Author Topic: Is the CMRI schismatic? (Read 46002 times)

Matto · « **Reply #150 on:** December 05, 2014, 05:42:30 PM »

Quote from: Nado

It's only an analogy.

It pertains to the degree of acquired information, not intelligence.

Relax.

I am relaxed. I was just pointing out that you are acting juvenile by flinging obnoxious insults at people you disagree with. Were you moved by grace to insult her? Was that the will of the good God?

Matto · « **Reply #151 on:** December 05, 2014, 05:50:56 PM »

:tv-disturbed:

Mabel · « **Reply #152 on:** December 05, 2014, 09:28:41 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Nado

So says "Special Olympics Cantarella". You have no clue about the subject you are attempting to talk about.

You insult her intelligence by comparing her to mentally challenged people. That's a great way to win an argument. Are you in the third grade?

Agreed.

Nado has made good points but this really doesn't do much for his argument.

Though, generally speaking Cantarella is so nasty and frustrating that she tends to bring out the worst in others. She just needs prayer, I'm hoping she isn't half as bad in real life, maybe she is completely different.

Cantarella · « **Reply #153 on:** December 05, 2014, 10:20:56 PM »

Cantarella · « **Reply #154 on:** December 05, 2014, 10:22:27 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Though, generally speaking Cantarella is so nasty and frustrating that she tends to bring out the worst in others. She just needs prayer, I'm hoping she isn't half as bad in real life, maybe she is completely different.

Because this comment is not so... :rolleyes:. It is the perfect example of sweetness and charity.

No Mabel, you and I (as well as anybody that has been paying close attention) know that what makes me so terribly "bad" to your eyes is that you just can't take what I have to say about the facts concerning sedevacantism in general, and the CMRI sect in particular.

And because it is evident that you don't have any real, objective arguments to debate it, nor any theological knowledge of any kind, then you have taken it quite personally and had to recourse to mediocre attacks against my persona as if you knew me in real life. You have absolutely no right to "publicly correct" me as you have tried to do in the past or even less right to send me, and other people here, confess simply for stating the truth about your cult as if you were our spiritual advisor.

As said before, until you are ready to counter - attack with real arguments and not silly insults, just get over it and ignore me in these threads.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #155 on:** December 06, 2014, 02:17:51 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

No Mabel, you and I (as well as anybody that has been paying close attention) know that what makes me so terribly "bad" to your eyes is that you just can't take what I have to say about the facts concerning sedevacantism in general, and the CMRI sect in particular.

And because it is evident that you don't have any real, objective arguments to debate it, nor any theological knowledge of any kind, then you have taken it quite personally and had to recourse to mediocre attacks against my persona as if you knew me in real life. You have absolutely no right to "publicly correct" me as you have tried to do in the past or even less right to send me, and other people here, confess simply for stating the truth about your cult as if you were our spiritual advisor.

As said before, until you are ready to counter - attack with real arguments and not silly insults, just get over it and ignore me in these threads.

Cantarella, your notes sound very hypocritical because you point your finger at a particular traditional group, just because they do not suit your life style, but at the same time, you turn your head and stick it into the sand so you can't see what your pope is doing. Have you ever really paid attention to the prayer, the Act of Faith! Do you even pray it, not just say it! Clearly it says: Act of Faith
... I believe these and all the truths which the holy Catholic Church teaches, because you have revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Amen.

There is nothing you can ever say against CMRI to introduce doubt about the group to anyone who knows CMRI, people leave there only because it is truly Catholic and they are not. They do not compromise! Maybe human mistakes were made, but corrected. A consequence of having no pope.

Are you really here to try and teach or are you like the infiltrator who want to destroy?

APS · « **Reply #156 on:** December 06, 2014, 06:55:07 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Nado

So says "Special Olympics Cantarella". You have no clue about the subject you are attempting to talk about.

You insult her intelligence by comparing her to mentally challenged people. That's a great way to win an argument. Are you in the third grade?

