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.

Forgetting the entire history of CMRI, we'll just take your word for this.

It is quite obvious that you do not know what schism even is and that you are not any more interested in finding out what it is anymore than you are interested in  truth.

Do yourself a favor and study up on what schism is and how it happens before you clog up the forum with more of your jaynek style circular semantics.

Quote from: ascent

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.

Look, buddy, the bottom line is this: if a Catholic has a CMRI chapel within an hour's commute  - or the other option is to stay home like a dogmatic cultist schizoid, or go to a novus queerdo chapel - then his soul will be in far better shape through the graces bestowed upon him by assisting a true Catholic Mass and receiving the Sacraments. Otherwise, he would be committing mortal sin by staying home when he could be at a Catholic Mass, or committing sin attending a sacrilegious, calvinist, masonic service known as the "mass of Paul VI". CMRI are valid and Catholic. There is no evidence in their history to the contrary. That is the work of jewry and their General - Satan - who work to divide real Catholics an attack the true Faith.

I obviously clicked on the wrong comment "quote" button. This above comment ^ was meant for Stubborn who said,

Forgetting the entire history of CMRI, we'll just take your word for this.

It is quite obvious that you do not know what schism even is and that you are not any more interested in finding out what it is anymore than you are interested in  truth.

Do yourself a favor and study up on what schism is and how it happens before you clog up the forum with more of your jaynek style circular semantics.

What charity! Connecting someone with a totally unrelated scandal and dropping the name of the person involved who is unconnected to Nado.

That is really low. I hope you get to confession this week.

It just goes to show that you will resort to any tactic to worm your way out of an honest discussion. I might even be inclined to agree with you on many things, but  it is nearly impossible to communicate with you because your reading comprehension is comparable to your level of good-will.

Nado, sorry for derailing, back to your thread where you never get an answer.

Quote from: Stubborn

It is quite obvious that you do not know what schism even is and that you are not any more interested in finding out what it is anymore than you are interested in  truth.

Do yourself a favor and study up on what schism is and how it happens before you clog up the forum with more of your jaynek style circular semantics.

What charity! Connecting someone with a totally unrelated scandal and dropping the name of the person involved who is unconnected to Nado.

That is really low. I hope you get to confession this week.

It just goes to show that you will resort to any tactic to worm your way out of an honest discussion. I might even be inclined to agree with you on many things, but  it is nearly impossible to communicate with you because your reading comprehension is comparable to your level of good-will.

Nado, sorry for derailing, back to your thread where you never get an answer.

I worm my way out by asking for proof against facts, I ask for proof to support opinions contrary to the facts that I've posted, that is what you call worming my way out.

FYI - my good will or lack of it in your opinion, has nothing to do with why CMRIers - you included, ignore the facts in favor of your own opinions.

Having gone head to head with jayne many times, I can tell you, nada's style of debate is close to jane's style. That is my opinion which is at odds with your opinion about her style of debate. Glad we agree on our differences - and I remember that to you, among other things, I am the "unjust man" as you put it in your CMRI wonderful Christian charity.

Why not be constructive and add something of substance to this thread that actually pertains to the subject of this thread, something which will prove that my facts are wrong.

I can see this thread is going the same route as the last one and will end up a long thread of ad hominems and little else.

If any CMRIer out there actually chooses to offer some type of legitimate proof to support their opinion that the CMRI is not schismatic, I will participate in that debate here.

I cannot speak for other posters here, but I personally have no grudge against the CMRI. I know the SSPX does not regard laity who attend CMRI chapels as non-Catholic or refused them Holy Communion when they ask. I do not doubt many Catholics, trying to make sense of these difficult times, may find in the CMRI a place of refuge from modern errors and liturgical heteropraxis. Also, in fairness, I have heard CMRI priests show very great zeal and devotion in caring for their faithful, so it is unsurprising that CMRI attendees here are likewise supportive of their priests from a charge they believe false. What is the measure of any traditional group at the end of the day? It comes down to how that group helps Catholic families to live a Catholic life in the modern world.

