Author Topic: Who ordains CMRI priests? (Read 48828 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #330 on:** November 15, 2014, 05:23:13 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn
The screwy part is that all I've done is point out those things that CMRI has on their own website - so how am I "as wrong as he can be"?

False. They didn't say they were schismatic, yet you call them so. You also make a petty issue about the word "usual" and that is what we have been discussing. It's usual because they know what the Church asks, and they feel they have essentially complied. Don't play innocent, because you are forcing conclusions, and your conclusions are wrong as can be.

Quote from: Stubborn
I did not make anything up.

You invent conclusions that are wrong. That is making something up.

Quote from: Stubborn
You OTOH are satisfied that one could have attended their schismatic seminary and emerged some years later as being unaffected due to the fact that there are no official statistics stating that 99% of those who go to schismatic seminaries never return to the faith.

Notice here that you are replying to one of my other responses, yet you avoiding actually quoting and responding to what I said. Now you off-handedly mention statistics as if that serves to respond, but it doesn't. Please respond to my entry about how you confuse the BEFORE and AFTER.

Quote from: Stubborn
What exactly is it that you are defending anyway?

I am defending the truth. You keep trying to push this idea of "schismatic" even when that is not the item of discussion right now, which shows you are trying to get away from the other point of discussion about the proof being in the tasting of the pudding, and you have been running from that concept for some time now.

It is obvious that either you don't know what schism even is or don't care - probably both.

You also do not understand that 99% of those who attend non-Catholic seminaries, die non-Catholic. You can search the web all you like to try to prove that I'm wrong, or you can look at the past 50 years and agree.

It is not "an idea" that Schuckardt was in schism - that is merely the result from him getting ordained by a schismatic bishop who himself can trace his lineage back to an excommunicated bishop. Or do you think Pope Pius X was not a real pope either so his excommunication was invalid?

You can say what a wonderful person Pivarunas is all you want and you can say how wonderful the CMRI clergy is all you want - but they themselves state they trace their origin back to the schismatic Schuckardt. You don't like that, so prove their website is lying, prove their website does not mean what it says. You haven't and you cannot because history cannot be changed - all you can do is what you've been doing - side tracking.

If you ask them to change their website to suit your feelings on the matter, maybe they will change it and then you could claim victory- until then, you are beating the wind.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #331 on:** November 15, 2014, 05:29:28 PM »

In truth the only thing that Schuckardt did was arrange for the purchase of the property from the Jesuits and he also began to organize a congregation.

None of those who serve at the Mount nor their CMRI chapels have been ordained nor consecrated by Schuckardt.

So are you really saying that if a Protestant once owned your place of worship, then anyone and everyone who offers Mass in that property is a Protestant forever.

Ambrose · « **Reply #332 on:** November 15, 2014, 06:32:48 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Ambrose

You are right that I know the correct position, and I am certain that CMRI knows and believes the correct position. I believe that Myrna like most "traditional" Catholics innocently does not understand this very complex and little understood area of theology. I have news for you, many Catholics, whether those who go to SSPX, SSPV, or independent priests think their priests are the same as the pre-Vatican II "sent" priests, and that traditional bishops are successors of the Apostles.

How many in the SSPX refer to their priests as pastors? How many call their chapels "parishes"? How many call the SSPX bishops "successors of the Apostles?" So, if you want to question Myrna or where her ideas on this subject come from, you need to in fairness wonder where most of traditional Catholics have formed their ideas on these matters.

In my opinion, I highly doubt that Myrna was told this by CMRI. It is an underlying assumption of many "traditional" Catholics who think this way, and is based on a misunderstanding of who the traditional priests are, and what their role is by many of the laity.

You are so right about the fact that my pee brain can not understand all this theology about the above. It is true I have never spoken to my priest about this subject. I should study up on jurisdiction before I defend it. Even now as I post this I am confused about that topic.

Myrna,

I believe that you could teach me far more than I could teach you. Your love for the Catholic faith is edifying.

Ambrose · « **Reply #333 on:** November 15, 2014, 06:39:18 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ambrose

Bp. Pivarunas has been clear in denying jurisdiction, so all statements that could potentially be understood otherwise should be understood with this in mind. With this in mind, the statement below can easily be read as orthodox.

Then it follows that Bp. Piravunas cannot exercise his orders lawfully since he (in addition to being outside the Church) "lacks 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.” (Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Canon VII; Denzinger 967).

It is also a fact that CMRI cannot claim Apostolicity given that this mark of the True Church requires BOTH material and formal succession. Even if a bishop were to have valid orders (material), formal succession requires communion with the Pope, who solely can confer them either explicitly or implicitly.

“Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles, insists upon the necessity of jurisdiction or authoritative transmission, thus excluding the hypothesis that a new mission could ever be originated by anyone in the place of the mission bestowed by Christ and transmitted in the manner described.” “They have based their claims on the validity of orders in the Anglican Church. Anglican orders, however, have been declared invalid. But even if they were valid, the Anglican Church would not be Apostolic, for jurisdiction is essential to the Apostolicity of mission.”

Are you thinking that CMRI believes that they are the Church, as though the marks are found only in them? If that is what you think you are wrong. They have never said this, and do not believe it. If this is not what you are saying, then your point is moot.

Secondly, your argument, frequently used by home aloners applies to all traditional bishops and priests. CMRI, SSPX, etc. Are you arguing that there is not a legitimate justification for traditional bishops and priests?

Ambrose · « **Reply #334 on:** November 15, 2014, 06:42:26 PM »

Quote from: songbird

Question? I see CMRI with epikia. Now, with epikia, do I see it right, that they may continue the sacraments with validity?

Exactly. The CMRI sacarments are unquestionably valid.

Epikeia does not have anything to do with validity, rather the lawfulness of the sacarments.

Ambrose · « **Reply #335 on:** November 15, 2014, 06:46:56 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Ambrose

You are right that I know the correct position, and I am certain that CMRI knows and believes the correct position. I believe that Myrna like most "traditional" Catholics innocently does not understand this very complex and little understood area of theology. I have news for you, many Catholics, whether those who go to SSPX, SSPV, or independent priests think their priests are the same as the pre-Vatican II "sent" priests, and that traditional bishops are successors of the Apostles.

How many in the SSPX refer to their priests as pastors? How many call their chapels "parishes"? How many call the SSPX bishops "successors of the Apostles?" So, if you want to question Myrna or where her ideas on this subject come from, you need to in fairness wonder where most of traditional Catholics have formed their ideas on these matters.

In my opinion, I highly doubt that Myrna was told this by CMRI. It is an underlying assumption of many "traditional" Catholics who think this way, and is based on a misunderstanding of who the traditional priests are, and what their role is by many of the laity.

You are so right about the fact that my pee brain can not understand all this theology about the above. It is true I have never spoken to my priest about this subject. I should study up on jurisdiction before I defend it. Even now as I post this I am confused about that topic.

Myrna,

I believe that you could teach me far more than I could teach you. Your love for the Catholic faith is edifying.

How do you know that Myrna loves the Catholic Faith more than me....because she doesn't oppose your view too strongly?

I say you are mistaken about the "apostolic succession" in regard to traditional clergy...does that indicate that I love the Catholic Faith less?

But I diverge....I await the response of "Stubborn" (well-named).

I have been reading Myrna's posts for a long time, and her deep Faith has been evident. Myrna understands that she needs to learn her Faith from the approved sources, and has scanned many of those sources for this forum.

I never spoke about your Faith, so I fail to see the point.

How do you think I am mistaken about the nature and role of traditional clergy? What is your view?

Ambrose · « **Reply #336 on:** November 15, 2014, 07:09:23 PM »

Quote from: Nado

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

Let's wait and see.

I don't think it is calumny to say something you believe, even if it is not true. It is only calumny if you know you are lying. Anyway, most people would think all of the traditional Catholic groups are in schism because they all operate without the approval of the Church. They just assume that because the Church is in crisis anything goes and they can do what they want.

He has been corrected, but keeps trucking along with his narrative.

You are not allowed to judge someone as guilty of evil unless you are morally certain of that fact. His charge of schism against CMRI is based on a falsehood, he has been corrected, and will not own up to this fact.

I disagree. Just because he has been corrected, doesn't mean he understands the correction. People do have screwy and illogical thinking today, and charity requires no such thing as moral certainty of grievous sin in the face of that very likelihood. He is as wrong as he can be, but let's just keep this described as a false and grave accusation and leave off the judgment of his will.

My dealings with this man go back long before this thread. He has exposed himself for all to see. Read the numerous threads on the Feeneyite subforum, to witness his repeated and constant rejection of approved theological manuals and catechisms, even when they are scanned for him.

You can also witness his dodging when questions are posed to him. He has done this on this thread as well, but I can assure you that this is nothing new.

I hope for his sake that he is ignorant.

Ambrose · « **Reply #337 on:** November 15, 2014, 07:11:45 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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

Let's wait and see.

I don't think it is calumny to say something you believe, even if it is not true. It is only calumny if you know you are lying. Anyway, most people would think all of the traditional Catholic groups are in schism because they all operate without the approval of the Church. They just assume that because the Church is in crisis anything goes and they can do what they want.

