Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Geremia on October 28, 2014, 02:35:01 PM

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Geremia on October 28, 2014, 02:35:01 PM
Who has ordained CMRI priests? I heard some of them trace their lineages to Old Catholics. Is this true?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on October 28, 2014, 03:33:39 PM
Quote from: Geremia
Who has ordained CMRI priests? I heard some of them trace their lineages to Old Catholics. Is this true?


A fallen away Catholic who became an Old Catholic Bishop (I don't remember his name) ordained the founder of CMRI, Francis Schuckardt. A few days later, the same bishop consecrated Schuckardt a Bishop.

Schuckardt has been judged so you can probably google the scandals levied against him during his time as CMRI's founder and chief without my help, suffice to say I won't comment on those scandals, but I will say from what I remember, that what was known of him in trad circles back in the day was all terrible.

CMRI's current head, Bishop Mark Pivarunas studied for 6 or 7 years as Brother  Tarsisus (sp?) under Schuckardt before his ordination.

Bishop Pivarunas was consecrated by a Bishop who was consecrated by Archbishop Thuc. I assume Bishop Pivarunas does the ordinations for CMRI.

 

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: TKGS on October 28, 2014, 03:40:09 PM
Quote from: Geremia
Who has ordained CMRI priests? I heard some of them trace their lineages to Old Catholics. Is this true?


It is true that a few of the older priests had originally been ordained by a bishop who was consecrated by the Old Catholics.  All of the priests who had been so ordained were conditionally ordained by a traditional Roman Catholic bishop at a later time.  All of the priests since those original priests have been ordained by traditional Catholic Bishops and Bishop Pivarunas usually (if not always) ordains deacons and priests for the CMRI now.

Bishop Pivarunas recounted the sad history of these events in one of the Fatima Conferences, though I do not remember which one.

If you go to the traditional Catholic Sermons page linked below, you can scroll down to the Fatima Conferences and listen to the talks by Bishop Pivarunas.  In one of the conferences, His Excellency goes into great detail concerning the lineage of the CMRI priests and the early history of the CMRI, information concerning Archbishop Thuc, and other important topics.
http://www.traditionalcatholicsermons.org/index_files/CMRI_Archives.htm

Do not listen to the deceivers who want to contaminate people's minds in regards to the CMRI--many of who post regularly here on CathInfo.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on October 28, 2014, 05:19:07 PM
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. At any rate, reading this article might be of interest in this thread:

The Truth About Bishop Francis Schuckardt  (http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/Godasmywitness.html)
- written by Bishop Joseph Marie, who was himself consecrated a bishop by Bishop Francis Schuckardt.


Quote
In the 29 years that I personally knew Bishop Schuckardt, I’ve heard and read many things about him, very little of which was true. Some fabricate allegations against him and some canonize him; they both violate the truth. As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. 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.



The final paragraph of the article states:

Quote

To the new CMRI: Your organization was founded upon ecclesiastical crimes and consequently cannot possibly be part of the Catholic Church: “He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.” You too, like Bishop Schuckardt and Fr. Chicoine, will die, and you have not yet even begun to make restitution for your crimes. While you have time, put things in order. You still have an opportunity to change evil into good – don’t let that opportunity pass you by.


Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 28, 2014, 05:29:21 PM
"You will know them by their fruits"...

The fruits of CMRI meaning results have proven to be Blessed by God, like the Catholic Church from day one, has had one crisis after another, but always Divinely protected, so too today.

 CMRI is part of the remnant Church, whether you like it or not.  

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on October 28, 2014, 05:55:48 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
"You will know them by their fruits"...

The fruits of CMRI meaning results have proven to be Blessed by God, like the Catholic Church from day one, has had one crisis after another, but always Divinely protected, so too today.

 CMRI is part of the remnant Church, whether you like it or not.  



Fact remains that CMRI operates outside the Catholic Church. For anyone that actually understands Catholicism, this is actually a big deal. Schismatics cults such as CMRI are pernicious and dangerous to souls. Jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope, and held by the Church (Bishops). In the case of CMRI, they respond to no one but an invisible, made up hierarchy. It is only "smells and bells" with no real apostolicity, one of the four marks of the True Church.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Matto on October 28, 2014, 06:14:21 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Fact remains that CMRI operates outside the Catholic Church.


Where is the Catholic Church today? Do you mean the conciliar sect?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on October 28, 2014, 06:33:26 PM
Bp.Mark Pivarunas does the ordinations. You can read what his lines are, which do not go through the Old Catholics. He doesn't claim any authority or jurisdiction, he just helps people and dispenses the sacraments.

You can read several histories of what happened with their rocky start. The important thing to know is that they did rectify the situation. There really is no reason to bring up Shukhardt unless you just hate the CMRI for no reason, most of the priests currently associated with CMRI were very young when the whole thing happened, some were even children. It is borderline moronic to say they are the same organization, or that they are at fault.

