Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Mabel

I'd send any of my sons. In fact, Mater Dei is the only seminary in the world that I would send my boys to at the moment.

I would rather send them to my diocesan seminary but We don't live in those times.

Perhaps Stubborn could point out which seminaries have been acceptable places to send young men in the last 50 years, and those that exist today that would be the top choices for formation.

Well I suppose you're right - why wouldn't you have sent your sons to Schuckardt when after all, CMRI says he offers the usual seminary training? What was I thinking?

Don't all seminarians strive to find a seminary run by a lay man with no seminary training at all - certainly that can only be the best place to get the usual seminary training from.

For added benefit, the lay man found himself a schismatic married bishop to ordain and consecrate him - no wonder young men want to go to his seminary - can you imagine what they will be taught there?

Wow, how awesome. Why not advertise that men can be ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop and still be Catholic! - again, what was I thinking?

 

What is the point here? I didn't say I would have sent them to seminary with CMRI under Shuckhardt. The CMRI priests are not secondary manifestations of Shuckhardt. I don't know what I would have done had I been in that situation, which is a hypothetical situation occurring in the past. Also, lie #1, we have already established the fact that pre-Vatican II priests trained the few men who were part of the CMRI then and now.

Those priests did not train anyone, those priests were there for Mass and sacraments, not for seminary training.

What seminary could they have attended? The Church was in crisis mode, there was so much confusion, no one had a clear picture on what to do. Lie #2, you act so if they really had an alternative, when you know they did not. They were trying to preserve the Faith but at the same time, a cult leader had begun to emerge. Lie #3, you know nothing about the transformation Shuckhardt underwent and how he deteriorated.

Yes, the Church was in crisis mode, the crisis was made worse by a layman who founded CMRI, then was ordained by a schismatic. By this very act, he separated himself from the Church and created his own Church and calls it catholic. But it doesn't end there. Today, right now, the CMRI traces its origin back to this schismatic right on their website.

Lie #4: you think CMRI is are a bunch of Old Catholics, but all membersof the new CMRI made abjurations as a gesture of goodwill and in case they were guilty of any penalties automatically incurred under Shuckhardt.
 So, an abjurations isn't good enough for you. They were all conditionally ordained. They do not trace their lines through the Old Catholics, you didn't even know that at the beginning of this thread.

Stubborn, here is the truth, CMRI is not your enemy. You owe them in justice a fair representation, not your twisted version of the story. In your version, they are the bad through and through. Everyone, except your female pal, on this thread has testified to the opposite, most of them having the same facts that you have, some even know more than you and they have come to a nearly unanimous conclusion. Can you make a deduction from that? Are you capable of any interior recollection? It means that you are wrong and your reasoning is faulty.

I know you won't trouble yourself reading any of this as you are often busy using Google and Wikipedia, but the problem isn't with CMRI, it is with you.

The problem is with CMRI stating that the seminary training from Schuckardt is the usual seminary training. The problem with you is that you agree with CMRI.

What you believe is that they abjured their heresy, what I am saying is if they did abjure their heresy with the proper intentions, then why are they tracing their origin back to 1967, which is CMRI of Schuckardt the schismatic, instead of 1985 when the abjuration was made.

Quote from: Mabel

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Mabel

I'd send any of my sons. In fact, Mater Dei is the only seminary in the world that I would send my boys to at the moment.

I would rather send them to my diocesan seminary but We don't live in those times.

Perhaps Stubborn could point out which seminaries have been acceptable places to send young men in the last 50 years, and those that exist today that would be the top choices for formation.

Well I suppose you're right - why wouldn't you have sent your sons to Schuckardt when after all, CMRI says he offers the usual seminary training? What was I thinking?

Don't all seminarians strive to find a seminary run by a lay man with no seminary training at all - certainly that can only be the best place to get the usual seminary training from.

For added benefit, the lay man found himself a schismatic married bishop to ordain and consecrate him - no wonder young men want to go to his seminary - can you imagine what they will be taught there?

Wow, how awesome. Why not advertise that men can be ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop and still be Catholic! - again, what was I thinking?

 

What is the point here? I didn't say I would have sent them to seminary with CMRI under Shuckhardt. The CMRI priests are not secondary manifestations of Shuckhardt. I don't know what I would have done had I been in that situation, which is a hypothetical situation occurring in the past. Also, lie #1, we have already established the fact that pre-Vatican II priests trained the few men who were part of the CMRI then and now.

Those priests did not train anyone, those priests were there for Mass and sacraments, not for seminary training.

