Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Xystus

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Xystus

Stubborn, can you state your case in a nutshell for us?  Tell us why you think Bp. Pivarunas, for example, does not have the minimum essential priestly training, and what you consider a necessary minimum is during this unprecedented crisis in the Church.

The minimum training or the maximum training is not the issue, the issue is that the CMRI website states the bishop had "the usual seminary training" when there was no such thing in those days.
 

That's your objection? You don't like how the word "usual" is being used?

Let's say that "usual" merely refers to the usual training the CMRI were capable of providing. Now what would be your objection?

I think we all would agree that "the usual seminary training" means that he either had his seminary prior to V2, which we know he didn't, or he received his training from Econe or some other seminary that provided seminary training according to pre-V2 norms.

I want to know where this seminary was.

I find it odd that CMRI uses that wording at all - and they offer no further information anywhere. But what makes it even more odd is that 100% of the replies in this thread to that question are cult like replies - even from those who say they do not go to the CMRI.

I guarantee you the "usual" referred to is - training patterned on the 2 years of philosophy/4 years of theology. The books and schedules used are no secret in Catholicism. What is your beef? That is not difficult to figure out. You, rather, went for suspecting a lie, rashly.

You can guarantee whatever you want - but what you, like the rest of the CMRIers cannot seem to get yourself to do, is answer the question.

For the umpteenth time.............
Where did "he receive the usual seminary training"?

Since the beginning of this thread on 28 October until now, someone would have enough time to name each CMRI priest and the date of his ordination and who ordained him.

Where? I have already answered that when I said, "the usual training the CMRI were capable of providing". This was at their own locations in the northwest.

FYI, "the usual seminary training" is always understood to mean the seminary training according to the norms established by Trent, not whatever training the CMRI was capable of providing.

 





 

Since Bishop Pivarunas was ordained a priest in 1985 and made a bishop in 1991, I don't see how he could have received the usual seminary training at a Minor Seminary at all, let alone one that was not founded yet.

Consequently, we are pleased to announce the establishment of a Minor Seminary, which opened in the fall of 1999. The seminary is open to boys of high school age who have completed their grade school educations and believe that they may be called by God to the priesthood. . . . . . What is a minor seminary? The minor seminary is similar to other Catholic boarding schools for boys. Source

Also see:

Rev. Father Benedict Hughes, CMRI: Over the years as a priest and religious, Father Benedict has spent his life in various works in the service of our Blessed Mother, particularly in the field of education. Father founded St. Joseph Seminary in 1999 and is also pastor of our oldest parish, Mary Immaculate Queen Church in northern Idaho. He is also the editor of The Reign of Mary magazine and a regular speaker at our annual Fatima Conference. -Source

IIRC, the seminary I think you may be referring to was destroyed by fire in the mid 1970s. I thought it was a church, not a seminary - but I could be wrong about that - either way, he could not have gone there for the usual seminary training as I'm pretty sure that place was gone either just before or just after he joined in 1974.

So try to provide some type of proof, other than your idiotic comments.

Quote from: Stubborn

IIRC...

After looking up "IIRC", I found that it is text message shorthand for "if I read correctly".

No.  You do not read correctly.  You have not read anything correctly on this entire topic because, it appears, your hatred for the CMRI clouds your ability to think clearly.

Just because *you* have zero knowledge of the early days of CMRI and apparently do not want to know, does not mean everyone else does.

Here is a link, written March 3, 1978 saying the place burned down "months ago".

The seminary at Rathdrum burned down months ago and the young men who were studying there are the ones now living at Mount St. Michael's.

So I didn't recall everything correctly - it was a Schuckardt seminary, not a church and it appears it burned down in 1977 or so.

I can find no information saying that it was rebuilt - only what I posted in the reply to your previous post stating it was founded in 1999, some 14 years after his ordination.

As for you, I would think that because of the corrupt foundation and first 20 or so years of that organization that of all people here, that you would be most earnest in finding out the whole story from outside the CMRI stories since I remember reading that one of your daughters(?) is going there to be a nun.


And further more, I do not hate you or anyone or - in particular, the CMRI. You find the question itself offensive - as if questioning the leader of "the remnant" is a crime against Almighty God or His Church or something.

You all sound like members of a cult with the same cult like responses to a simple question which you find offensive.

A Google of Cult Characteristics finds this:

1) The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

These characteristics are found in every single CMRIer reply in this thread. That in and of itself should tell you something.

Quote from: Stubborn

So I didn't recall everything correctly - it was a Schuckardt seminary, not a church and it appears it burned down in 1977 or so.

I can find no information saying that it was rebuilt - only what I posted in the reply to your previous post stating it was founded in 1999, some 14 years after his ordination.

You all sound like members of a cult with the same cult like responses to a simple question which you find offensive.

A Google of Cult Characteristics finds this:

1) The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. Are you speaking about Schuckardt as a leader, if so... you are sadly mistaken...again

2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. Schuckardt was outsted by the community remember...again you are mistaken.

These characteristics are found in every single CMRIer reply in this thread. That in and of itself should tell you something. It tells me that even Jesus Christ picked a Judas.

Reading your objectives about CMRI it seems to me you are concerned not WHAT Bishop Pivarunas has studied/learned, but where he studied/learned it.  Is that correct?

Also exactly what do you mean when you say : "As for you, I would think that because of the corrupt foundation and first 20 or so years of that organization that of all people here, that you would be most earnest in finding out the whole story"

The YouTube I posted pages back Bishop Pivarunas explained the crimes against Schuckardt that happened over 32 years ago, not 20 years.  Why do you pretend we are hiding something?  CMRI is an open book.  
 

I can't even fathom what must be going through Stubborn's mind. He just won't be satisfied and admit his ignorance and biases.