Since I see the CMRI haters are abounding in this thread, I will just throw in some good words about them to make up for the unjust and malicious statements.

When I was very sick after my third baby and could not travel for baptism, a CMRI priest travelled to me after an 8 hour flight. I've seen them go without sleep or meals for sick calls, after flying and driving for several hours, and then they still say mass. Other priests give away nearly all they have for the poor.

Still, the viciousness and hatred of their opponents demonstrates the priests' humility and sacrifice all the more.

I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is the better imitation of Our Lord and His saints.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on October 28, 2014, 06:47:41 PM
TKGS said:

"Do not listen to the deceivers who want to contaminate people's minds in regards to the CMRI--many of who post regularly here on CathInfo. "



I think the "deceivers" have an ineluctable case:


   

Romans 11:16


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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schuckardt



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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 28, 2014, 07:04:16 PM
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Cantarella
Fact remains that CMRI operates outside the Catholic Church.


Where is the Catholic Church today? Do you mean the conciliar sect?


Of course that is what she means, that's where her pope is.    :facepalm:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on October 28, 2014, 07:13:12 PM
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Cantarella
Fact remains that CMRI operates outside the Catholic Church.


Where is the Catholic Church today? Do you mean the conciliar sect?


The Catholic Church that Christ founded 2000 years ago whose earthly head is the Roman Pontiff and whose hierarchy has been infiltrated by liberals, infidels and freemasons. If one refers to the "Conciliar Church" or the "Novus Ordo” Church and one means by that an institution headed by Pope Francis, but not the Catholic Church, then one is a schismatic. There is only one Church, not two.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on October 28, 2014, 07:27:50 PM
Quote from: Mabel
He doesn't claim any authority or jurisdiction, he just helps people and dispenses the sacraments.


Then, the Sacraments are not real, they are all made up. There is more consistency in sedevacantists that stay at home alone on Sundays than the ones that attend counterfeit sects in which there is all "pretend" but no supernatural grace is really given because they are outside the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ. Sorry, but philanthropic and charitable acts do not equal supernatural power to consecrate the Body of Jesus or confer all the other Divine Sacraments, needed for salvation.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 28, 2014, 07:51:34 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Cantarella
Fact remains that CMRI operates outside the Catholic Church.


Where is the Catholic Church today? Do you mean the conciliar sect?


The Catholic Church that Christ founded 2000 years ago whose earthly head is the Roman Pontiff and whose hierarchy has been infiltrated by liberals, infidels and freemasons. If one refers to the "Conciliar Church" or the "Novus Ordo” Church and one means by that an institution headed by Pope Francis, but not the Catholic Church, then one is a schismatic. There is only one Church, not two.


And your pope belongs to both... that sounds heretical.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 28, 2014, 07:53:26 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Mabel
He doesn't claim any authority or jurisdiction, he just helps people and dispenses the sacraments.


Then, the Sacraments are not real, they are all made up. There is more consistency in sedevacantists that stay at home alone on Sundays than the ones that attend counterfeit sects in which there is all "pretend" but no supernatural grace is really given because they are outside the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ. Sorry, but philanthropic and charitable acts do not equal supernatural power to consecrate the Body of Jesus or confer all the other Divine Sacraments, needed for salvation.


Just because our Bishop doesn't go around claiming jurisdiction, doesn't mean he doesn't have it.    God in Heaven has that under control, have a little faith.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Emitte Lucem Tuam on October 28, 2014, 08:24:09 PM
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.

CMRI detractors are just bitter, sad, and somewhat hopeless people, willing to fall for the devil's hopeless and defeatist attitude towards the current ecclesiastical catastrophe.

Pray for them.  :pray:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on October 28, 2014, 08:42:13 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Mabel
He doesn't claim any authority or jurisdiction, he just helps people and dispenses the sacraments.


Then, the Sacraments are not real, they are all made up. There is more consistency in sedevacantists that stay at home alone on Sundays than the ones that attend counterfeit sects in which there is all "pretend" but no supernatural grace is really given because they are outside the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ. Sorry, but philanthropic and charitable acts do not equal supernatural power to consecrate the Body of Jesus or confer all the other Divine Sacraments, needed for salvation.


Just because our Bishop doesn't go around claiming jurisdiction, doesn't mean he doesn't have it.    God in Heaven has that under control, have a little faith.


Well, Bishop Pivarunas is not even recognized as a bishop by the Roman Catholic Church, so nobody really knows exactly how the CMRI could ever meet one the four marks of the True Church: Apostolicity. The Church then, which must have the four marks, has ceased to exist. These marks, the visible magisterium, are inextricably linked to the Church.