Personally, I would not attend a CMRI chapel, or encourage anyone to attend, for I don't agree with the position they officially endorse, which is 56+year sedevacantism. I also don't agree that the Church can be reduced to a state where pastors with the power of the keys, (which is given by Christ to Peter, that is the Pope, and from Peter comes to the Apostles, that is the bishops who receive a mission from him) cannot be found anymore, for the promise of Christ precludes that. If they agree with that, my advice to the CMRI would be to go to one such pastor, and receive their share in the power of the keys from him. The Pope receives from Christ the fullness of the power of the keys, which includes the power to give others a share in this power. A mere bishop, who only has a share in this power, does not have the power to transmit the keys to another, unless the Pope has delegated to him that power in the form of a Papal mandate. That is why the continuation of the Church depends on the Pope, and the Papacy is the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church. So, I would ask, how can it be that no one can be found in the Church today who can be relied upon to exercise this power, for the benefit of the CMRI priests? That brings us back to the impossibility of what 56+ year sedevacantism says has happened to the Catholic Church, in particular the ecclesia docens.

But, I would be wary in trying to judge anything more than that. I would say they do not have a right to claim ordinary jurisdiction, until they receive it from the Pope, or someone to whom the Pope has delegated it, and if they accept that, then I think going so far as to say the CMRI and those who attend are schismatic or non-Catholic is a judgment we should refrain from making.

No matter what mask of Tradition, CMRI profess, it is nothing but "Protestantism" in disguise, they do not operate under the Catholic Church Divine and Ecclesiastical Laws, nor they respect or know the Catholic dogmas of salvation rooted in EENS. Traditional in name only, they share the same liberal fundamental Cushing error than the conciliar Pope they reject. Not only do they adhere to this error in the salvation doctrine, but also to the absurdity of a sede vacante for more than half a century which would mean that the Church has ceased to be Apostolic and Roman.

The Schuckardt / Mt. St. Michael’s group is a clear example of how schism operated. As was stated above this group was quite spiritual when it was started. Then in October 1971, Brother Francis Schuckardt was ordained a priest by an Old Catholic bishop, Bishop Brown. Old Catholics had been declared schismatic in the late 1800s and this led Schuckardt down the path to schism and possibly worse as the Old Catholics were heretics because they wouldn’t accept the dogma that the pope can be infallible. In November of the same year (1971) the now Father Schuckardt was consecrated a bishop by Bishop Brown. Note: Possibly the sacraments given were valid but very illicit or illegal which made them an extreme sacrilege. Also the group took a sedevacantist position which rejects the Pope. From this point forward one can mark the deterioration of Schuckardt and his organization spiritually. True, the organization grew to great proportions. What it built was at the cost of the Church, not just in a financial sense but in the souls who went to Schuckardt for Catholic instruction and sacraments, neither of which they received. The sacraments received were without grace and the instruction was of a church built by man; a church that failed to teach a fear of schism and a love of the true Church. Of course one would not expect a schismatic to teach a fear of schism.

Those who hear the voice of the Shepherd would know not to heed the voice of heresy.

Our Lord declares, “The sheep follow him [the true shepherd], for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers” (Jn 10:4f).

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Mabel

What charity! Connecting someone with a totally unrelated scandal and dropping the name of the person involved who is unconnected to Nado.

That is really low. I hope you get to confession this week.

It just goes to show that you will resort to any tactic to worm your way out of an honest discussion. I might even be inclined to agree with you on many things, but  it is nearly impossible to communicate with you because your reading comprehension is comparable to your level of good-will.

Nado, sorry for derailing, back to your thread where you never get an answer.

Just as a matter of fair is fair, why do you not chastise nado for something nado repeats with every post nado makes:

"Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid." (2 Tim 3:1-5)

Do you think I find it rewarding to be "Connected" to one of the traitors, blasphemers, wicked, etc. 200 times so far? Nado posted that same scripture in a post when nado was only freshly registered here in retaliation to one of my posts. It has been nado's sig ever since. Why no chastisement of nado?  

Because of your hatred toward me, you may find nado's sig to reek of charity and agree with it, but all I see is another act of hatred from one who proves  they are dishonest because the only thing that matters is that they be right - any opposition that they cannot overcome with truth will reap the most slanderous attack they can safely muster. That's what I see.

I don't expect any reply to my question, I just wanted to point out, using you as an example,  how selectively blind one can be when they choose to be - and how when one has an opinion that is biased, the lack of fairness, truth and charity is what takes over for the sake of being right at all costs.

For your benefit, the message you are supposed to get is --> change your username. Choosing "stubborn" is like using any of the other negative terms St. Paul uses in that quote. There is nothing good in calling yourself stubborn. That is not a virtue. And, perhaps once you get the message, you will be more open to reason.

I already told you the thought behind my name but that does not suit a compromiser such as yourself - why should it?

You just keep demonstrating your wonderful CMRI Christian charity.