Author Topic: Is the CMRI schismatic? (Read 45954 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #30 on:** November 20, 2014, 06:24:18 AM »

This isn't about "Feeneyism" per se. In order for the CMRI to be able to justify refusal of submission to the Vatican II papal claimants, they would have to have a doctrinal basis to do so. Otherwise, it would be schism. Give their stance on EENS, they don't have a doctrinal basis for the separation.

Stubborn · « **Reply #31 on:** November 20, 2014, 11:09:27 AM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn
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.

I seriously think you have something that is handicapping you ability to reason. You seem to confuse simple logical before & after. And you even suggest that someone can prove a negative, which is another logical fallacy. These are fundamentals of reasoning.

I have never shown that I misunderstand schism, because I have not yet spoken on the subject. If you have a problem with logic, your soul needs to stay off these forums.

Anyone who first makes a claim needs to prove the claim, and has the burden. That's the way the courts work, too. That is basic logic, and if you cannot see that, then you need help.

Because you need a reason to find out if the CMRI is schismatic or not, that demonstrates that you do not even know the first thing about what schism is or how it happens.

Since you demonstrate you know nothing about it, you can't debate it, all you can do is what you've been doing - talking in circles, which I have no desire to do.

Stubborn · « **Reply #32 on:** November 20, 2014, 12:30:05 PM »

Quote from: Nado

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

I seriously think you have something that is handicapping you ability to reason. You seem to confuse simple logical before & after. And you even suggest that someone can prove a negative, which is another logical fallacy. These are fundamentals of reasoning.

I have never shown that I misunderstand schism, because I have not yet spoken on the subject. If you have a problem with logic, your soul needs to stay off these forums.

Anyone who first makes a claim needs to prove the claim, and has the burden. That's the way the courts work, too. That is basic logic, and if you cannot see that, then you need help.

Because you need a reason to find out if the CMRI is schismatic or not, that demonstrates that you do not even know the first thing about what schism is or how it happens.

Since you demonstrate you know nothing about it, you can't debate it, all you can do is what you've been doing - talking in circles, which I have no desire to do.

Speak for yourself. You are the one talking in circles. It is insane. You made the claim first in the other thread. You need to back up any criminal accusation you make against another Catholic. St. Thomas said if you falsely do so, you deserve the punishment as if you were guilty of that crime.

If you think that's the case, then please go through and post the claim you say that I made.

Every thing I posted came from either the CMRI website itself or from some other reliable source which all lead to the same conclusion.

For whatever reason, you do not accept the conclusion - since you resist actually learning about what schism is and how it happens, why not start there - why don't you start by replying the reason that you refuse to accept that conclusion?

Stubborn · « **Reply #33 on:** November 20, 2014, 02:30:14 PM »

Quote from: Nado

You said they were schismatic. You need to prove that if you make the claim. Simple as that.

Conclusion are based on premises. This thread here is asking for what premises you have for your conclusion.

If you cannot give your premises here, then you failed to prove your conclusion, and this thread is finished.

Your conclusions are based on premises, but the actual conclusion as to the status of the CMRI is indisputable because it is derived from actual, historical, recorded fact right on the CMRI website as I've already repeatedly quoted in the other thread.

Since you obviously cannot accept that, then ask the CMRI to revise their website so as to satisfy the conclusion you will be happy with.

Stubborn · « **Reply #34 on:** November 20, 2014, 03:58:47 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado

You said they were schismatic. You need to prove that if you make the claim. Simple as that.

Conclusion are based on premises. This thread here is asking for what premises you have for your conclusion.

If you cannot give your premises here, then you failed to prove your conclusion, and this thread is finished.

Your conclusions are based on premises, but the actual conclusion as to the status of the CMRI is indisputable because it is derived from actual, historical, recorded fact right on the CMRI website as I've already repeatedly quoted in the other thread.

Since you obviously cannot accept that, then ask the CMRI to revise their website so as to satisfy the conclusion you will be happy with.

I already said that what you wrote in the other thread was off-topic, so I never read anything you said other than to notice your charge and that it had something to do with Schuckardt.

This thread makes it on-topic, and I am asking you to present it here where it is truly on-topic and not cluttered among other arguments.

You are spilling a lot of ink, so to speak, to avoid simply summarizing here, and if you just DO IT, you will save a lot of your energy by just doing it. I believe your delaying tactic is just evasiveness, because you are not confident your premises will stand the test. However, seeing how wrong you are in so many things, I am confident that you are wrong on this and willing to get right into it without evasion. You have no problem repeating yourself over and over on so many things, so it is obvious that your are dodging this one by pretending you don't want to repeat yourself.

I already stated that there is no need to go around in circles with you - if you learn what schism is and how it happens, you would not have even started this thread.
So as long as you admit to not reading what I wrote, no time like the present to go back and read it, then apply it to this thread and see if you can understand any of it - - -when you discover that you just don't get it, do as I suggested and learn what schism is and how it happens, then come back and let us know what you found out.

That way, you will be basing your conclusion as to what I actually said on fact, not on some false premise as you've been doing.

Stubborn · « **Reply #35 on:** November 20, 2014, 04:39:56 PM »

Good, now you've opened up some time to study up on what schism is and how it happens.

Stubborn · « **Reply #36 on:** November 20, 2014, 05:21:28 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn
Good, now you've opened up some time to study up on what schism is and how it happens.