Also, if the Chair of Peter has been vacant since 1958 as the CMRI professes that means there are no legitimate cardinals anymore, and without cardinals there is simply no way to elect a new pope. The whole sedevacantist logic is nonsensical and utterly irrational.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on October 28, 2014, 08:56:10 PM
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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on October 28, 2014, 09:44:17 PM
Another example of "sound doctrine" promoted by the CMRI is that Natural Family Planning is an acceptable form of birth control. Pivaruna's arguments that the NFP must be permissible because some people before Vatican II  allegedly approved of it and because the Church literally eased to exist in 1962, then everything that comes before it, liberal errors included, must be OK.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Malleus on October 28, 2014, 10:18:28 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Fact remains that CMRI operates outside the Catholic Church.


Your "church", that which you believe "Pope Francis" is the current head of, teaches that Protestants and Schismatics are in the Church.

So if your "church" teaches that Protestant heretics are inside the Church and can even receive Holy Communion, what's your point in saying the CMRI is "outside the Church"?

Quote from: Cantarella
For anyone that actually understands Catholicism, this is actually a big deal.


Catholicism teaches that what you believe is an impossibility.

Quote from: Cantarella
The Catholic Church that Christ founded 2000 years ago whose earthly head is the Roman Pontiff and whose hierarchy has been infiltrated by liberals, infidels and freemasons.


Infiltrated the Church can be and has been, but does that mean that it can teach error officially to all the faithful? Can it lead them astray?

Quote from: Cantarella
If one refers to the "Conciliar Church" or the "Novus Ordo” Church and one means by that an institution headed by Pope Francis, but not the Catholic Church, then one is a schismatic.


Not according to your own authorities. Your own authorities and what you think is the Church recognizes declared heretics and schismatics as members of the Church. The "archbishop" of Canterbury is recognized as an authentic Christian and as having a God-given mission by your "church" and your last 6 "popes".

You are against what you think is the Church and the ones you deem your authorities. You contradict them and disobey them and don't follow what they say.

How do you explain this?

Do you know better than them? Do you have more authority than them? Aren't YOU the schismatic here, by going against your "church" and your "popes"?

Quote from: Cantarella
There is only one Church, not two.


Yeah, and public heretics like Bergoglio are outside of It.

Quote from: Cantarella
The Church then, which must have the four marks, has ceased to exist. These marks, the visible magisterium, are inextricably linked to the Church.


And yet what you think is the Church headed by Bergoglio hasn't had at least 3 of them since the 60's, so it is NOT the Church, by logic.

Quote from: Cantarella
Also, if the Chair of Peter has been vacant since 1958 as the CMRI professes that means there are no legitimate cardinals anymore, and without cardinals there is simply no way to elect a new pope.


False, for more than a thousand years Popes weren't even elected by Cardinals, and theologians teach they are NOT intrinsically necessary to elect a Pope.

Quote from: Cantarella
The whole sedevacantist logic is nonsensical and utterly irrational.


You dishonestly misrepresent the sedevacantist position.

Have you no regard for your particular judgment?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on October 28, 2014, 10:51:48 PM
After discussing with sedevacantists, one quickly realizes that these people are living in a mental construct that is rooted primarily in emotion, but not facts. Human emotions, of course have their proper place in existence, but are pointless when trying to resolve a Church crisis of such magnitude.  Malleus, please respond this:

1. It is de fide that the Pope can be judged by none in this world. Not even an Ecuмenical Council has the authority to depose the Pope. It would have to be another Pope that does it. (therefore sedevacantism will never amount to anything but a personal opinion). Have you found a way to elect a new Pope without Cardinals / Bishops? Back up your claim (with reliable references) that there is no need of Cardinals to elect a Pope.

2. Which Bishops are currently holding the authority to supply the Church jurisdiction? What visible magisterium is doing the supplying? if supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope (which according to the sedevacantists, is actually an anti-pope), and held by the Church (Bishops) during interregnums, these Bishops must be visible, they cannot be invisible, so where are they?

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on October 28, 2014, 11:17:38 PM
Quote from: Malleus

Your "church", that which you believe "Pope Francis" is the current head of, teaches that Protestants and Schismatics are in the Church.


Show me a binding / infallible Magisterial docuмent that teaches this and highlight the words.

Regardless of what Popes believe as private individuals, Catholics must believe what has been solemnly defined in the past. There have been a few Popes who have taught or held various heresies, but as they have not attempted to pronounce them ex cathedra, infallibility and Church indefectibility are not threatened.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on October 28, 2014, 11:28:52 PM
Pay no attention to the Baptism of Desire deniers.  Their opinion of CMRI is clouded by their heretical worldview.

