Author Topic: Who ordains CMRI priests? (Read 48252 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #60 on:** October 30, 2014, 09:24:28 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

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.)

Lineage is not in question, nor is who was consecrated bishop first - the issue is that this man who says he is (was?) a CMRI Bishop consecrated by Schuckardt and has docuмented at least some of his reasoning for saying the CMRI cannot be part of the Catholic Church.

I would think that accusation from a CMRI bishop would mean something to CMRIers, that they would at least make an attempt to defend against one of their own bishops saying that and saying that they need to repent and leave the CMRI while they still have time.

But even your post does not attempt to address those accusations from the bishop.

Quote from: TKGS

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.

Well, one of the posts following that article stated how devoted a CMRI priest was to travel and come to her aid in time of need - one can say the exact same thing you just said by saying that there are devoted prot missionaries who travel into ebola and other far away disease stricken lands to minister to the needy.

The fact remains that one who claims to be a bishop of CMRI explicitly tells people that the CMRI cannot be a part of the Catholic Church and for CMRIers to repent and leave while they are still living and still have the chance - you have not addressed that, all you have done is attempt to get off onto some other subject.

He said he was ordained and consecrated by Schuckardt and he wrote that article after the 2006 death of Schuckardt - can you offer any evidence at all to support your saying that he was not a CMRI Bishop, that he is a liar or anything at all other than your word?

Elizabeth · « **Reply #61 on:** October 30, 2014, 09:28:09 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

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".

This cannot be stressed often enough. I am guilty of such thought often enough, but still.

Stubborn · « **Reply #62 on:** October 30, 2014, 09:34:33 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

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.

Well, I don't think that article he wrote in any way, shape or form demonstrates that he was loyal to Schuckardt when he wrote it - how did you get that out of it?

andysloan · « **Reply #63 on:** October 30, 2014, 09:47:19 AM »

TKGS said:

(I discount Schuckardt as no one in the CMRI today traces any lineage to him.)

Why don't they trace lineage to him, because as founder, he is the root of CMRI?

St Paul's illumination is plain as day:

Romans 11:16

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

And still no response regarding the guarantee by the Holy Ghost of permanent succession of Pontiffs.
And yet we are told that those of us who are indignant against sedevacantism are "hateful" and "venomous"

The question is reasonably asked:

Luke 6:46

"And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?"

Stubborn · « **Reply #64 on:** October 30, 2014, 10:04:07 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

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.

The below quote from the article shows that this must have been written relatively recently, "a number of years" after the death of Schuckardt, which was in 2006.

I also fail to see this showing he was in any way loyal to Schuckardt.

Quote

My intention in writing this article is to tell the whole and unvarnished truth about him. I will not indulge in exaggerated and false accusations against him nor in fanciful virtues that he didn’t possess; I will simply tell that which I know to be the truth.

My task of telling the whole truth about Bishop Schuckardt is not an easy one as I struggle for balance between certain moral considerations. Once such consideration is the sin of detraction, which does not permit one to harm the reputation of another without just cause, even if what is being said is true. ........ This consideration of committing detraction has guarded my tongue for many years as I struggled with the just cause exception.

But in more recent years circuмstances have changed sufficiently to tip the scale in favor of speaking out. Some of these circuмstances include the fact that he has been dead now for a number of years and while one may not disparage the dead, nevertheless, telling the truth about them will not cause them future harm. So the obligation of silence is less grave regarding the dead than the living. Further, some persons, especially since Bishop Schuckardt's death, have taken to publicly “canonizing” him, and this untruth has added to new dimension to the equation.

But then, to be honest about it, here (bolded) he is saying:

Quote

*A clarification of terms: When Bishop Schuckardt left Spokane, 4 Religious Sisters, 1 Priest, and 10 Religious Clerics and Brothers of the CMRI remained loyal to him. These Religious continued to live as they always had: obeying the same Superior General, living by the same Rule and wearing the same habit. The Religious who joined the revolt changed their Superior General, changed their Rule, and changed their habit. So we wound up with two distinct organizations both calling themselves the CMRI, which is confusing. I believe that the group that didn’t change is the real CMRI, not those who joined the revolt and changed. (I have no personal stake here as I have no association with either group.) So hereinafter I will refer to those who have not changed as the “loyal CMRI” and those who have changed as the “new CMRI.”

