Author Topic: Is the CMRI schismatic? (Read 46013 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #15 on:** November 19, 2014, 10:05:05 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Nado

When I said "prime support" I am referring to the reason for why one would say the association of Schuckardt has made them schismatic.

What do you mean by "association"?

Well?

Cantarella · « **Reply #16 on:** November 19, 2014, 11:34:32 AM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

The OP should have outlined all reasons for schism, including sedevacantism, and after listing them all he should have then stated this the wanted us to ignore sedevacantism.

I think one of the other reasons for schism is refusing communion with fellow Catholics. To my knowledge, CMRI does not do that.

If refusing submission to the Holy Father is one of the reasons (it is) then both sides have to be reviewed in light of the facts of the time period we are suffering through. For the sake of this discussion, everyone should refrain from the sedevacantism subset of schism.

Does CMRI possess valid orders? Has the novus ordo ever rendered a judgement or even opinion on that? Until we are know otherwise, the answer is yes.

So if there are only three components of schism, and we put aside the refusal to submit to the holy Father, then we can't conclude that the CMRI is schismatic.

Even if a bishop did receive valid orders (materially), he does not receive them formally, formal succession requires communion with the Pope, and it is the Pope that confers them either explicitly or implicitly. The schismatic Eastern Orthodox have valid orders, for example. True Apostolic Succession must be both material and formal.

Quote

“Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles, insists upon the necessity of jurisdiction or authoritative transmission, thus excluding the hypothesis that a new mission could ever be originated by anyone in the place of the mission bestowed by Christ and transmitted in the manner described.”

Besides the schism and heresy of sedevacantism, CMRI is not Apostolic, for jurisdiction is essential to the Apostolicity of mission. Sedes need to educate themselves in the need for jurisdiction described in the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia on Apostolicity.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** November 19, 2014, 11:40:23 AM »

Charges of schism (apart from those who refer to all sedevacantism as schismatic) stem from the early association with one "Bishop" Daniel Q. Brown, from whom Shuckhardt originally received "Holy Orders". But Brown reportedly made a formal abjuration before ordaining / consecrating Shuckhardt. SSPV still pushes that angle.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** November 19, 2014, 11:41:30 AM »

There are also some allegations that Shuckardt thought of himself as a Pope (Hadrian or something like that).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #19 on:** November 19, 2014, 11:54:33 AM »

Quote from: Nado

The SSPV may make such a claim, but this thread is for someone HERE who holds they are schismatic to make that claim, give the reason, and discuss it.

You did not specify this in your OP.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** November 19, 2014, 11:58:51 AM »

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #21 on:** November 19, 2014, 01:16:49 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Charges of schism (apart from those who refer to all sedevacantism as schismatic) stem from the early association with one "Bishop" Daniel Q. Brown, from whom Shuckhardt originally received "Holy Orders". But Brown reportedly made a formal abjuration before ordaining / consecrating Shuckhardt. SSPV still pushes that angle.

Which bishop heard his abjuration?

Stubborn · « **Reply #22 on:** November 19, 2014, 01:21:15 PM »

Quote from: Nado

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

When I said "prime support" I am referring to the reason for why one would say the association of Schuckardt has made them schismatic.

What do you mean by "association"?

Well?

That is an ordinary English word. Look it up.

In another thread you made claims they were schismatic. Present your claim and reason, if you still have it.

I have already done that - you explain what the association was.

You seem to think he was some obscure member, as if by his lowly position within the sect that he's someone CMRI has no reason to be connected too.

So please humor us and explain what this association consisted of.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #23 on:** November 19, 2014, 01:40:44 PM »

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.

As always the Church INCLUDING CMRI, teaches NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, and also as always, the Church teaches that no one, not even Ladislaus or Stubborn or Cantarella can judge who exactly is outside the Church, because God give His graces to whomever He desires and whenever He desires. This is what I was taught way before Vatican II.

This grace is rare and not the norm, but it can happen because the Church says so.

Vatican II however is schismatic because the moment the
ConciLIAR "popes" have contradicted God they became a new religion. Example: I am the Lord Thy God and THOU SHALT NOT have strange gods before me. The Bible states to leave the Harlot, (interfaith).