Quote from: Mabel

What seminary could they have attended? The Church was in crisis mode, there was so much confusion, no one had a clear picture on what to do. Lie #2, you act so if they really had an alternative, when you know they did not. They were trying to preserve the Faith but at the same time, a cult leader had begun to emerge. Lie #3, you know nothing about the transformation Shuckhardt underwent and how he deteriorated.

Yes, the Church was in crisis mode, the crisis was made worse by a layman who founded CMRI, then was ordained by a schismatic. By this very act, he separated himself from the Church and created his own Church and calls it catholic. But it doesn't end there. Today, right now, the CMRI traces its origin back to this schismatic right on their website.

Quote from: Mabel

Lie #4: you think CMRI is are a bunch of Old Catholics, but all membersof the new CMRI made abjurations as a gesture of goodwill and in case they were guilty of any penalties automatically incurred under Shuckhardt.
 So, an abjurations isn't good enough for you. They were all conditionally ordained. They do not trace their lines through the Old Catholics, you didn't even know that at the beginning of this thread.

Stubborn, here is the truth, CMRI is not your enemy. You owe them in justice a fair representation, not your twisted version of the story. In your version, they are the bad through and through. Everyone, except your female pal, on this thread has testified to the opposite, most of them having the same facts that you have, some even know more than you and they have come to a nearly unanimous conclusion. Can you make a deduction from that? Are you capable of any interior recollection? It means that you are wrong and your reasoning is faulty.

I know you won't trouble yourself reading any of this as you are often busy using Google and Wikipedia, but the problem isn't with CMRI, it is with you.

The problem is with CMRI stating that the seminary training from Schuckardt is the usual seminary training. The problem with you is that you agree with CMRI.

What you believe is that they abjured their heresy, what I am saying is if they did abjure their heresy with the proper intentions, then why are they tracing their origin back to 1967, which is CMRI of Schuckardt the schismatic, instead of 1985 when the abjuration was made.

I know you have trouble with distinctions but they do trace the history of their organization back to Schuckardt, they aren't hiding that. If they left it off their website, you'd call them liars.
Their orders and episcopal line are not the same as their history. They reformed and they trace their lines through Archbishop Thuc, you do know that right? I can't keep track of the reality that you have invented.

Be a man and pick up the phone, do your own research. You have questions that no one else but CMRI can answer, being that they are a primary source.You would make an awful historian, I hope that isn't your profession.

I am still waiting to hear about the punishments you and others have suffered. Also, I would like that list of acceptable seminaries in the last 50 years. While you are at it, why don't you start a thread about the SBC cult, the hypocrisy of Catherine Goddard Clarke, the shortcomings of Father Wathen, or how about the authority of the SSPX to set up chapels outside the jurisdiction of the local ordinary. I know how much you like truth, so those would be some interesting topics.

Quote from: Mabel

I'd send any of my sons. In fact, Mater Dei is the only seminary in the world that I would send my boys to at the moment.

I would rather send them to my diocesan seminary but We don't live in those times.

Perhaps Stubborn could point out which seminaries have been acceptable places to send young men in the last 50 years, and those that exist today that would be the top choices for formation.

Well I suppose you're right - why wouldn't you have sent your sons to Schuckardt when after all, CMRI says he offers the usual seminary training? What was I thinking?

Don't all seminarians strive to find a seminary run by a lay man with no seminary training at all - certainly that can only be the best place to get the usual seminary training from.

For added benefit, the lay man found himself a schismatic married bishop to ordain and consecrate him - no wonder young men want to go to his seminary - can you imagine what they will be taught there?

Wow, how awesome. Why not advertise that men can be ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop and still be Catholic! - again, what was I thinking?

 

This is the standard SSPV cult response.  

Taken from the CMRI web site:  http://www.cmri.org/cmri-priests.shtml

Quote:
A Marian priest is unlike most priests today because he serves at the behest of Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church — not the modernistic Conciliar Church. He is assured of valid ordination because he received Holy Orders in the traditional rite of ordination, which has been intact for many centuries, and not according to the adulterated and revised ritual of 1968. This makes him a true representative of Jesus Christ, with the legitimate power and duty to administer the sacraments of the Catholic Church. - See more at: http://www.cmri.org/cmri-priests.shtml#sthash.zkDeuNY2.dpuf


This does not respond the questions, which were simple:
According to CMRI, are the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration INVALID? Yes or No?


 

I always believed CMRI believed the new rite of ordination to be invalid, I know that I do.  However to give you an OFFICIAL answer, I would have to go back and read their literature for an OFFICIAL answer.  I know they do not say, they are the only remnant in the world.  