It probably is not a nice thing to say but Cantarella so misunderstands what she is talking about the CMRIand the post conciliar church believing the samething is so ridiculous it is hard to come up with an adequate response.

It would appear that Cantarella has read so much propaganda that the truth is blurred. To demonstrate this point using their terminology. All the Pelagian manual theologians which taught baptism of desire all agreed that the Catholic church is the hurxh of Christ, that communication in Sacris acatholico was forbidden be divine law. That the mass cannot be changed to suit protestants, that modernism is a heresy, that dogmas can be better defined but not change, etc. Cantarellas beliefs or rather misunderstandings are pretty stupid and deserve rebuke. But we all can make mistakes so I hope that Cantarella can learn more about these issues and not this mistake again. Please note I am rebuking the ideas and not making personal attacks. I am not one of those who believes that banners are mortally sinful.

APS · « **Reply #157 on:** December 06, 2014, 06:59:07 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Mabel

Though, generally speaking Cantarella is so nasty and frustrating that she tends to bring out the worst in others. She just needs prayer, I'm hoping she isn't half as bad in real life, maybe she is completely different.

Because this comment is not so... :rolleyes:. It is the perfect example of sweetness and charity.

No Mabel, you and I (as well as anybody that has been paying close attention) know that what makes me so terribly "bad" to your eyes is that you just can't take what I have to say about the facts concerning sedevacantism in general, and the CMRI sect in particular.

And because it is evident that you don't have any real, objective arguments to debate it, nor any theological knowledge of any kind, then you have taken it quite personally and had to recourse to mediocre attacks against my persona as if you knew me in real life. You have absolutely no right to "publicly correct" me as you have tried to do in the past or even less right to send me, and other people here, confess simply for stating the truth about your cult as if you were our spiritual advisor.

As said before, until you are ready to counter - attack with real arguments and not silly insults, just get over it and ignore me in these threads.

What Mabel is the one without theological expertise. What aboutmy post about Bp. Ferrez and his reconciliation. If this goofball could be reconciled name a legitimate reason to hold back the CMRI?

Cantarella · « **Reply #158 on:** December 06, 2014, 07:21:28 PM »

Quote from: APS

All the Pelagian manual theologians which taught baptism of desire all agreed that the Catholic church is the hurxh of Christ, that communication in Sacris acatholico was forbidden be divine law. That the mass cannot be changed to suit protestants, that modernism is a heresy, that dogmas can be better defined but not change, etc.

What are you talking about, APS? You lost me there.

I do believe that:

The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ
Communication in Sacris was forbidden
Mass cannot be changed to suit Protestants
and most definitely, that Modernism is a heresy and dogmas cannot change.

Care to elaborate? I really think you are a little confused about my beliefs which you are harshly judging as "stupid and deserving of rebuke". Well, it is a little difficult to rebuke something if you have no clue what you are rebuking to begin with.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #159 on:** December 06, 2014, 08:10:59 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: APS
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: APS
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.

CMRI disagrees on Ecuмenism. The CMRI does not agree on the issue of cuмmunicatio in Sacris which has always been taught by the Church. It definitely disagrees on the Vatican II teaching that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.

CMRI disagrees with Ecuмenism in theory only, but not in practice. This is because there is a great contradiction: CMRI believes that non-Catholics can be in state of sanctifying grace, being temples of the Holy Ghost, and ultimately reach Heaven without converting explicitly to Catholicism and formally entering the Church. That being the case, their followers, who believ in salvific "Invincible Ignorance" cannot really oppose Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism because "the good willed" non Catholic could actually be in state of Justification and is free to express his religious beliefs. After all, he does not HAVE to convert to Catholicism. He can be saved while being in a false religion through the Church. It follows that there may be thousands of "good willed" members of other religions who are also justified and temples of the Holy Ghost, so why not pray with them? Under this reasoning, the Prayer at Assisi would no longer be a blasphemy.

