Author Topic: Who ordains CMRI priests? (Read 48251 times)

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #30 on:** October 29, 2014, 01:19:00 AM »

Everything I've seen about the CMRI does indeed indicate bearing holy *fruit*

I only have ever had one point of concern that's kept me from attending: validity of orders.

I might not have read the right things but

A)if what is Shuckhardt was true, did his intent with such a gravely disordered orientation make for valid ordination?

Then his consecration would have issues and thus any ordinations he performed (Bp Pivarunas).

B)again, possibly not reading the right material to explain, serious concerns brought to my attention about Thuc line, and that is where Bp. pivarunas received his consecration

After the concerns with Schuckhardt, did CMRI ever go through and conditionally reordain all the priests ordained by Shuckhardt? Was that not necessary? What of Bp Pivarunas' consecration by a Thuc line? Concerns there? I think the main argument would be that Thuc wasn't in his right mind?

For whatever reason, Rome seems to see the SSPX consecrations and ords as valid, but not CMRI? I assume because of these reasons.

Any help would be appreciated.

tdrev123 · « **Reply #31 on:** October 29, 2014, 01:33:10 AM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

Everything I've seen about the CMRI does indeed indicate bearing holy *fruit*

I only have ever had one point of concern that's kept me from attending: validity of orders.

I might not have read the right things but

A)if what is Shuckhardt was true, did his intent with such a gravely disordered orientation make for valid ordination?

Then his consecration would have issues and thus any ordinations he performed (Bp Pivarunas).

B)again, possibly not reading the right material to explain, serious concerns brought to my attention about Thuc line, and that is where Bp. pivarunas received his consecration

After the concerns with Schuckhardt, did CMRI ever go through and conditionally reordain all the priests ordained by Shuckhardt? Was that not necessary? What of Bp Pivarunas' consecration by a Thuc line? Concerns there? I think the main argument would be that Thuc wasn't in his right mind?

For whatever reason, Rome seems to see the SSPX consecrations and ords as valid, but not CMRI? I assume because of these reasons.

Any help would be appreciated.

I am fairly certain that every priest has been re-ordained, almost all of the priests were either ordained by Pivarunas or by Bishop McKenna in the first place - I believe that starting from the late '80's Bishop McKenna ordained cmri priests, then Pivarunas after his elevation to the episcopate. If the priest is older than 50, I would just ask him who ordained him.
The thuc line is valid -http://thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf

Actually Rome does consider Thuc to be valid. Malachi Martin received affirmation from a bishop in the vatican that his ordinations are valid, he told this to Rama Coomaswarmy. Rome doesn't say anything about these ordinations because the Thuc line is almost unanimously sedevacantist, we reject the Pope, why would Rome accept Us? And who cares what those modernist clowns think??

Stubborn · « **Reply #32 on:** October 29, 2014, 04:13:14 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Pay no attention to the Baptism of Desire deniers. Their opinion of CMRI is clouded by their heretical worldview.

They hate CMRI because CMRI defends the 100% of the Faith. The Feeneyites ripped out a page of their catechism, and attack all of us Catholics who keep the Fath whole and entire. The CMRI gets the full attack of the Feeneyites and Dimond followers because they have been the most outspoken in defense of these Sacred Doctrines of the Church.

If CMRI today embraced their heresy and like them denied Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, all of these "other issues" they keep bringing up would no longer matter. It's a side show to distract the uniformed of their real agenda.

Is Bishop Joseph Marie, a CMRI bishop consecrated by your own CMRI founder, a feeneyite? a CMRI hater?

YOUR OWN CMRI BISHOP is the one who emphatically states that the CMRI "cannot possibly be part of the Catholic Church".

Your own bishop, one who has been within the CMRI since 1977, one who was consecrated a bishop by your own founder, one who should know, is the one who accused CMRIers of committing crimes by being in the CMRI, your own bishop warned you to get out of the CMRI while you're still alive and have the chance to get out. Your own bishop is telling you the CMRI is not a part of the Catholic Church. Is there not one of you willing to answer these charges levied against the CMRI by the bishop?

