Author Topic: Who ordains CMRI priests? (Read 47680 times)

Cantarella · « **Reply #45 on:** October 29, 2014, 02:47:22 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

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.

Here is the official publication:

"The Salvation of Those Outside the Church". Published by the CMRI in 1992 issue of The Reign of Mary, (Vol. XXIV, No. 70, p. 10.).

CMRI holds the heretical belief that non-Catholics can be saved without formally converting to Catholicism and entering the Church via baptism. This is, without having the Catholic Faith and receiving the sacraments. They hold the Modernist interpretation on EENS. To inquire further how they do this, visit the BOD / feeneyism forum.

andysloan · « **Reply #46 on:** October 29, 2014, 03:05:09 PM »

MyrnaM said:

"In truth, when all this happened DECADES AGO."

Does the Holy Ghost through St Paul put a deadline on the validity of His statement?

Romans 11:16

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

The Catholic church is an a mess on our day as a punishment for its members, but it is still the true church and its dogma is intact. The CMRI has fallen away from dogma and into schism, by rejecting the conciliar popes, despite the assurance of succession by the Holy Ghost in the Vatican 1 promulgations

I will return your statement to you:

"You turn a blind eye, but God sees you."

MyrnaM · « **Reply #47 on:** October 29, 2014, 03:07:15 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: MyrnaM
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.

Here is the official publication:

"The Salvation of Those Outside the Church". Published by the CMRI in 1992 issue of The Reign of Mary, (Vol. XXIV, No. 70, p. 10.).

CMRI holds the heretical belief that non-Catholics can be saved without formally converting to Catholicism and entering the Church via baptism. This is, without having the Catholic Faith and receiving the sacraments. They hold the Modernist interpretation on EENS. To inquire further how they do this, visit the BOD / feeneyism forum.

Cantarella

Again your wrong, that has been in our library here for awhile, and I put it there for people like you who insist on being brainwashed by heretics.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26486&f=16&min=0&num=5

All one has to do is read their daily newspaper, or media of their choice to see how your pope believes in SALVATION FOR THOSE OUTSIDE HIS CHURCH.

http://www.cmri.org/thucletter.html

MyrnaM · « **Reply #48 on:** October 29, 2014, 03:19:32 PM »

http://friarsminor.org/offerings/Archbishop%20Ngo.htm

Luker · « **Reply #49 on:** October 29, 2014, 04:44:34 PM »

After being away for a week traveling (wow what a crazy place the NYC/NJ metro area is) I see I made it back for the monthly 2 min of hate thread on the CMRI, with the usual posters. No point in rehashing this for the umpteenth time, anyone who is interested in the work the CMRI do can look them up, they have never attempted to hide. I will just say again I like the CMRI and would never hesitate to seek the sacraments from their priests.

Cantarella · « **Reply #50 on:** October 29, 2014, 04:47:26 PM »

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.

The biggest issue with the CMRI is not even the validity of orders. After all, the Eastern Orthodox have valid orders, yet they, according to Catholic dogma, cannot be saved because they are outside the Church.

TKGS · « **Reply #51 on:** October 29, 2014, 05:49:47 PM »

Quote from: Luker

After being away for a week traveling (wow what a crazy place the NYC/NJ metro area is) I see I made it back for the monthly 2 min of hate thread on the CMRI, with the usual posters. No point in rehashing this for the umpteenth time, anyone who is interested in the work the CMRI do can look them up, they have never attempted to hide.

As Luker notes, the CMRI is not a secret society. You don't have to know a secret handshake or password to get into their chapels or access their websites. Many sermons and conferences are available online at the site I provided earlier in which they talk even about their own history and problems in their early days.

Yet many people get all their information from unscrupulous sources and enemies of the Faith. It seems that when it comes to the CMRI there are hundreds of Dimond Brothers out there who have already made their decisions and they aren't about to allow facts to cloud their pre-determined conclusions.

Frankly, I note that most, though not all, the most venomous posts against the CMRI come from radical Conciliar apologists. I keep wondering why they stay on CathInfo since they really despise the traditional faith. The would say the same thing about the SSPX if Matthew wouldn't ban them for that infraction. But, of course, condemning the CMRI as being outside the Church has always been fair game.

Matto · « **Reply #52 on:** October 29, 2014, 05:59:06 PM »

I am not a sedevacantist, but I would have no problem going to a CMRI Mass. I would certainly go there before I would go to the Novus Ordo.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #53 on:** October 29, 2014, 06:37:37 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I am not a sedevacantist, but I would have no problem going to a CMRI Mass. I would certainly go there before I would go to the Novus Ordo.

You don't have to swear to anyone you are a sedevacantist, to receive the benefits administered through CMRI. No one will ask unless you start the conversation about the sede position, we are Roman Catholic which is NOT what Francis and his ilk are.

andysloan · « **Reply #54 on:** October 29, 2014, 06:49:03 PM »

TKGS said:

"As Luker notes, the CMRI is not a secret society. You don't have to know a secret handshake or password to get into their chapels or access their websites."

This is hardly a recommendation, as neither are protestant groups secret societies.

The CMRI, like the protestant groups, is a sect.

Galatians 5:19-20

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects,

When you talk of "venonmous posts" and Luker speaks of "hate" against the CMRI, this is simply deceit and propaganda.

Rather, it is just indignation that you are schismatic and that indignation is directed to your reform.



Proverbs 29:27

"The just abhor the wicked man: and the wicked loathe them that are in the right way."

And the dishonesty is seen that despite posting the text of Vatican 1 session 4 which assures of a "permanent" succession, and seeking your response, you do not reply. That is because there is no honest response, because the Holy Ghost reveals in clear and simple terms that sedevacantism is a falsehood.



