just because he has possession of worldly things (Catholic Property), yet lacks the Faith.

Yet, you believe a false schismatic sect can become the true church just because they have possession of worldly things (Catholic Property), yet lacks the Faith.

You have only your opinion that the pope is a false pope, the really terrible thing is, that is all you will ever have.

The Sedevacantists position is one that has always been held as the least probable theological opinion and yet we fail to understand how one would base their salvation on a debatable theological opinion which in itself is not even the most probable according to Catholic teaching.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #297 on:** January 03, 2015, 08:25:41 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Cantarella
Nado has been told repeatedly that the concept of Epikeia des not apply to Jurisdiction issues. Therefore a false and schismatic Bishop will not become a real and true Bishop

Yet, you believe a false schismatic pope can become a true pope just because he has possession of worldly things (Catholic Property), yet lacks the Faith.

Yet, you believe a false schismatic sect can become the true church just because they have possession of worldly things (Catholic Property), yet lacks the Faith.

You have only your opinion that the pope is a false pope, the really terrible thing is, that is all you will ever have.

The Sedevacantists position is one that has always been held as the least probable theological opinion and yet we fail to understand how one would base their salvation on a debatable theological opinion which in itself is not even the most probable according to Catholic teaching.

:roll-laugh1: Sorry if this wasn't so sad, it would be funny!

How dare you and Cantarella use the word schismatic in the same sentence with our Bishop, when YOUR POPE is:

http://tinyurl.com/pxybkxd

Cantarella · « **Reply #298 on:** January 03, 2015, 09:23:03 PM »

Quote from: Nado

I gave you a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia showing that historically there were "wandering bishops" without ordinary jurisdiction, and no mention they were not Catholic. This is because the laws of the Church require a bishop to at least have a title to a diocese, even if the see doesn't really exist (titular bishop).

The Pope and the hierarchy are still visible in Rome to "supply jurisdiction" for these "wandering popes" but of course, in the sede pet theory not such thing can occur, since there is no Pope. Again, supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope, and held by the Church (Bishops). This supplied jurisdiction arises when there is an error on the part of the laymen as to the validity of the faculties, if the laymen were to receive the sacraments from a Priest who lacked faculties and was ignorant of that fact, the Church would supply it. It is the Church that supplies it, not a lone self-proclaimed Bishop hiding in the crowd which is what the CMRI cult pretends.

As said before, the bishop has absolutely no right to his own diocese. It is the Pope who grants the title of a diocese to a bishop.

Quote from: Nado

But the point is, what Trent is demanding is NOT divine law, but ecclesiastical law.

Ecclesiastical Law DOES NOT and CAN NOT contradict Divine Law. End of story.

Quote from: Nado

Pope Pius XII's encyclical about bishoprics in China also reveals that it is not divine law.

Again, the China example does not apply. The visible magisterium still existed in Rome, with the Pope and Bishops. The magisterium must always exist and the Church includes a hierarchy.

Cantarella · « **Reply #299 on:** January 05, 2015, 12:10:39 AM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Nado

I gave you a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia showing that historically there were "wandering bishops" without ordinary jurisdiction, and no mention they were not Catholic. This is because the laws of the Church require a bishop to at least have a title to a diocese, even if the see doesn't really exist (titular bishop).

The Pope and the hierarchy are still visible in Rome to "supply jurisdiction" for these "wandering popes" but of course, in the sede pet theory not such thing can occur, since there is no Pope. Again, supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope, and held by the Church (Bishops). This supplied jurisdiction arises when there is an error on the part of the laymen as to the validity of the faculties, if the laymen were to receive the sacraments from a Priest who lacked faculties and was ignorant of that fact, the Church would supply it. It is the Church that supplies it, not a lone self-proclaimed Bishop hiding in the crowd which is what the CMRI cult pretends.

Supplied jurisdiction is automatically supplied by the Church whether there is a reigning pope, or whether they are still waiting to elect a new one. It is something that simply occurs automatically upon each act that is performed out of necessity. How many times do I have to say this to you while you ignore it? I already gave quotes from an approved Catholic dissertation to support it.

Quote from: Cantarella
As said before, the bishop has absolutely no right to his own diocese. It is the Pope who grants the title of a diocese to a bishop.

This is true, but it has nothing to so with the fact that wandering bishops (without title or diocese) have historically been considered Catholic and part of the hierarchy.

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Nado

But the point is, what Trent is demanding is NOT divine law, but ecclesiastical law.

Ecclesiastical Law DOES NOT and CAN NOT contradict Divine Law. End of story.

This is true, but I don't know why you are saying this, because I have never claimed otherwise.

Well, Ecclesiastical Law presumes we have a valid Pope unless the Church formally declares otherwise. These ecclesiastical laws serve the Divine Law and the Church’s unicity and indefectibility. They also reflect the wisdom of the Church which recognizes that determining formal heresy is a sensitive matter requiring great caution and prudence, especially when dealing with the Roman Pontiff!. To be a formal heretic, one must willfully and pertinaciously deny or doubt a dogma of the Faith.

Why would the Church be waiting more than half a century ago, to elect a New Pope? That is imprudent non-sense.