In some US courts there is a motion called a demurrer. It is used to show that Complaint from the other side does not state fact sufficent to support the charge. it is sometimes called a so-what motion. Here I have to demurr to you. No one can tell who is invincibly ignorant. There can be no cuмmincatio in sacris like at Assisi. There can be no sharing of the sacraments as the post-conciliar church allows. There can be no Balmaand agreement stopping proselytizing. If they are of good will and still alive they would convert when giving the opportunity. Cantarella you should really understand this issue when speaking of it.

Of course, but that was not the intended point. The point was that the CMRI shares the same error in doctrine with the Post Conciliar Church, the liberal Vatican Curia. This is, the heretical denial of the thrice defined dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, because as everyone knows the CMRI promotes the idea of salvation for non-Catholics (not even catechumens) via last minute Baptism of Desire, or its colollaries, Salvation by Implicit Desire , or Salvation by Justification Alone, all these of course novel doctrines. Yes, no one can know for sure who is the invincible ignorant, but God's Providence will ensure that this "invincible ignorant" will be enlighten and brought to the Faith if he truly seeks Him. He will send an angel if necessary. This Invincible Ignorant cannot be in the state of sanctifying grace and will not be saved unless he explicitly converts to Catholicism because it is dogma that nobody can be saved without the Catholic Faith. Yet, CMRI denies this.

The fact that the CMRI rejects Feeneyism gives me great confidence that they are a solid group of faithful Catholics.

APS · « **Reply #160 on:** December 08, 2014, 05:48:14 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: APS
All the Pelagian manual theologians which taught baptism of desire all agreed that the Catholic church is the hurxh of Christ, that communication in Sacris acatholico was forbidden be divine law. That the mass cannot be changed to suit protestants, that modernism is a heresy, that dogmas can be better defined but not change, etc.

What are you talking about, APS? You lost me there.

I do believe that:

The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ
Communication in Sacris was forbidden
Mass cannot be changed to suit Protestants
and most definitely, that Modernism is a heresy and dogmas cannot change.

Care to elaborate? I really think you are a little confused about my beliefs which you are harshly judging as "stupid and deserving of rebuke". Well, it is a little difficult to rebuke something if you have no clue what you are rebuking to begin with.

Cantarella both you and Laudislaus stated clearly that the CMRI is schismatic because they have the same beliefs as the post conciliar church because the " pelagian heresy" of invincible ignorance is the same beliefs proponed in Vatican ii. I am not saying you believe in ecuмenism or changing of the mass. I am disputing your claim that believing in what Pope Pius IX taught invincible ignorance is the same or even the root of the errors of Vatican ii. I can prov this because of all the "Pelagian" manual theologians teach that both Pius IX taught invincible ignorance and condemn the Vatican ii novelties of ecuмenism, subsistence of non catholics in the church, new mass etc.

Your ckain fail because you are arguing from ignorance

Stubborn · « **Reply #161 on:** December 08, 2014, 05:52:48 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: APS
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: APS
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.

CMRI disagrees on Ecuмenism. The CMRI does not agree on the issue of cuмmunicatio in Sacris which has always been taught by the Church. It definitely disagrees on the Vatican II teaching that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.

CMRI disagrees with Ecuмenism in theory only, but not in practice. This is because there is a great contradiction: CMRI believes that non-Catholics can be in state of sanctifying grace, being temples of the Holy Ghost, and ultimately reach Heaven without converting explicitly to Catholicism and formally entering the Church. That being the case, their followers, who believ in salvific "Invincible Ignorance" cannot really oppose Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism because "the good willed" non Catholic could actually be in state of Justification and is free to express his religious beliefs. After all, he does not HAVE to convert to Catholicism. He can be saved while being in a false religion through the Church. It follows that there may be thousands of "good willed" members of other religions who are also justified and temples of the Holy Ghost, so why not pray with them? Under this reasoning, the Prayer at Assisi would no longer be a blasphemy.