John 8:46

"If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me?



John 10:26

"But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep."

And in regard to your statement about the main accusers being "radical conciliar apologists", I will speak for myself. I am a Traditional Catholic, but I accept the validity of the conciliar Popes as their canonical election requires and Vatican 1 affirms. The Novus Ordo is a punishment from God, but it is still a valid mass (subject to the usual norms) and there is still salvation within it.

I thank God that I have been given the gift of tradition and see that as conferring an additional responsibility to pray for those less fortunate and not an opportunity to exalt myself over others. Those in the novus ordo are our brothers and sisters, not some "unclean people" as some on CI seem to infer. Which is ironic, as there is a "newchurch" within the body of tradition of pharisees and sedevacantists - all abominate.

And such as these are punished by God who has given them to even refuse canonisations of persons who don't meet their supposed high standards of formalistic religion.


2 Thessalonians 2:10

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying."

Thus, these so-called loyalists to the faith, now find themselves in some grade of schism. They take pleasure in their sins of hating and slandering, but through the canonisations, God has sent them a due punishment:



Psalms 34:26

"Let them be clothed with confusion and shame, who speak great things against me."

The shame will come later.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #55 on:** October 30, 2014, 01:46:33 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

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.

The biggest issue with the CMRI is not even the validity of orders. After all, the Eastern Orthodox have valid orders, yet they, according to Catholic dogma, cannot be saved because they are outside the Church.

It is indeed the only issue, if any (pending my reading some of the materials provided in response my request for info).

They certainly aren't lacking in matters of doctrine and dogma, which is quite a bit more than I can say for Newchurch.

Stubborn · « **Reply #56 on:** October 30, 2014, 03:49:18 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Luker
After being away for a week traveling (wow what a crazy place the NYC/NJ metro area is) I see I made it back for the monthly 2 min of hate thread on the CMRI, with the usual posters. No point in rehashing this for the umpteenth time, anyone who is interested in the work the CMRI do can look them up, they have never attempted to hide.

As Luker notes, the CMRI is not a secret society. You don't have to know a secret handshake or password to get into their chapels or access their websites. Many sermons and conferences are available online at the site I provided earlier in which they talk even about their own history and problems in their early days.

Yet many people get all their information from unscrupulous sources and enemies of the Faith. It seems that when it comes to the CMRI there are hundreds of Dimond Brothers out there who have already made their decisions and they aren't about to allow facts to cloud their pre-determined conclusions.

Frankly, I note that most, though not all, the most venomous posts against the CMRI come from radical Conciliar apologists. I keep wondering why they stay on CathInfo since they really despise the traditional faith. The would say the same thing about the SSPX if Matthew wouldn't ban them for that infraction. But, of course, condemning the CMRI as being outside the Church has always been fair game.

First of all, CMRI Bishop Joseph Marie has not been shown by you - or by anyone to be an "unscrupulous source", the really sad fact is that after 11 pages of replies, not one person as even attempted to even acknowledge the warnings of their own bishop.

Also, the venomous post against the CMRI did not come from some radical Conciliar apologist, it came from a CMRI Bishop, not written 50 years ago, but sometime within the last 8 years.

Quote from: Matto

I am not a sedevacantist, but I would have no problem going to a CMRI Mass. I would certainly go there before I would go to the Novus Ordo.

Why doesn't it matter to you that their own bishop says that they cannot be part of the Catholic Church? Or his pleas for those who go to CMRI to repent and leave while they still have the chance?

Curious as to why even non-CMRIers completely ignore the CMRI bishop.

TKGS · « **Reply #57 on:** October 30, 2014, 07:40:55 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

First of all, CMRI Bishop Joseph Marie has not been shown by you - or by anyone to be an "unscrupulous source", the really sad fact is that after 11 pages of replies, not one person as even attempted to even acknowledge the warnings of their own bishop.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on one matter. You indicate that Bishop Joseph Marie is the CMRI's "own bishop", but, as far as I have ever seen, Bishop Pivarunas was the first bishop the CMRI, as constituted today, has had. (I discount Schuckardt as no one in the CMRI today traces any lineage to him.)

You wrote in your first comment about this man:

Quote from: Stubborn

I never heard of this author, don't know when this was written and don't know if he writes the truth or not, but he sounds authentic - perhaps some CMRIers can chime in and tell us about him.

My next question is why should I or anyone else attempt to demonstrate anything about a source that does not seem to be any authority other than your personal opinion that he "sounds authentic".

To a lot of people the Dimond Brothers "sound authentic". Again, this is just another example of grasping for anything that will fit your pre-conceived condemnations rather than actual scholarship. Don't provide sources that "sound authentic". I have provided a source that is authentic: The words of Bishop Pivarunas himself--and, frankly, he sounds a lot more authentic than this bishop--who may or may not have anything to do with the CMRI but was not a CMRI bishop.

obediens · « **Reply #58 on:** October 30, 2014, 08:06:44 AM »

If I've understood correctly, Bishop Joseph Marie Belzak is no longer with the Schuckardt-loyal CMRI... which would be under Bishop Mary Fidelis/Andrew Jacobs.

TKGS · « **Reply #59 on:** October 30, 2014, 08:24:28 AM »

Quote from: obediens

If I've understood correctly, Bishop Joseph Marie Belzak is no longer with the Schuckardt-loyal CMRI... which would be under Bishop Mary Fidelis/Andrew Jacobs.

So, do I understand you correctly that Bishop Joseph Marie that Stubborn references was, when he wrote this, an avowed enemy of the CMRI since he was loyal to Schuckhardt?

If this is the case, Stubborn, you should consider your complaint adequately answered and the post discounted.