Author Topic: Who ordains CMRI priests? (Read 48253 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #345 on:** November 17, 2014, 12:05:51 PM »

Quote from: Nado

You simply have no case. That is why you keep trying to turn this to talking about schism. Which I will now get involved with to show you equally how wrong you are.

:applause:

Stubborn · « **Reply #346 on:** November 17, 2014, 02:39:28 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn
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.

This thread is about who ordains the CMRI. The answer is obvious. It is Bp. Pivarunas. Then you felt you needed clarification over one word, "usual", for his training. Rather than take the mature route and simply ask the CMRI who are easily contactable, you just go public and suggest dishonesty even when, I know, the wording means they sought to comply with the standards of Trent. What you are doing is despicable for a Catholic, if you even are.

How does one know if a person survives public school? Look at him now, and see if he comparably functions as any other. If he does, he survived. It's the same with anything, including the CMRI. Those who didn't bail, or go with Schuckardt prove they presently, and for the past 25+ years have been steadily comparable to the functioning of any other priest....and mind you, better than those clergy who went with Vatican II!

You simply have no case. That is why you keep trying to turn this to talking about schism. Which I will now get involved with to show you equally how wrong you are.

Feel free, jump right in and let's hear how you disagree with CMRI's statements on it's own website.

Start with disputing what this one means:
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."

Moses · « **Reply #347 on:** March 15, 2015, 06:18:20 PM »

Hi Stubborn,
Could you possibly open a little bit the can of worms regarding the Thuc consecrations?

This topic relates to all traditionalist priests today, whether from
Lefebvre or Thuc.

Moses · « **Reply #348 on:** March 15, 2015, 06:57:32 PM »

Actually, Schukardt did *not* call his group "the Catholic Church" at all.
His organization was openly called:

"The Tridentine Latin Rite Church". A separate Church.

This is unfortunately schismatic. Unfortunately Bp. Pivarunis joined the
Tridentine Latin Rite Church, and was instructed and 'ordained' in the same by
Mr. Schuckardt along with six other young men.

All 'ordained' in a schismatic 'church' called the tridentine latin rite church.

They were all unaware of what was happening, and when they did realize that
something was fishy, they turned to Bishop Musey to 'conditionally' ordain themselves
which is inadequate -- because, in the first place, they were 'ordained' by a schismatic -- into a schismatic "church".

This would have required an absolute ordination. Not a conditional ordination.

What I don't fully understand is the timing. After D.Q. Brown renounced the Schismatic
Old Catholic sect, and came back into the "Catholic" novus ordo church, he then
consecrated Mr. Schuckardt. BUT, If he renounced the "Old Catholic" church, then he
renounced his authority as well. It was altogether unlawful.

Even if the six 'priests' were utterly sincere, that cannot change the fact of the schism.
No matter how confused everybody was! They need complete ordination, or there is
no ordination.

Please help,, comments welcome!

Stubborn · « **Reply #349 on:** March 15, 2015, 07:01:38 PM »

Quote from: Moses

Hi Stubborn,
Could you possibly open a little bit the can of worms regarding the Thuc consecrations?

This topic relates to all traditionalist priests today, whether from
Lefebvre or Thuc.

Hi Moses.

I kinda laughed when I was looking at "New Posts" and saw:
Who ordains CMRI priests? Moses.

Anyway, it is my opinion that +ABL and the Thuc consecrations were valid, that they certainly produced valid bishops. It is also my opinion that the entire Thuc line of priests and bishops are in schism due to their sedevacantism.

I do not remember everything posted in this thread, but this thread in particular brought to light somethings for me which demonstrated that the SVs, at least most of the SVs that participated in this thread, profess a religion that is not Catholic but is some variation of it which permits them to follow a for certain schismatic sect, the CMRI, and a faith which revolves, not around the teachings of Holy Mother the Church, but around a Vacant Chair.

That's my opinion.

Stubborn · « **Reply #350 on:** March 15, 2015, 07:04:56 PM »

Quote from: Moses

Actually, Schukardt did *not* call his group "the Catholic Church" at all.
His organization was openly called:

"The Tridentine Latin Rite Church". A separate Church.

This is unfortunately schismatic. Unfortunately Bp. Pivarunis joined the
Tridentine Latin Rite Church, and was instructed and 'ordained' in the same by
Mr. Schuckardt along with six other young men.

All 'ordained' in a schismatic 'church' called the tridentine latin rite church.

They were all unaware of what was happening, and when they did realize that
something was fishy, they turned to Bishop Musey to 'conditionally' ordain themselves
which is inadequate -- because, in the first place, they were 'ordained' by a schismatic -- into a schismatic "church".

This would have required an absolute ordination. Not a conditional ordination.

