Oh so now he was only an instrument in the purchase of the property? Do you honestly think your nuns would say you are being entirely honest?

Schuckardt the schismatic ordained as priest Chicoine, who after kicking Schuckardt out with the help of Pivarunas, was elected the second superior of CMRI.

I cannot see where there can be any question that Schuckardt was a schismatic and that he alone reigned as the Superior General of CMRI for it's first 18 years.

God who is All Knowing and in the hopes of satisfying people like yourself arranged in 1985,for Father Chicoine, to be conditionally ordained as priests by the Traditionalist Catholic Bishop George Musey.  

As said prior Bishop Musey's episcopal lineage descended from Archbishop Thuc which we have already proven to be of God.  

So again, your point please!

Quote from: Stubborn

Oh so now he was only an instrument in the purchase of the property? Do you honestly think your nuns would say you are being entirely honest?

Schuckardt the schismatic ordained as priest Chicoine, who after kicking Schuckardt out with the help of Pivarunas, was elected the second superior of CMRI.

I cannot see where there can be any question that Schuckardt was a schismatic and that he alone reigned as the Superior General of CMRI for it's first 18 years.

God who is All Knowing and in the hopes of satisfying people like yourself arranged in 1985,for Father Chicoine, to be conditionally ordained as priests by the Traditionalist Catholic Bishop George Musey.  

As said prior Bishop Musey's episcopal lineage descended from Archbishop Thuc which we have already proven to be of God.  

So again, your point please!

The point of my last post was to correct you. Do you remember saying that  Schuckardt did not ordain any of the CMRI priests or the Bishop who serve the order? Well, you must have forgot that Schuckardt ordained the next Superior of the CMRI, Chicoine, didn't he?

Being conditionally ordained by Musey only makes Chicoine a schismatic who was conditionally ordained.

On 23 April 1985 before Bp. Musey, the remaining three priests formally and publicly took the Abjuration of Error and Profession of Faith ad cautelam-- in case through their previous actions they had incurred any ecclesiastical censures. Bp. Musey then re-ordained them conditionally.

Assuming that two of the "three remaining priests" are Chicoine and Pivarunas,
aside from making a joke of the whole thing, what's the point of them making an abjuration "ad cautelam"?

I've never heard of any abjuration or profession of faith made ad cautelam. Absolution ad cautelam or conditionally administering of sacraments ad cautelam yes, certainly that makes sense, but making an abjuration / profession of faith ad cautelam does not make even a shred of sense to me - someone will need to explain that one.

Assuming that two of the "three remaining priests" are Chicoine and Pivarunas,
aside from making a joke of the whole thing, what's the point of them making an abjuration "ad cautelam"?

I've never heard of any abjuration or profession of faith made ad cautelam. Absolution ad cautelam or conditionally administering of sacraments ad cautelam yes, certainly that makes sense, but making an abjuration / profession of faith ad cautelam does not make even a shred of sense to me - someone will need to explain that one.

Bishop Pivarunas was never ordained by Schuckardt, he already told on the Youtube from the last thread I posted, shows what you want to remember and what you don't want to know.  

I already told you why they were conditionally ordained with caution, what is wrong with that?  God knowing there would be doubters like you, now you will have to answer to Him for your stubbornness of which you so desire.

Look at how many priest your Bishop Fellay has conditionally re-ordained ad cautelam, with caution. Your problem is you can't find a loop hole in your stubbornness to justify your stubborn attitude when it comes to CMRI.

Why do you think anyone was ever re-ordained?

That is also the reason people take an abjuration of faith, I took it when I left the Novus Ordo.  I wanted to take it, not that it was forced on me.  I wanted to make sure I understood the evil that I was led into.  Not to say every lay person must take the abjuration of faith coming out of the novus ordo, but I wanted to as my promise that I would never, ever set foot within the devils "church" again.  Unlike you who think nothing is really wrong there.  You who points the finger at an ORDER KNOWN AS CMRI, who has taken precautionary measures to make sure everything is in order, in the eyes of God.  CMRI does not compromise unlike some SSPX these days.

Your seem to deny the FACT that we are living in the Great Apostasy, and certain measures had to be taken to assure the Faith prevails.  It is always better to err on the side of CAUTION.  Meaning << to be especially careful rather than taking a risk or making a mistake>>

I can't even imagine God's disappointment about being cautious, during these times of confusion of those who saw the Great Apostasy in the very early days of the this crisis.

Beware these Modernist traits of your pope are starting to show its ugly face on your face.    Not calling you a Modernist yet, but you are starting to sound like one.  

How can someone make a profession of faith - but make it just in case the faith they held previously was in error? Are they sure about it this time?

I wouldn't be surprised if it did, but does that actually makes sense to you CMRIers?

In my way of thinking, I would surmise, that perhaps, the person felt at the time they were doing what was necessary, but now that the circuмstances changed they want to make sure they were not mistaken EVER.  It took humility to do what they did, something you might want to imitate by admitting, maybe you are wrong with your conclusion about CMRI.  

Is that a sin, there actions at the time, if not why the fuss.  If yes, explain!

While your at it, answer Nado's last note too, or did you not see it, can't find your new glasses perhaps.   :detective:

Quote from: Stubborn

How can someone make a profession of faith - but make it just in case the faith they held previously was in error? Are they sure about it this time?