Do the docuмented words of your own bishop mean so little to you that you COMPLETELY ignore them and re-direct the thread into yet another anti-sede / feeneyite ad hominems thread?

Not one CMRIer on this thread has even attempted to provide a shred of evidence to discredit the docuмentation and warnings given by YOUR OWN BISHOP.

TKGS · « **Reply #33 on:** October 29, 2014, 06:45:23 AM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

Everything I've seen about the CMRI does indeed indicate bearing holy *fruit*

I only have ever had one point of concern that's kept me from attending: validity of orders.

I might not have read the right things but

A)if what is Shuckhardt was true, did his intent with such a gravely disordered orientation make for valid ordination?

No one in the CMRI today traces his ordination through Shuckhardt. Please listen to the conferences from Bishop Pivarunas on the link I provided on the first page of this topic. He will recount the history of the CMRI and provide the evidence of the validity and licitness of their orders.

Stubborn · « **Reply #34 on:** October 29, 2014, 06:57:10 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Iuvenalis
Everything I've seen about the CMRI does indeed indicate bearing holy *fruit*

I only have ever had one point of concern that's kept me from attending: validity of orders.

I might not have read the right things but

A)if what is Shuckhardt was true, did his intent with such a gravely disordered orientation make for valid ordination?

No one in the CMRI today traces his ordination through Shuckhardt. Please listen to the conferences from Bishop Pivarunas on the link I provided on the first page of this topic. He will recount the history of the CMRI and provide the evidence of the validity and licitness of their orders.

So what do you make of Bishop Joseph Marie's warnings?

What makes what he says unreliable, but Bishop Pivarunas' reliable?

Or is it unreasonable to expect devoted CMRIers to come up with reliable evidence against Bishop Joseph Marie's warnings and accusations? - As it is, it seems that all that matters to CMRIers is smells, bells and validity of Orders since warnings from one of their own bishops seem to mean nothing when it is not what they want to hear.

andysloan · « **Reply #35 on:** October 29, 2014, 07:15:11 AM »

To TKGS/Ambrose et al

Francis Schuckardt founded the CMRI and that is all one needs to know:

Romans 11:16

"For if the firstfruit be holy, so is the lump also: and if the root be holy, so are the branches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schuckardt

And what about infallible Vatican 1?

Vatican 1: session 4

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

TKGS · « **Reply #36 on:** October 29, 2014, 08:52:26 AM »

Frankly, it would seem to me that the true "foundation" of the CMRI dates to when its rule was established, and this was done after Schuckardt was ejected from the community. Prior to that, it was merely an informal association of faithful. Of course, I don't speak for the CMRI, but the reasoning behind the detraction usually discussed about its origins seem to suggest that if the CMRI were dissolved and the same people constituted a new congregation under a different name, everything would suddenly become acceptable. This does not make sense to me.

And if that is not correct, then its detractors are saying that there is no hope of redemption for anyone who has a shady past. I thought that the Catholic Church taught that anyone who sinned can be redeemed.

As for wikipedia, I guess I have to take your concerns more seriously. After all, they wouldn't allow it on wikipedia if it weren't the absolute truth, now would they?

andysloan · « **Reply #37 on:** October 29, 2014, 09:27:52 AM »

To TKGS

The passage from scripture provides clear instruction for our benefit and you should humbly accept the illumination it gives, namely that God's ordering of human affiars dictates that the root of an organisation will be reflected in its integrity or otherwise. Despite your attempt to sideline the wikepedia, it is an a matter of common understanding that Franicis Schuckardt was a scandalous character. Therefore the deduction about the CMRI is clear!

But the whole situation is resolved by Vatican 1, which I posted and which you avoided commenting upon.

And what about infallible Vatican 1?