What I don't fully understand is the timing. After D.Q. Brown renounced the Schismatic
Old Catholic sect, and came back into the "Catholic" novus ordo church, he then
consecrated Mr. Schuckardt. BUT, If he renounced the "Old Catholic" church, then he
renounced his authority as well. It was altogether unlawful.

Even if the six 'priests' were utterly sincere, that cannot change the fact of the schism.
No matter how confused everybody was! They need complete ordination, or there is
no ordination.

Please help,, comments welcome!

I agree.

And DQ Brown returned to the Old Catholic sect after he left Schuckardt - he left Schuckardt when he found out that Schuckardt was not going to put him in charge of anything.

songbird · « **Reply #351 on:** March 15, 2015, 07:18:13 PM »

There are 2 Thuc lines: Bishop Guerard des Lauriers and Bishop Moises Carmona.
Bishop Pivarunas by Bishop Carmona.

Difference: Yes, there is a difference. While the consercarations of Archbishop Thuc were conferred in a secret manner, great publicity surrounded the consecrations ate Econe. but don't forget that after the consecrations of Guerard des Lauriers and the Mexican priests, the attacks on Archbishop Thuc because of them led to their losing their secret character. They became public and so rapidly so that Rome was immediately aware of them and intervenced. This intervention of the part of Rome provided these consecrations with the notoriety which they formerly lacked.

The 2nd difference favors the line established by Archbishop Thuc. The consecrations at Econe were conferred after John Paul II refused permission , and despite the formal prohibition against them. And this while both consecrator and those consecrated recognized John Paul II as a legitimate pope. To act in this strange manner can only be described as schismatic behavior.

On the other hand, those performed by Archbishop Thuc were performed by someone who had recognized and publicly declared that the Holy See lacked a formaliter pope. Two fortunate things followed from this recognition of the absence of any Authority. It allowed both consecrator tand those consecrated to invoke the principle epikeia in presuming an apostolic mandate and as a result rendered the consecrations conferred not only valid, but also licit.

This is where Bishop Carmona is valid and Bishop Guerard des Lauriers was under a schismatic behavior.

Moses · « **Reply #352 on:** March 15, 2015, 08:16:25 PM »

Thanks for your opinion, Stubborn :-)

Songbird
What puts DesLauriers' consecration under schismatic behavior? vs. Carmona?

songbird · « **Reply #353 on:** March 15, 2015, 10:38:49 PM »

Bishop Guerard des Lauriers had the authority/recognized the pope John Paul II as a legitimate pope.

Bishop Moises Carmona was valid recognizing and publicly declaring that the Holy See lacked a formaliter pope and invoked the principle of epikeia.

Moses · « **Reply #354 on:** May 07, 2015, 01:57:48 PM »

Hello everybody! Don't mean to beat a dead horse here, its late,, but, this argument shuts itself down. There is nothing to add, only apply the logic:

Cantarella, you said...
"All those consecrated [] by any ... 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:
...
This means either we are ALL,,, EACH ONE OF US ,,, up a creek!
OR ... it means ... the Church provides.

In other words,,, Either
#1. There ARE NO MORE LAWFUL CLERGY at all. Anywhere. Since it is clear this law applies to berGog and his ilk, who are all heretics or schismatics, and therefore cannot exercise orders and clearly lack canonical mission (and are not even Catholic to begin with!) and possess no power from God ... And as you suggest,Cantarella, this law must also apply to any modern traditionalist clergy trying to carry on the Catholic Faith, via Thuc or Lefebvre lines,,,, So there is either no clergy nor visible Church,

.. OR ...

2. ... The Church provides in the case of emergency. (since the purpose of the Church is to save souls, not damn them .. but man abandons God for his own will and damns himself.)
God said, your ways are not my ways,, He also said He does not change.
He also taught that a thousand years to man is a single day to him.

Who set the time limit to how long we could last without a pope?? How could the pope be such a source of disunity and destruction except that he be one who we have been warned about,, as St. Jude made clear: ..."For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ." jude 1;4

In which case we would have to turn to clergy who are trying to fight the enemy 'who has done this to us', and rebuild the Church .... But that means we must know the Faith, in order to figure out which clergy that would be! God will not be mocked.

and that means we would have to go to our closet and PRAY incessantly! And study, and watch, and pray!! Poor wretched men that we are, of our century, lost, whose charity has grown cold.

Quote from: Cantarella

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.”

songbird · « **Reply #355 on:** May 07, 2015, 04:37:24 PM »

Moses: How do you see Chapter 12 of Daniel. The Mass will come to and end and last over 3 years(bible says days)? If there be no valid clergy anywhere, that would mean no Mass. If so, when did the 3 years begin?