Why do you think they want nothing to do with the ConciLIAR, unike Bishop Fellay?  Why do you think they discourage participating in the indult?   Fearing the laity might be worshiping bread, since  the indult the laity in good faith, comes to the Communion rail, the hosts might have been left from an invalid service from an invalid priest, who was ordained from the New Rite.  

Why else would Jesus say in Luke 18, " But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"  He is coming you know!

Quote from: from previous posts

Taken from the CMRI web site:  http://www.cmri.org/cmri-priests.shtml

Quote:
A Marian priest is unlike most priests today because he serves at the behest of Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church — not the modernistic Conciliar Church. He is assured of valid ordination because he received Holy Orders in the traditional rite of ordination, which has been intact for many centuries, and not according to the adulterated and revised ritual of 1968. This makes him a true representative of Jesus Christ, with the legitimate power and duty to administer the sacraments of the Catholic Church. - See more at: http://www.cmri.org/cmri-priests.shtml#sthash.zkDeuNY2.dpuf


This does not respond the questions, which were simple:
According to CMRI, are the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration INVALID? Yes or No?


 

I always believed CMRI believed the new rite of ordination to be invalid, I know that I do.  However to give you an OFFICIAL answer, I would have to go back and read their literature for an OFFICIAL answer.  I know they do not say, they are the only remnant in the world.  

Why do you think they want nothing to do with the ConciLIAR, unike Bishop Fellay?  Why do you think they discourage participating in the indult?   Fearing the laity might be worshiping bread, since  the indult the laity in good faith, comes to the Communion rail, the hosts might have been left from an invalid service from an invalid priest, who was ordained from the New Rite.  

Why else would Jesus say in Luke 18, " But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"  He is coming you know!

If the New Rite of Episcopal Ordinations were actually INVALID, then that means that the Eastern Churches ordinations would be put into question as well (Maronite, Coptic, Ruthenian, etc). Rites that the Church has recognized as perfectly valid since time immemorial. This also means that millions of Catholics would be deprived from the True Blood and Body of Christ, even in those rites that were not adapted to the Novus Ordo Mass, which runs contrary to the promises of Our Lord. Again, this is not any different from what Fr. Cekada's chart reveals: that the ONLY valid ordination left on earth are those from the Thuc Line, which is a real absurdity and a cultish demeanor.

However the reality is this: 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:

“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.” (Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Canon VII; Denzinger 967).

Here are news: If illegal bishops and priests, such as the Thucites, want to enter the Catholic Church and have their sins forgiven, they must abjure by renouncing their schismatic crime and any heresies they believe in, along with the public crimes of schism and heresy of the non-Catholic bishop who consecrated or ordained them.

If they had embraced any errors, they had previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced any errors, they had nevertheless to renounce the schism of their ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made either publicly or secretly, as the facts in the case directed.”

The CMRI have Schuckardt as their founder and superior who was the only "magisterium" for 18 years, he's not just some guy who's merely "a member" or someone "in their history". There never would have ever even been a CMRI if Schuckardt didn't become a schismatic cleric. This is undeniable because history proves it to be fact. The CMRI do not even deny this.  

To have a schismatic start his own community and grow it over the next 18 years while calling it "Catholic" does not mean it is Catholic, it means the community schismatic. Hopefully you agree with that.

30 years after Schuckardt, today's CMRI states right on their website that they trace their origins to a schismatic. They call this schismatic's seminary training "the usual seminary training" right on their website. You are in denial but that doesn't change the fact because they state it right on the CMRI website.

The only schismatic indirectly in the history of CMRI was from Daniel Q. Brown but if you read closely this Daniel Brown repented of his schismatic acts, renounced his ties with the Old Catholics, made a publi abjuration, went to confession and received absolution from a traditional priest, BEFORE Daniel Brown ordained Schuckardt and consecrated him. Schuckardt was not involved with the Old Catholics, so again Stubborn you are wrong.  

Schuckardt’s Consecration

      At this point in the story we encounter one Daniel Q. Brown. Brown, a Catholic layman who had rejected the Vatican II changes nearly from the start, had gotten himself ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop by an “Old Catholic” prelate.[1] Brown’s conclusions on the post-Vatican II Church turned out to be identical to Schuckardt’s. He, too, believed the Holy See was vacant.

      Fr. Fraser believed that the situation in the Church was extreme and that there were no Catholic bishops to whom one could go for the traditional sacraments.[2] Fr. Fraser concluded that the moral principle of epikeia — in the face of unforeseen circuмstances, favorably interpreting the mind of the Church as law-giver in such a way as to permit an action which the law would forbid under normal circuмstances — could be invoked to allow one to receive Holy Orders from Brown. His conclusions were deemed sufficient by members of the group to warrant the actions which would follow.