He has been corrected, but keeps trucking along with his narrative.

You are not allowed to judge someone as guilty of evil unless you are morally certain of that fact. His charge of schism against CMRI is based on a falsehood, he has been corrected, and will not own up to this fact.

The narrative comes from presumed reliable sources, including the main source of the CMRI website itself. Even Myrna doesn't dispute that fact.

So exactly which falsehood which has been corrected am I basing my charge?

1. Your accusation of schism is false.

2. Your insinuation that CMRI punishes those who ask questions is false.

Stubborn · « **Reply #338 on:** November 15, 2014, 08:05:37 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

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

Let's wait and see.

I don't think it is calumny to say something you believe, even if it is not true. It is only calumny if you know you are lying. Anyway, most people would think all of the traditional Catholic groups are in schism because they all operate without the approval of the Church. They just assume that because the Church is in crisis anything goes and they can do what they want.

He has been corrected, but keeps trucking along with his narrative.

You are not allowed to judge someone as guilty of evil unless you are morally certain of that fact. His charge of schism against CMRI is based on a falsehood, he has been corrected, and will not own up to this fact.

The narrative comes from presumed reliable sources, including the main source of the CMRI website itself. Even Myrna doesn't dispute that fact.

So exactly which falsehood which has been corrected am I basing my charge?

1. Your accusation of schism is false.

2. Your insinuation that CMRI punishes those who ask questions is false.

1) My accusation is that Schuckardt was in schism and those people who followed him in his congregation were also schismatic.

Unless you do not know what schism is, you are forced to agree with this since it is a matter of historical fact.

I also state that as a schismatic bishop, Schuckardt was the founder and he was the only magisterium of CMRI for it's first 18 years, and that it was Schuckardt, who though he himself never had any seminary training at all, was Pivarunas' mentor in Pivarunas' seminary training - this seminary training is what CMRI calls "the usual seminary training" on their website. Not one person here has been able to prove otherwise - basically, all they keep saying is "it doesn't matter".

2) I did not insinuate that CMRI punishes those who ask questions, rather, I specifically stated that the replies from every CMRI supporter on this thread was cult like, because they are. I stated this for a few reasons, among them was because the ad hominems they post are not a form of reward, they are a form of punishment.

So exactly which falsehood which has been corrected am I basing my charge?

Stubborn · « **Reply #339 on:** November 16, 2014, 02:04:27 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Nado
I am happy to talk about the "schism" aspect, but that is not the subject now. Clearly you are completely running from the subject at hand, about training and the fact that training is judged by the present. Stick with the subject if you care about truth.

Bump. Stubborn?

The subject is that the CMRI website states that Pivarunas received the usual seminary training.

But Pivarunas received his seminary training from Schuckardt, who was not only a schismatic, he never even had any seminary training himself. You can argue all you want that his seminary training actually is the usual seminary training that all seminarians receive, but the truth is that apparently, it is only "the usual" at CMRI, per their own website.

You can judge whatever you want in the present if you want, but that's not what the subject is about, all you are doing is side tracking the issue as per usual.

If you want to talk about present seminary training, then start where the CMRI themselves state that they started, with Schuckardt and work your way forward while remembering that it is not about validity of ordinations or consecrations, it is about the Schuckardt break from the Church (schism) which, per their own admission on their own website, has continued unchanged since Schuckardt - if you cannot accept this, then show when or where they've renounced their schism and returned to the Church.

You cannot say they've abjured and returned to the Church when their website disagrees, because it states more than once that the CMRI traces it's roots right back to 1967: "We hope this review of CMRI will also assist you in understanding the reasons why young men and women have left all behind to follow Jesus Christ in this Religious Congregation since its inception in 1967."

If you want to get into the whole Thuc line ordinations/consecrations then start a fresh thread as that's a whole different can of worms.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #340 on:** November 16, 2014, 03:12:33 PM »

In truth Stubborn Vatican II is in schism, because they have an altogether new belief system, which is why you attend SSPX.

Vatican II and its "pope" are schismatic.

CMRI ascents to the Faith.

While Vatican II has changed the definition of the word faith, to now mean, "how one feels about what they believe", which is why they do not believe in EENS, your most favorite doctrine. Yet you refuse to see that your pope is schismatic, therefore by your own words, I guess you too are schismatic.

Stubborn · « **Reply #341 on:** November 16, 2014, 05:16:38 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

In truth Stubborn Vatican II is in schism, because they have an altogether new belief system, which is why you attend SSPX.

Vatican II and its "pope" are schismatic.

CMRI ascents to the Faith.