I have interviewed five CMRI nuns extensively on the topic of their history. I also know the history of their families and much, much more information about Shuckhardt. I have spoken to the priests in the same topics. I also thoroughly researched the history and background of the group before I contacted them. So, who earnestly got the whole story? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Stubborn.

Would anyone who has ever been "punished" for asking Bp. Pivarunas a question please chime in on this board? Let's help Stubborn become an honest man. Let them name their name, infraction, and subsequent punishment.

Quote from: Stubborn

And further more, I do not hate you or anyone or - in particular, the CMRI. You find the question itself offensive - as if questioning the leader of "the remnant" is a crime against Almighty God or His Church or something.

I am not a member of any chapel of the CMRI. It is pretty clear to see you have some axe to grind, Stubborn. (The choice of your name says much. Catholics aren't supposed to be stubborn, but you have some delight in labeling yourself with that.)

First off, you can enlighten all the martyrs and saints in heaven by telling them that being stubborn is not Catholic when you meet them. Second, it takes two to be stubborn, at least my screen name let's you know I'm honest about it - and when I am wrong, I will readily admit it asap. But how can I be wrong by asking for some answer to a clear question?

If you don't like the question then move along, why did you sign up? - just to add your own set of ad hominems to an already long list?

You read some statement on a web site that claims the "usual" seminary training and it seems to cause a personal crisis for you. Perhaps the statement does need clarification, but why ask everyone else for clarification when you can easily contact the CMRI for it? You would rather launch in with innuendos that the statement is a lie, rather than simply be poorly stated. That shows a lack of charity, and some stubborn agenda in mind. If you care for truth, go write for a clarification.

The CMRIers here have offered nothing but cult like replies i.e. accusations of being anti Catholic, CMRI hater, Catholic attacker, an unjust man and ad hominems etc. ad nausem. All this does is detour the subject away from the original question and demonstrates for all to see that they really HATE that question for some reason. Perhaps it's the same reason CMRI website tells only half the truth - there's no way to tell for sure unless one of them figures it out and replies with some type of actual answer.

What is so dreadful about answering a simple question?

My agenda is to get someone to actually answer the question. These people, including you, who are all so reassuring that all is bliss with the the bishop are also the same people who have dodged the question numerous times.

Look at Mabel's post above - did I ask anything about nuns? Did I ask anything about Schuckardt? Did I ask anything about their priests? All I ask is where did he receive the usual seminary training. The longer these CMRI supporters continue to dodge the question using ad hominems, the more obvious it is they are afraid of the question.

Yet for asking about something she is obviously completely and totally ignorant of, I am the one who is ignorant with biases. And obstinate. And a feeneyite. And whatever other as hominem she added to the list of ad hominems in this thread - demonstrating more of that good old CMRI "wonderful Christian charity".

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn

And further more, I do not hate you or anyone or - in particular, the CMRI. You find the question itself offensive - as if questioning the leader of "the remnant" is a crime against Almighty God or His Church or something.

I am not a member of any chapel of the CMRI. It is pretty clear to see you have some axe to grind, Stubborn. (The choice of your name says much. Catholics aren't supposed to be stubborn, but you have some delight in labeling yourself with that.)

First off, you can enlighten all the martyrs and saints in heaven by telling them that being stubborn is not Catholic when you meet them. Second, it takes two to be stubborn, at least my screen name let's you know I'm honest about it - and when I am wrong, I will readily admit it asap. But how can I be wrong by asking for some answer to a clear question?

If you don't like the question then move along, why did you sign up? - just to add your own set of ad hominems to an already long list?

Quote from: Nado

You read some statement on a web site that claims the "usual" seminary training and it seems to cause a personal crisis for you. Perhaps the statement does need clarification, but why ask everyone else for clarification when you can easily contact the CMRI for it? You would rather launch in with innuendos that the statement is a lie, rather than simply be poorly stated. That shows a lack of charity, and some stubborn agenda in mind. If you care for truth, go write for a clarification.

The CMRIers here have offered nothing but cult like replies i.e. accusations of being anti Catholic, CMRI hater, Catholic attacker, an unjust man and ad hominems etc. ad nausem. All this does is detour the subject away from the original question and demonstrates for all to see that they really HATE that question for some reason. Perhaps it's the same reason CMRI website tells only half the truth - there's no way to tell for sure unless one of them figures it out and replies with some type of actual answer.

What is so dreadful about answering a simple question?

My agenda is to get someone to actually answer the question. These people, including you, who are all so reassuring that all is bliss with the the bishop are also the same people who have dodged the question numerous times.

Look at Mabel's post above - did I ask anything about nuns? Did I ask anything about Schuckardt? Did I ask anything about their priests? All I ask is where did he receive the usual seminary training. The longer these CMRI supporters continue to dodge the question using ad hominems, the more obvious it is they are afraid of the question.

Yet for asking about something she is obviously completely and totally ignorant of, I am the one who is ignorant with biases. And obstinate. And a feeneyite. And whatever other as hominem she added to the list of ad hominems in this thread - demonstrating more of that good old CMRI "wonderful Christian charity".

It isn't an ad hominem. No one is familiar with the names of the individuals who trained Bp. Pivarunas. You have been told that many times. You have been told that if you want certain pieces of exact information that you will need to contact him, yourself.

You are the one who accused others of not researching the organization. I merely explained to you that I have gone straight to them and questioned them without any sort of consequence. You did state that questioning them results in punishment. I was responding to your outrageous charge. Maybe you are just stupid because if not, it makes you a liar. Bottom line, you don't like that I took you to task. I asked for proof, so let's wait and see those punished souls line up.

And for the last time, I'm am not part of the CMRI organization. You are making foolish generalizations in an attempt to destroy my credibility. What's the Latin term for that again?