So MY MISTAKE, MY FAULT, mea culpa for not reading carefully enough the first time - this Schuckardt bishop is NOT a CMRI bishop at all - crazy as that sounds - -why did he stay there for 25 years I don't know. My apologies for the confusion.

Mabel · « **Reply #65 on:** October 30, 2014, 11:55:04 AM »

Stubborn,
You have read that this individual denies that the SSPX clergy are valid, right? He doesn't even believe that Archbishop Lefebrve was a priest.

http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/invalidorders.html

Yet, he is competent to judge about CMRI?

There are some of other suspicious items on his page, besides this, however I do not have time to discuss right now.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #66 on:** October 30, 2014, 01:07:23 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

So MY MISTAKE, MY FAULT, mea culpa for not reading carefully enough the first time - this Schuckardt bishop is NOT a CMRI bishop at all - crazy as that sounds - -why did he stay there for 25 years I don't know. My apologies for the confusion.

Hey, it's easy to make this type of mistake, especially as some of the old timer CMRI had sibling religious, sharing the same name.

A small handful of Schuckhardt hardcore loyalists just never believed there was a reason to listen to what they considered calumnies, gossip, and disobedience, if I recall.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #67 on:** October 30, 2014, 01:17:51 PM »

This Bishop you are speaking about was never associated with CMRI after Schuckardt was ousted from the group known then as the Fatima Crusaders. He was not even a Bishop at that time and just left with Schuckardt when he left town, I am not sure if he was even a priest at that time, I doubt it. Bishop Joseph Marie just had sour grapes because he followed Schuckardt out the door when every thing came down.

If any of you know anything about Mt. St. Michael property, it was a miracle how a small traditional group like us, at that time even obtained it. Schuckardt was an instrument in the purchase of the property, but by the grace of God, he never put the property in his own name which is why he was forced out when he fell from grace. God knew what this traditional group didn't know at the time. (No surprise)

Today we are a remnant of True Tradition, and next year we will celebrate 100 years, since the building known as Mt. St. Michael was established by the Jesuits. This property is so rich in Catholic Tradition, it is no wonder God wanted it back. Just recently I found out that when we purchased the property, the Jesuits kept 3 acres of it, with water rights for their cemetery of which their Jesuits were buried there. There is a large book Titled: "Paths to the NorthWest", I purchased online, and on page 321 it reads: http://tinyurl.com/mdeuj5j

"On April 1, 1918, ten bodies from the mission were buried at the Mount, the first of those what were being transferred. On April 2, nine more bodies were interred. 'The scholastics, working under Father Welch did the work, Brother Coady driving the team,' On April 3, the three bodies buried near the cemetery entrance were disinterred and placed in their present graves.
The next five buried in the Mount cemetery were moved on April 17, 1918, from the Catholic plot in Fairmount Cemetery, Spokane. Among these were the remains of Herman Goller; Gaspar Genna, who thought he would die on the Yukon; and Adrian Sweere, one of the founders of Seattle University. On October 8, 1920, the remains of two very special Jesuits were moved from the cathedral in Helena: Father Philip Rappagliosi, who had died on the Milk River, probably of starvation; and Henry Imoda. These bodies had been placed in army issue coffins, and when they were opened the body of Father Imoda was found perfectly preserved. The first three to die in the Rocky Mountain Mission and to be buried at Old Sacred Heart Mission in Idaho, were re-buried at the Mount on September 27, 1922. These were Charles Huet, Francis Huybrechts and Michael McGean, all saintly heroi Jesuit brothers in the early history of the province."

After reading this along with other historic happenings at the Mount, I explored the cemetery and found all these Jesuits graves, including the famous Father Cataldo. I also took pictured of their tombstones. These holy men, offered and worshiped at the same Mass that I do, prayed the same prayers and sang the same exact hymns, BELIEVED THE SAME DOCTRINES which is more than I can say about the newly "sainted pope" John XXIII of which is recognized by Andy Sloan here and who so wrongly attacks CMRI and for what?