I already know, and that is why I am baffled at your accusation.

You would not be baffled if you understood what schism is and how it happens.

Stubborn · « **Reply #37 on:** November 21, 2014, 04:37:18 AM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn

You would not be baffled if you understood what schism is and how it happens.

By this statement you are presuming your are already correct. Once you make your thoughts known to us that you think it did occur, I will show you that you are mistaken. But hide if you will. Again, being "stubborn" is condemned in Scripture. It is not a good thing.

I have not presumed anything, I have posted the facts as CMRI itself dictates them on their own website, and posted those facts directly from their website - you think the CMRI doesn't mean what they say, yet you believe them to be honest and that they are not hiding anything - that is your first blunder, but that is the blunder you base your entire opinion on.

You believe their half truths to be the whole truth either because you do not know what schism is and how it happens, or, like Mryna, you don't want to know the whole truth and want others to accept half truths just as you accept them - for the sake of fellowship I guess.

Either way, if nothing else, they actually do come out and tell you right on their website enough information to throw up the red flag, to raise suspicion, to cast serious doubt and give reason to run from, not to them - *if* you know what schism is and how it happens, and if you care enough about it to actually look into it rather than simply blow it off while convincing yourself that they don't actually mean what they say.

Stubborn · « **Reply #38 on:** November 21, 2014, 04:42:16 AM »

Quote from: Nado

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

You would not be baffled if you understood what schism is and how it happens.

By this statement you are presuming your are already correct. Once you make your thoughts known to us that you think it did occur, I will show you that you are mistaken. But hide if you will. Again, being "stubborn" is condemned in Scripture. It is not a good thing.

I have not presumed anything, I have posted the facts as CMRI itself dictates them on their own website, and posted those facts directly from their website - you think the CMRI doesn't mean what they say, yet you believe them to be honest and that they are not hiding anything - that is your first blunder, but that is the blunder you base your entire opinion on.

You believe their half truths to be the whole truth either because you do not know what schism is and how it happens, or, like Mryna, you don't want to know the whole truth and want others to accept half truths just as you accept them - for the sake of fellowship I guess.

Either way, if nothing else, they actually do come out and tell you right on their website enough information to throw up the red flag, to raise suspicion, to cast serious doubt and give reason to run from, not to them - *if* you know what schism is and how it happens, and if you care enough about it to actually look into it rather than simply blow it off while convincing yourself that they don't actually mean what they say.

It raises a red flag for the ignorant and biased.

Yes, you call those seeking the truth ignorant and biased. But that does not change the fact that they have enough information right on their website which proves you either do not know what schism is or don't care - which is it?

Stubborn · « **Reply #39 on:** November 21, 2014, 08:08:46 AM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado

It raises a red flag for the ignorant and biased.

Yes, you call those seeking the truth ignorant and biased. But that does not change the fact that they have enough information right on their website which proves you either do not know what schism is or don't care - which is it?

I know what schism is. It has been defined many times on this forum. I also care, otherwise I wouldn't have spent my time asking you to do your duty and support you accusation. You are shirking you duty. It's not a Catholic response to tell someone go hunt for an answer somewhere else when you can provide it off the top of your head. That shows you don't care.

You do not know what schism is - based on your replies, that much is obvious.

Quote from: Nada

Better still, Stubborn, give me a link to your posting that contains the reason why you say the CMRI is schismatic.

Since I wrote it for your benefit to begin with and you chose to not even read it, I won't waste my time posting it again so you can ignore it again.

It is you who started this thread because of something I allegedly posted - yet you said you never read my posts - so here you go, around in circles again. If you wish to pursue it, then you go look for it because I have no idea which post that you didn't even read that you are talking about.

Stubborn · « **Reply #40 on:** November 21, 2014, 01:16:50 PM »

You are the one making the accusation, you pick the post that you disagree with. I'm not going to try and guess which post you have a problem with.

Stubborn · « **Reply #41 on:** November 21, 2014, 01:36:39 PM »

I think you do have a mental problem. You accused me you nitwit. You want me to post a link to a post I made saying why CMRI was schismatic that you never read.

Go back and read the one you're talking about and let me know which one it is so I can post a link to it lol

Stubborn · « **Reply #42 on:** November 21, 2014, 01:53:02 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn
I think you do have a mental problem. You accused me you nitwit. You want me to post a link to a post I made saying why CMRI was schismatic that you never read.

Go back and read the one you're talking about and let me know which one it is so I can post a link to it lol

Thread finished.

The next time you make the same charge that the CMRI is schismatic, I will be sure to PM whoever is involved and ask them to ask you to give your reasoning.

Truth isn't a game, but you are playing with it like it is.

You've got 14 pages of circular posting and although you may think that I can read your mind, I really can't so it looks like there is no end to going round and round - at least not until you come right out and post the alleged post from the other thread that you claim you have problems with - even though you supposedly never read it.

Stubborn · « **Reply #43 on:** November 21, 2014, 02:29:23 PM »

Well, you'll still need to be the one to go find the post you have issues with - I have no issues with my own posts in that thread.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #44 on:** November 21, 2014, 06:25:26 PM »

CMRI is pure cane Catholic. Period. End of debate. I'm not CMRI, but if there was a chapel close to where I live, then I'd most certainly assist at their Mass.