In some US courts there is a motion called a demurrer. It is used to show that Complaint from the other side does not state fact sufficent to support the charge. it is sometimes called a so-what motion. Here I have to demurr to you. No one can tell who is invincibly ignorant. There can be no cuмmincatio in sacris like at Assisi. There can be no sharing of the sacraments as the post-conciliar church allows. There can be no Balmaand agreement stopping proselytizing. If they are of good will and still alive they would convert when giving the opportunity. Cantarella you should really understand this issue when speaking of it.

Of course, but that was not the intended point. The point was that the CMRI shares the same error in doctrine with the Post Conciliar Church, the liberal Vatican Curia. This is, the heretical denial of the thrice defined dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, because as everyone knows the CMRI promotes the idea of salvation for non-Catholics (not even catechumens) via last minute Baptism of Desire, or its colollaries, Salvation by Implicit Desire , or Salvation by Justification Alone, all these of course novel doctrines. Yes, no one can know for sure who is the invincible ignorant, but God's Providence will ensure that this "invincible ignorant" will be enlighten and brought to the Faith if he truly seeks Him. He will send an angel if necessary. This Invincible Ignorant cannot be in the state of sanctifying grace and will not be saved unless he explicitly converts to Catholicism because it is dogma that nobody can be saved without the Catholic Faith. Yet, CMRI denies this.

The fact that the CMRI rejects Feeneyism gives me great confidence that they are a solid group of faithful Catholics.

Like the other CMRI supporters, all you offer is your biased opinion, which is contrary to historical fact.

Cantarella · « **Reply #162 on:** December 08, 2014, 10:49:02 AM »

Quote from: APS

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: APS
All the Pelagian manual theologians which taught baptism of desire all agreed that the Catholic church is the hurxh of Christ, that communication in Sacris acatholico was forbidden be divine law. That the mass cannot be changed to suit protestants, that modernism is a heresy, that dogmas can be better defined but not change, etc.

What are you talking about, APS? You lost me there.

I do believe that:

The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ
Communication in Sacris was forbidden
Mass cannot be changed to suit Protestants
and most definitely, that Modernism is a heresy and dogmas cannot change.

Care to elaborate? I really think you are a little confused about my beliefs which you are harshly judging as "stupid and deserving of rebuke". Well, it is a little difficult to rebuke something if you have no clue what you are rebuking to begin with.

Cantarella both you and Laudislaus stated clearly that the CMRI is schismatic because they have the same beliefs as the post conciliar church because the " pelagian heresy" of invincible ignorance is the same beliefs proponed in Vatican ii. I am not saying you believe in ecuмenism or changing of the mass. I am disputing your claim that believing in what Pope Pius IX taught invincible ignorance is the same or even the root of the errors of Vatican ii. I can prov this because of all the "Pelagian" manual theologians teach that both Pius IX taught invincible ignorance and condemn the Vatican ii novelties of ecuмenism, subsistence of non catholics in the church, new mass etc.

Your ckain fail because you are arguing from ignorance

Never stated that the CMRI is schismatic because of the liberal beliefs on EENS they promote. That would be heresy, not schism. The CMRI is schismatic because of sedevacantism, and the refusal to submit and be in communion with the visible reigning of Pope of Rome (who they consider to be an anti-Pope, following no other authority but themselves and a self - proclaimed "bishop"). This, according to Canon Law, it is the first category for schism.

Quote from: Canon 751

"Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

For further discussion about the implications of Invincible Ignorance and how the error was transferred to Vatican II docuмents, use the appropriate sub forum. It is actually off topic here.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #163 on:** December 08, 2014, 11:47:29 AM »

Cantarella,

What is the novus ordo stance on EENS?

What is Pope Francis view of EENS?

Stubborn · « **Reply #164 on:** December 08, 2014, 12:03:19 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Cantarella,

What is the novus ordo stance on EENS?

What is Pope Francis view of EENS?

In brief, just follow your conscience.

Quote

This affirmation [EENS] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church.

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. - CCC 847