      Brown repented of his schismatic acts, renounced his ties with the Old Catholics, made a public abjuration, went to confession, and received absolution from a traditional priest. In October and November 1971, Francis Schuckardt was ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop by Brown. CMRI would later move its center of operations from Idaho to a former Jesuit seminary, Mount St. Michael, in Spokane, Washington.

 

Quote from: Stubborn

The CMRI have Schuckardt as their founder and superior who was the only "magisterium" for 18 years, he's not just some guy who's merely "a member" or someone "in their history". There never would have ever even been a CMRI if Schuckardt didn't become a schismatic cleric. This is undeniable because history proves it to be fact. The CMRI do not even deny this.  

To have a schismatic start his own community and grow it over the next 18 years while calling it "Catholic" does not mean it is Catholic, it means the community schismatic. Hopefully you agree with that.

30 years after Schuckardt, today's CMRI states right on their website that they trace their origins to a schismatic. They call this schismatic's seminary training "the usual seminary training" right on their website. You are in denial but that doesn't change the fact because they state it right on the CMRI website.

The only schismatic indirectly in the history of CMRI was from Daniel Q. Brown but if you read closely this Daniel Brown repented of his schismatic acts, renounced his ties with the Old Catholics, made a publi abjuration, went to confession and received absolution from a traditional priest, BEFORE Daniel Brown ordained Schuckardt and consecrated him. Schuckardt was not involved with the Old Catholics, so again Stubborn you are wrong.  

Quote

Schuckardt’s Consecration

      At this point in the story we encounter one Daniel Q. Brown. Brown, a Catholic layman who had rejected the Vatican II changes nearly from the start, had gotten himself ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop by an “Old Catholic” prelate.[1] Brown’s conclusions on the post-Vatican II Church turned out to be identical to Schuckardt’s. He, too, believed the Holy See was vacant.

      Fr. Fraser believed that the situation in the Church was extreme and that there were no Catholic bishops to whom one could go for the traditional sacraments.[2] Fr. Fraser concluded that the moral principle of epikeia — in the face of unforeseen circuмstances, favorably interpreting the mind of the Church as law-giver in such a way as to permit an action which the law would forbid under normal circuмstances — could be invoked to allow one to receive Holy Orders from Brown. His conclusions were deemed sufficient by members of the group to warrant the actions which would follow.

      Brown repented of his schismatic acts, renounced his ties with the Old Catholics, made a public abjuration, went to confession, and received absolution from a traditional priest. In October and November 1971, Francis Schuckardt was ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop by Brown. CMRI would later move its center of operations from Idaho to a former Jesuit seminary, Mount St. Michael, in Spokane, Washington.

 

Again, half truths are worse than outright lies, because somethings they are not saying - for example, the abjuration turned out to be a farce, because about 5 months after Schuckardt was consecrated by Brown, Brown found out that Shuckardt wanted to be the only boss, so Brown conceded all power to Schuckardt and returned to the Old Catholic Church. This action in and of itself bespeaks of dubious, not sincere intentions on the part of both Brown and Schuckardt.

You should also know that  like Schuckardt, Bishop Brown obtained his consecration in the Old Roman Catholic Church, and like Schuckardt, he and his followers called themselves “Roman Catholics” and refused to use the title of “Old Roman Catholic.” Perhaps that's where Schuckardt got the idea?


Also interesting to note is Fr. Cekada states here that: "The [Schuckardt's] consecration look place in October, 1971. Schuckardt formed his own sect and later repudiated Brown. Schuckardt appears to claim that his episcopal orders may be traced back to Arnold hαɾɾιs Mathew. Mathew was, as we mentioned above, excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X."

So according to your own belief, Schuckardt was never even validly ordained or consecrated because Pope Pius X, a certainly valid pope, excommunicated A.H. Matthew.
If you want to claim nothing else matters except Validity of Orders, well, you might have a case for that, but whatever case you want to make in that regard,  will not change the fact that Schuckardt was ordained by a schismatic bishop and as such, Schuckardt's group was schismatic.

Myrna wrote:

The only schismatic indirectly in the history of CMRI was from Daniel Q. Brown but if you read closely this Daniel Brown repented of his schismatic acts, renounced his ties with the Old Catholics, made a publi abjuration, went to confession and received absolution from a traditional priest, BEFORE Daniel Brown ordained Schuckardt and consecrated him. Schuckardt was not involved with the Old Catholics, so again Stubborn you are wrong.  

I wonder if Stubborn is honest enough to admit his calumny in falsely accusing the CMRI of schism.   :confused1:

Let's wait and see.