Vatican 1: session 4

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

The Holy Ghost here immediately dissolves sedevacantism - unless He made in any error in the use of the words "permanent" and "forever"! On seeing this, all sedevacantists are bound to renounce this error and recognise the conciliar Popes, who whatever one may think about what they say/write/do generally, God has not and will not permit them to promulgate ex-cathedra error.

TKGS · « **Reply #38 on:** October 29, 2014, 10:26:44 AM »

Re-posting the same thing over and over again is against the rules of CathInfo. I have gotten your point and, I daresay, virtually everyone who has read this topic has gotten your point. It's just that your point is worthless.

I think I understand the hatred of the CMRI, though. Most of the hatred comes from Conciliarist Modernists through and through.

andysloan · « **Reply #39 on:** October 29, 2014, 10:43:13 AM »

To TKGS

Seeking to find false defects in your neighbour as a method of distraction from the point, is hardly a pious action.

Why did I re-post the excerpt from Vatican 1? Very obviously, because you have not answered. The question must be, why will you not address the teachings of the Holy Ghost on the permanency of succession?

Why do you not accept this simple assurance?

Proverbs 15:10

"Instruction is grievous to him that forsaketh the way of life."

MyrnaM · « **Reply #40 on:** October 29, 2014, 02:02:41 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Emitte Lucem Tuam
I have heard, seen and experienced nothing but good fruits, sound doctrine and wonderful Christian charity from the clergy (and laity) of CMRI. They're as Catholic as the "pope" (as my grandfather would say back in the day) - LOL.

Sound doctrine?

Mark Pivarunas, as well as the CMRI as a whole, hold that souls can be saved in any false religion, including in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. In doing this, they differ in NOTHING from the conciliar Popes they imagine themselves with the authority to "reject".

Please look further to what sound Catholic doctrine really is.

That is a bold faced lie. Proves you know nothing about what you are talking about.
Or is it you: really meant to type your Pope Francis, as well as your conciLIAR church of which Francis is a head of hold that souls can be saved in any false religion, including in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #41 on:** October 29, 2014, 02:08:21 PM »

Quote from: andysloan

To TKGS/Ambrose et al

Francis Schuckardt founded the CMRI and that is all one needs to know:

Romans 11:16

"For if the firstfruit be holy, so is the lump also: and if the root be holy, so are the branches."

Who founded the Vatican II, novus ordo religion?

The devil himself founded that novus ordo religion known as the ConciLIAR and that is all one needs to know. :devil2:

MyrnaM · « **Reply #42 on:** October 29, 2014, 02:18:16 PM »

In truth, when all this happened DECADES AGO, and as all of you know, Catholics were scattered and not organized. Over the years Catholics started to find one another and re-group. Schuckardt purchased Mt. St. Michael's property and yes, Schuckardt actions with his personal sins caused a crisis within the community, however he was ousted which is more than I can say about the criminal, perverts who thrive within the Vatican II, TODAY within your church AND with the blessings of YOUR POPE FRANCIS.

You turn a blind eye, but God sees you.

Cantarella · « **Reply #43 on:** October 29, 2014, 02:22:23 PM »

All those consecrated by Bishop Thuc or by others of his line (or by any other heretic or schismatic) cannot exercise their orders lawfully since they (in addition to being heretics and outside the Church) lack the canonical mission which the Council of Trent dogmatically teaches to be necessary for a bishop to be a legitimate minister of the word and the sacraments:

Quote from: Trent

“If anyone say… that those who have not been rightly ordained by ecclesiastical and canonical power and have not been sent [by the Church], but come from some other source [such as a heretical or schismatical source], are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.”

MyrnaM · « **Reply #44 on:** October 29, 2014, 02:33:38 PM »

Archbishop

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60&catname=13

http://www.the-pope.com/commthuc.html

Better worry about your pope see below: :scared2:

Trent said:
“If anyone say… that those who have not been rightly ordained by ecclesiastical and canonical power and have not been sent [by the Church], but come from some other source [such as a heretical or schismatical source], are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.”