That the CMRI is schismatic has been proven, your head is too busy spinning every post around to have noticed.

Quote from: Stubborn

That the CMRI is schismatic has been proven, your head is too busy spinning every post around to have noticed.

You live in a fantasy world of stubbornness. I was talking about proving that your use of the word "stubborn" is traditional.

As for schism, I asked you straight out some time ago whether you accused them of being in schism, and you squirmed all over to say you never made the accusation. Now suddenly you say it was proven? You are a mess.

As I said, you can't keep on topic for two posts, but regardless, it has been proven.

Quote from: APS

I have another angle to view this as this thread seems to be stuck in name calling.  Bp. Duarte Costa of Brazil was excommunicated by name in 1946 (Vitandus).  He claims that he was railroaded, but decided to make up his own Brazilian National Church.  His initial bishop whom he consecrated was reconciled with John XXIII, given a Titular See and even participated in Vatican II, despite having a wife and kids.  My question to you is if Salomão Barbosa Ferraz was able to help create a schismatic Church, teach heresy, break the ancient laws of celibacy and become legitimate in the eyes of the Post-Conciliar Church.   Isn't it fair to say that the CMRI could wait for a Pope and be reconciled and be just a non-schimatic as Bp Ferraz?

To Schuckardt, the gates of hell had prevailed and the Church was about to fall at any moment - but thankfully, an Old Catholic schismatic managed to out survive the Church to ordain and consecrate him. The CMRI officially trace their lineage back to this man.

To be fair all the priest of the CMRI have been conditionally ordained by Bp Musey (correct me if I am wrong).  To my knowledge Schukardt had nothing to do with the CMRI for a quarter of century.  If I did not know any better I would believe that you have an ax to grind with them.  But you quoted my post wouldn't it be more appropriate to see if CMRI under circuмstance could be non-schismatic.  I think there are alot of parallels from Church history to say that CMRI are not schismatic.

Quote from: APS

To be fair all the priest of the CMRI have been conditionally ordained by Bp Musey (correct me if I am wrong).  To my knowledge Schukardt had nothing to do with the CMRI for a quarter of century.  If I did not know any better I would believe that you have an ax to grind with them.  But you quoted my post wouldn't it be more appropriate to see if CMRI under circuмstance could be non-schismatic.  I think there are alot of parallels from Church history to say that CMRI are not schismatic.

Schuckardt was the founder and he was the only magisterium for 18 years, from 1967 to 1985 till he got the boot, he was +Pivarunas' seminary instructor, and btw, +Pivarunas was one of the one of the boots used on Schuckardt, plus the CMRI officially state right on their website they trace their origins back to 1967 - if they have nothing to do with him, then why do they officially trace their origin back to him? The SSPX have nothing to do with +ABL, yet they trace their origin and their lineage back to him. The CMRI is no different in that regard.

As for the Thuc line ordinations, I personally do not question their validity since schism is not an obstacle to validity of Orders.

"Valid orders" is all the CMRIers seem to focus on while completely ignoring the fact that valid Orders it is not the issue - schism is the issue.  

Thuc Lineage Flow Chart.

What disorder! Compare to SSPX

Quote from: APS

To be fair all the priest of the CMRI have been conditionally ordained by Bp Musey (correct me if I am wrong).  To my knowledge Schukardt had nothing to do with the CMRI for a quarter of century.  If I did not know any better I would believe that you have an ax to grind with them.  But you quoted my post wouldn't it be more appropriate to see if CMRI under circuмstance could be non-schismatic.  I think there are alot of parallels from Church history to say that CMRI are not schismatic.

Schuckardt was the founder and he was the only magisterium for 18 years, from 1967 to 1985 till he got the boot, he was +Pivarunas' seminary instructor, and btw, +Pivarunas was one of the one of the boots used on Schuckardt, plus the CMRI officially state right on their website they trace their origins back to 1967 - if they have nothing to do with him, then why do they officially trace their origin back to him? The SSPX have nothing to do with +ABL, yet they trace their origin and their lineage back to him. The CMRI is no different in that regard.