Just remaining Catholic, while the rest of the world marches toward Anti-Christ.

andysloan · « **Reply #68 on:** October 30, 2014, 01:38:11 PM »

To MyrnaM

In stating these holy men "BELIEVED THE SAME DOCTRINES", it to to be presumed that part of those doctrines would be the acceptance of the Holy Ghost's assurances at Vatican 1 that there is a "permanent" succession.

I believe the Holy Ghost, but why don't sedevacantists?

As for St Pope John 23:

http://www.traditio.com/papal/john23.htm

MyrnaM · « **Reply #69 on:** October 30, 2014, 02:54:20 PM »

Quote from: andysloan

To MyrnaM

I believe the Holy Ghost, but why don't sedevacantists?

Andy, you have a free will to believe as you will, but the truth is you believe the Holy Ghost can change His mind, in other words what was white yesterday is black today according to the Holy Ghost and your logic.

As long as there is the True Faith in the world, there is the Church FOREVER.

As far as your link, it says:

Quote

Whatever Pope John's disposition was, however, before the second session of the council could open, he died. His last words on his deathbed, as reported by Jean Guitton, the only Catholic layman to serve as a peritus at the Council, were: "Stop the Council; stop the Council." In any case, it is a fact that Pope John signed not one docuмent of the Second Vatican Council.

Of course he didn't sign anything, he died, remember!

TKGS · « **Reply #70 on:** October 30, 2014, 03:03:07 PM »

Quote from: andysloan

http://www.traditio.com/papal/john23.htm

Irony of ironies. andysloan is now quoting traditio!!! :roll-laugh2: :roll-laugh2:

andysloan · « **Reply #71 on:** October 30, 2014, 03:14:33 PM »

MyrnaM said:

"Andy, you have a free will to believe as you will"

And so do you!

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 .

John 10:26

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

And as to the conciliar popes/canonisations, God has given many to reject, because there are many pharisees in tradition. No different than He gives protestants books that state that the catholic church is false & antichrist etc.

I personally am totally amazed seeing so many so-called catholics exalting themselves and speaking against these popes with such disrespect, contempt and insult, even posthumously. But, as I have posted before:

Psalms 34:26

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

And so they are blinded. For it seems they delude themselves that tradition guarantees them immunity from error, yet we read:

Ecclesiasticus 7:8

"Nor bind sin to sin: for even in one thou shalt not be unpunished."

Maybe Matthew should put the following as a masthead to CI.

Ecclesiasticus 10:9

"Why is earth and ashes proud?"

MyrnaM · « **Reply #72 on:** October 30, 2014, 03:26:25 PM »

Andy, did you know you can quote almost anything from the Bible thinking it helps your point of view, and somewhere in the Bible it says something like this: Some interpret at their own destruction.

2 Peter 3;16

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. By the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness"

andysloan · « **Reply #73 on:** October 30, 2014, 03:36:52 PM »

To MyrnaM:

Yet we also read:

2 Tim 3:16-17

"All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. "

The passage you quote regarding "the unstable" ie; in keeping God's laws are deprived of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, hence they "twist"

And so it is with sedevacantists.

Why don't you just start going to the SSPX and problem solved?

Or at the least, take this is your pastor and you will find no honest or cogent rebuttal:

Vatican 1:session 4

Therefore,

if anyone says that
it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that

the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:

let him be anathema.

It's there right in front of your eyes. Just go to the SSPX - you don't have to send Pope Francis a Christmas present!

MyrnaM · « **Reply #74 on:** October 30, 2014, 04:16:08 PM »

I don't have a problem, the SSPX are too wishy washy for me, and God is not wishy washy.
He says, "You are either with Me or against Me"...

Many of the SSPX are sedevacantist, but won't admit it, and the rest don't know they are sedevacantist, and then there are those like yourself that lean toward Modernism.

Is it a sin to deliberately break the Communion fast?

If yes, SSPX has no unity regarding the Communion fast, in fact if only one hour, there is no fast because the Mass is about an hour long, so what, the fast is 15 minutes, give me a break!