While Vatican II has changed the definition of the word faith, to now mean, "how one feels about what they believe", which is why they do not believe in EENS, your most favorite doctrine. Yet you refuse to see that your pope is schismatic, therefore by your own words, I guess you too are schismatic.

You are trying to justify the whole mess by claiming two wrongs make a right, but you know that sadly, it doesn't work that way.

Let's put it this way; what would your nuns in school have said became of a layman who, for whatever reason, left the Church, was knowingly ordained and consecrated by an Old Catholic bishop, i.e. a schismatic bishop whose lineage he knew went back to a bishop excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X?

Further, what would the nuns say about him starting his own seminary and training priests, and growing a congregation that he called "Catholic" and was magiserium over for 18 years? What would they say of the congregation - that they were Catholic? What would they say of priests or bishops who were a part of that organization?

Then what would your nuns say of today's CMRI who advertises that they can and do trace their origin back to this schismatic Schuckardt?

What would the nuns at school have said about all of this?

Would they say as you've said; "What's done is done", then pretend that history was somehow fixed or had no impact on today's CMRI? Would the nuns say that the CMRI really always was apart of the Church and to just let bygones be bygones as the CMRIers on this thread have done?

Or would your nuns condemn the whole mess right from it's schismatic beginning?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #342 on:** November 16, 2014, 06:23:11 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

In truth Stubborn Vatican II is in schism, because they have an altogether new belief system, which is why you attend SSPX.

Vatican II and its "pope" are schismatic.

CMRI ascents to the Faith.

While Vatican II has changed the definition of the word faith, to now mean, "how one feels about what they believe", which is why they do not believe in EENS, your most favorite doctrine. Yet you refuse to see that your pope is schismatic, therefore by your own words, I guess you too are schismatic.

Bump just for you Stubborn, and this is the real truth.

Bishop Pivarunas had nothing to do with anything schismatic, no matter how much you want to be so.

You just don't believe in the forgiveness of sins in regard to Daniel Brown, that is schism in itself. On one hand you have a pope that doesn't even believe in sin, (except for Tradition) and you yourself quite the opposite you can't understand Daniel Brown, you know his intent when he left the Old Catholic, right! You know everything.

All the while you are the schismatic.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #343 on:** November 16, 2014, 09:29:46 PM »

For poor Stubborn, notice this chart and follow the linage from Bishop Pivarunas, no Daniel Brown (Old Catholic) No Schukardt, do you not notice that???

][/url]

If the print is too small for anyone just press the contrl key and the + key.

Stubborn · « **Reply #344 on:** November 17, 2014, 06:05:53 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: MyrnaM
In truth Stubborn Vatican II is in schism, because they have an altogether new belief system, which is why you attend SSPX.

Vatican II and its "pope" are schismatic.

CMRI ascents to the Faith.

While Vatican II has changed the definition of the word faith, to now mean, "how one feels about what they believe", which is why they do not believe in EENS, your most favorite doctrine. Yet you refuse to see that your pope is schismatic, therefore by your own words, I guess you too are schismatic.

Bump just for you Stubborn, and this is the real truth.

Bishop Pivarunas had nothing to do with anything schismatic, no matter how much you want to be so.

You just don't believe in the forgiveness of sins in regard to Daniel Brown, that is schism in itself.

I'm pretty sure that's not even close to what your nuns would have said about the whole mess.

But fyi, I do believe in forgiveness of sins, yet Daniel Brown comes from a lineage that was excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X himself. This makes Daniel Brown an excommunicant, which, correct me if I'm wrong, because the sentence of excommunication came directly from the pope, the excommunication can only be forgiven by a pope or one of the pope's representatives or else the whole idea of excommunication is a joke.

If that is the case and in order to be welcomed back into the Church his excommunication needed to first be lifted by a pope or a representative of the pope, then he can abjure and profess the faith all he wants, (let's not even consider for the moment that 5 months after his "conversion", that he must have abjured his abjuration in order to return to the Old Catholics) he is still an excommunicated cleric in schism and everyone down that lineage is excommunicated and is schism and will always be. Yes or no?

Note we are not considering validity or invalidity of Orders, we are talking about schism, which is what it's all about.

It is about a lay man (Schuckardt) who was ordained and consecrated outside of the Church, which put him in schism. This now consecrated man dressed up in authentic Catholic hierarchical costumes, bought / built Church buildings, furnished them with authentic Catholic furnishings, grew a community in which he was the only schismatic magisterium - and from 1967 to 1984, he called all of this Catholic - and this is what CMRI states is their heritage, their origin, their "Religious Congregation since its inception in 1967."