As for the Thuc line ordinations, I personally do not question their validity since schism is not an obstacle to validity of Orders.

"Valid orders" is all the CMRIers seem to focus on while completely ignoring the fact that valid Orders it is not the issue - schism is the issue.  

Can you show me your source stating that Stukardt was the magisterium of the CMRI, as I understand he was the founder of the Order.  I do think the SSPX have something to do the Archbishop Lefbevre.  If the CMRI is schismatic only for the issue of refusal of submission to the Holy See, is there any canonical excuse for them since they have not been condemned in any forum that I know of?

A big part of the issue is one of private interpretation of Catholicism. There is no doubt that this is true with many and particularly with CMRI. They did in fact reject Bishop Musey as well as many other Thuc line Bishops and clergy who had a proper Catholic formation and foundation. They may have managed to have one of their own consecrated, but it does not make them Catholic. It does not make them proponents of truth. How can a group who would not submit to proper Catholic training be properly formed? It is picture book spirituality and counterfeit at best. They are self formed and taught from the time they expelled their founder until the present time. They propagate their own views as if it is true Catholicism? It is really sad and is
 predicated on opinion.

Welcome to CathInfo, En medio stat virtus!

 :smile:

My friend, I fully realize by your comments that you unfortunately do not know the truth of what really occurred. I further realize that you never knew Bishop Musey nor what actually occurred then. Sad reality. It is not in the choosing of a spiritual director or an intellectual exercise that makes one truly Catholic.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: APS

To be fair all the priest of the CMRI have been conditionally ordained by Bp Musey (correct me if I am wrong).  To my knowledge Schukardt had nothing to do with the CMRI for a quarter of century.  If I did not know any better I would believe that you have an ax to grind with them.  But you quoted my post wouldn't it be more appropriate to see if CMRI under circuмstance could be non-schismatic.  I think there are alot of parallels from Church history to say that CMRI are not schismatic.

Schuckardt was the founder and he was the only magisterium for 18 years, from 1967 to 1985 till he got the boot, he was +Pivarunas' seminary instructor, and btw, +Pivarunas was one of the one of the boots used on Schuckardt, plus the CMRI officially state right on their website they trace their origins back to 1967 - if they have nothing to do with him, then why do they officially trace their origin back to him? The SSPX have nothing to do with +ABL, yet they trace their origin and their lineage back to him. The CMRI is no different in that regard.

As for the Thuc line ordinations, I personally do not question their validity since schism is not an obstacle to validity of Orders.

"Valid orders" is all the CMRIers seem to focus on while completely ignoring the fact that valid Orders it is not the issue - schism is the issue.  

Can you show me your source stating that Stukardt was the magisterium of the CMRI, as I understand he was the founder of the Order.  I do think the SSPX have something to do the Archbishop Lefbevre.  If the CMRI is schismatic only for the issue of refusal of submission to the Holy See, is there any canonical excuse for them since they have not been condemned in any forum that I know of?

Schuckardt was the one who founded CMRI in 1967 and was superior till he got kicked out in 1984. Then in 1985, Father Dennis Chicoine became the new superior.
All this is common knowledge and can be easily found with google.

Here is one link that gives a brief history showing the above facts to be true.

We know that Schuckardt had true priests available for the Mass and the sacraments up until 1971 when he was ordained and consecrated, what ever became of them is not recorded, at least not on the web that I could find.

Whether they left or were told to leave we cannot say for sure, yet the fact remains that he had true priests available for the Mass and the sacraments, but chose to be ordained and consecrated clandestinely by a schismatic bishop instead.

Right there at that point in time (if not sooner) is when I personally believe that the Church would certainly have declared that he severed himself from the Church.    

And yes, certainly the SSPX have something to do with +ABL, it's founder.
 
The same is true of CMRI and it's founder as their website states they trace their origin back to 1967 more than once.

The reason given that the clandestine abjurations, confessions and professions of faith which were made by those CMRI clergy prior to being conditionally ordained by +Musey, is because there was doubt of the validity of the Schuckardt ordinations. Keep that fact in mind.

Nowhere can we find that the abjurations were made in order to renounce their schism and rejoin the Church.