Cantarella · « **Reply #24 on:** November 19, 2014, 02:27:17 PM »

Quote from: ascent

Catholic means universal, therefore in this Crisis of the (universal) Church, a valid clergy has jurisdiction everywhere, despite not being granted regular faculties by a (heretical / apostate) Bishop. The same goes for a traditional valid Bishop. He has jurisdiction everywhere despite not being granted faculties by (heretic / apostate) Francis. As long as a clergy is validly ordained and he's in the true Catholic Faith, then his apostolate is in effect anywhere, and at any time, during this Crisis.

Where did you get this from?

Please provide a Magisterial source (preferably from before 1962 so the sedevacacantists can be an ease too) to prove this claim.

Stubborn · « **Reply #25 on:** November 19, 2014, 02:59:51 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

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.

As always the Church INCLUDING CMRI, teaches NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, and also as always, the Church teaches that no one, not even Ladislaus or Stubborn or Cantarella can judge who exactly is outside the Church, because God give His graces to whomever He desires and whenever He desires. This is what I was taught way before Vatican II.

If this one weren't so sad, it would be funny.

You, of all people, say that no one knows who is outside the Church and that this is what you were taught before Vatican II.

Did you have some special revelations that only sedevacantists receive since you are always saying that the conciliar popes are outside the Church.

Stubborn · « **Reply #26 on:** November 19, 2014, 04:39:32 PM »

Quote from: Nado

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

When I said "prime support" I am referring to the reason for why one would say the association of Schuckardt has made them schismatic.

What do you mean by "association"?

Well?

That is an ordinary English word. Look it up.

In another thread you made claims they were schismatic. Present your claim and reason, if you still have it.

I have already done that - you explain what the association was.

You seem to think he was some obscure member, as if by his lowly position within the sect that he's someone CMRI has no reason to be connected too.

So please humor us and explain what this association consisted of.

Sorry, if you had done it, I didn't read it, because you did it apparently in another thread where it was off-topic. When something is off-topic, I skip by it. I simply noticed that you called them schismatic repeatedly, and that is why this thread was started. State your claim and the reason for it. You were pretty bold to obscure the other thread, now you are hemming and hawing to come out with it.

Sorry but the burden is on you to prove they are not schismatic.
Based on their history, best of luck to you.

Stubborn · « **Reply #27 on:** November 19, 2014, 05:32:25 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
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.

As always the Church INCLUDING CMRI, teaches NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, and also as always, the Church teaches that no one, not even Ladislaus or Stubborn or Cantarella can judge who exactly is outside the Church, because God give His graces to whomever He desires and whenever He desires. This is what I was taught way before Vatican II.

If this one weren't so sad, it would be funny.

You, of all people, say that no one knows who is outside the Church and that this is what you were taught before Vatican II.

Did you have some special revelations that only sedevacantists receive since you are always saying that the conciliar popes are outside the Church.

Don't turn the thread into a Feeneyite discussion!

Myrna, don't answer. Start another thread if you must.

I posted a fact, not anything debatable since she has touted the fact many times here on CI.

You keep side tracking with your "feeneyites" remarks but that does not change the fact as I stated it above.
Try hard as you possibly can to stay on track from now on.

And please try like crazy to avoid starting a plethora of new threads - LoT has given us a break with that as of late - try not to pickup where he left off.

Stubborn · « **Reply #28 on:** November 19, 2014, 06:07:19 PM »

Quote from: Nado

If I don't know what the reason you have is, then logically I cannot possibly attempt it. You have not given the reason, so the burden of proof is on your first for claiming it in the first place.

The reason you do not know is because you do not know what schism even is.

Study what schism is and how it happens - then try to prove CMRI is not in schism. As I said, good luck.

Stubborn · « **Reply #29 on:** November 20, 2014, 04:27:56 AM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Nado

If I don't know what the reason you have is, then logically I cannot possibly attempt it. You have not given the reason, so the burden of proof is on your first for claiming it in the first place.

A claim without the accompanying reasoning means the claimant has the burden of proof for the claim. It is incomplete otherwise.

You need a reason because you do not know how schism happens or what it even is.

I suggest that you study up on the subject, then post when you have a better idea about what it is and how it happens.

If you do that, you will see for yourself that the question should not be: "Is the CMRI schismatic?", rather, the question you should be asking is: "Why is the CMRI *not* schismatic?"

So you see, the question you ask demonstrates you have no idea what schism even is or how it happens. Best for you to study the subject matter before you post further lest you sway others who are as misguided as you are into error.