I wouldn't be surprised if it did, but does that actually makes sense to you CMRIers?

In my way of thinking, I would surmise, that perhaps, the person felt at the time they were doing what was necessary, but now that the circuмstances changed they want to make sure they were not mistaken EVER.  It took humility to do what they did, something you might want to imitate by admitting, maybe you are wrong with your conclusion about CMRI.  

Is that a sin, there actions at the time, if not why the fuss.  If yes, explain!

While your at it, answer Nado's last note too, or did you not see it, can't find your new glasses perhaps.   :detective:

That makes no sense at all.

When a person abjures their errors and makes a profession of faith, they do it fully cognizant that in so doing, they are vowing to renounce the errors they held previously, not that they are abjuring just in case they actually were in error - that is absurd.
Perhaps the CMRI promote the abjuration of error "just in case", if they do, it could only be because they do not know what truth and error even is - that is what you are saying.

Does the below abjuration / profession sound like there is room for any doubt? If you think there is, then please point out where in the abjuration / profession of faith room is allowed for error?

"I,________________ having before me the holy
Gospels, which I touch with my hand, and knowing
that no one can be saved without that faith
which the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman
Church holds, believes, and teaches, against which
I grieve that I have greatly erred, inasmuch as I
have held and believed doctrines opposed to her
teaching.

"I now with sorrow and contrition for my past
errors, profess that I believe the Holy, Catholic,
Apostolic Roman Church to be the only and true
Church established on earth by Jesus Christ, to
which I submit myself with my whole soul. I believe
all the articles of Faith that she proposes to my
belief, and I reject and condemn all that she rejects
and condemns, and I am ready to observe all that
she commands me. And I make the following profession
of Faith:

(There follows the profession.)

'And, I believe in everything else that has been
defined and declared by the sacred Canons and by
the General Councils, and particularly by the holy
Council of Trent, and delivered, defined, and declared
by the General Council of the Vatican, especially
concerning the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and
his infallible teaching authority.

"With a sincere heart, therefore, and with unfeigned
faith, I detest and abjure every error, heresy,
and sect opposed to the said Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Roman Church. So help me God, and
these His holy Gospels, which I touch with my
hand."

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Nado

Okay, so you say Schuckardt was schismatic because of his ordination/consecration, and that it extended to Fr. Chicoine for attempting to be ordained by the same man.

Do you extend being schismatic to the others who approved and participated? Why, or why not?

Schuckardt was certainly in schism because first, he left the Church - second, after he left the Church, he then started his own "Religious Community" as the CMRI website describes it.

Schuckardt, who already started his Religious Community, started to grow his Religious Community after he was ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop (Daniel Brown) whose episcopal lineage is traced back to a bishop that was excommunicated by Pope Pius X himself. Correct me if I'm wrong but that being the case, everyone that is ordained/consecrated from that entire lineage is also excommunicated, therefore in schism.

There is a lot more to it, but no sense in proceeding any further until the above is understood.

 

Receiving a valid sacrament from a non-Catholic is normally sinful by ecclesiastical law, unless there is a proportionately good reason in an extraordinary circuмstance, then it becomes necessary and good. It is by the virtue of epikeia that the letter of law can be broken to maintain the essential spirit of the law. The most prominent example is baptism, and the next most common is confession (in danger of death).

In an extreme situation where the validity of the priesthood is stake, and thus a threat of extinction of the Sacraments, the priesthood can likewise be conferred by a non-Catholic. This is what the CMRI did with Brown. It was merely for the Sacraments and had nothing to do with approval of the Old Catholics and their tenets. Mistaken or not, the attempt had the color of legitimacy in this unprecedented, virtually unforeseen crisis. A mistake in such an extraordinary circuмstance doesn't equal schism.

An analogous situation is this: the moral theologians teach that incest is a mortal sin. Yet they teach that in a circuмstance where the human race is facing extinction, it would be good and lawful for brother and sister to get married and have children. Now, it is certainly difficult in such a case to truly know whether the human race, world-wide, is truly facing extinction, and if a mistake is made, the Church is as merciful as Our Lord is. Jansenists and Pharisee-types would have no mercy and condemn the mistake with the most rigorous charge possible by quoting books about the horror and grievousness of incest.

I don't know where to even start with this. This is tragically sad.

Have you ever heard the old saying: Two wrongs don't make a right?

Once again, I offer historical facts, you offer your opinion, which is so perverted I find myself in awe. What you base your opinion on God only knows, whatever you base your opinion on is certainly not Catholic.
 
FYI, since the time that Our Lord instituted of the Sacrament of Matrimony, and even before that in the Old Testament, the sin of incest will  never be good and lawful - never. Here, start at verse 6.

Whatever im"moral theologians" you follow, run, don't walk away from them.



 

Must say, though that Nado has become a very entertaining poster. Have to give her that!. Her utter ignorance combined with an innate inability to stop sprouting imprudent non sense are very comical. She just does not know when to stop! It surely keeps the threads alive.

Yes, now that Ambrose and LoT have stopped "contributing" to BoD threads, and Myrna / Emerentiana were in over their heads to begin with, they had to dispatch another CMRI-bot to continue trolling against the EENS dogma, to "take over driving" as Emerentiana put it.