They hate CMRI because CMRI defends the 100% of the Faith.   The Feeneyites ripped out a page of their catechism, and attack all of us Catholics who keep the Fath whole and entire.  The CMRI gets the full attack of the Feeneyites and Dimond followers because they have been the most outspoken in defense of these Sacred Doctrines of the Church.

If CMRI today embraced their heresy and like them denied Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, all of these "other issues" they keep bringing up would no longer matter.  It's a side show to distract the uniformed of their real agenda.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Malleus on October 28, 2014, 11:38:29 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
After discussing with sedevacantists, one quickly realizes that these people are living in a mental construct that is rooted primarily in emotion, but not facts.


I say this in all honesty: you are the one living in a mental construct that is rooted primarily in emotion, not facts.

You accuse sedevacantists of being emotional and not going by facts, without giving any proof or even a single example.

Do you realize you have make baseless assertions, without backing them up? Do you not realize this is dishonest?

But I will answer your questions anyways.

Quote from: Cantarella
1. It is de fide that the Pope can be judged by none in this world.


And yet you do this all the time. Do you not say these last "popes" have been infiltrators, liberals, heretics, apostates, scandalous? You judge all that they say and do, and reject it, on a daily basis.

As has been repeatedly stated, sedevacantists do not "judge" any of the Vatican 2 "popes" because they have deposed themselves for public heresy. Sedevacantists merely point out the fact.

Quote from: Cantarella
Not even an Ecuмenical Council has the authority to depose the Pope.


True, and this has nothing to do with SV.

Quote from: Cantarella
It would have to be another Pope that does it. (therefore sedevacantism will never amount to anything but a personal opinion).


False, this was refuted by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, who taught that a manifestly heretical Pope deposes himself. This is the common teaching of theologians.

Quote from: Cantarella
Have you found a way to elect a new Pope without Cardinals / Bishops? Back up your claim (with reliable references) that there is no need of Cardinals to elect a Pope.


The same St. Robert Bellarmine said that if the Cardinals were all wiped out, then the duty falls to the Roman Clergy, and if that is wiped out, then the Church can elect one.

Quote from: Cantarella
2. Which Bishops are currently holding the authority to supply the Church jurisdiction?


I don't know, but I do know for a fact that it's not the Novus Ordo "bishops", because they are all manifest and public heretics and apostates.

Don't you know that formal heretics lose all jurisdiction?

Quote from: Cantarella
What visible magisterium is doing the supplying?


Same thing here, I don't know, but I do know for a fact that it can't possibly be the Novus Ordo "magisterium", because it has oficially taught heresy and error for decades, which the true Magisterium CANNOT DO, for then Christ would be the Author of heresy and error.

Is that possible? Can Christ do that?

Quote from: Cantarella
if supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope (which according to the sedevacantists, is actually an anti-pope), and held by the Church (Bishops) during interregnums, these Bishops must be visible, they cannot be invisible, so where are they?


You think visibility is only optical, material visibility, but it obviously isn't.

All the false sects and churches are "visible" to the entire world, and yet none of them are the real Church of Christ.

The "Archbishop" of Canterbury is plenty visible, and yet he's no real Archbishop at all, because he is a heretical schismatic.

Nestorius was plenty visible too, and yet he was no Bishop because he publicly preached heresy.

Same thing with the Novus Ordo "popes" and "hierarchy": sure, they are "visible" in the material sense, anyone can see them, but they do NOT possess the Faith, because they are public and manifest heretics and apostates, so their "visibility" is meaningless because heretics do not represent the Church.

To be truly visible, one must be a real Catholic and possess the Faith, not just claim and pretend to.

But this is all common sense and easy to grasp, so what is your point with this?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: tdrev123 on October 28, 2014, 11:41:59 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Malleus

Your "church", that which you believe "Pope Francis" is the current head of, teaches that Protestants and Schismatics are in the Church.


Show me a binding / infallible Magisterial docuмent that teaches this and highlight the words.

Regardless of what Popes believe as private individuals, Catholics must believe what has been solemnly defined in the past. There have been a few Popes who have taught or held various heresies, but as they have not attempted to pronounce them ex cathedra, infallibility and Church indefectibility are not threatened.



So what are you saying?
Why must a Pope pronounce something infallibly to be a heretic?  So no one except for possibly Honorious are heretics?  

That is your logic?

The hierarchy of the Catholic church have ceased to be Catholic! All of them are public heretics and most of them aren't even valid priests or bishops!
Why do you need an infallible docuмent!?  Vatican 2 was infallible, it was addressed to the universal church, and it was sealed with the Popes Name and it dealt with morals or theology.  Even if you believe it isn't infallible, it is heretical!  Every 'Priest' in the organization that owns Vatican City believes in these heretical docuмents!  That is clearly not the church!  The Catholic Church is the remaining Priests, Bishops and Laymen who hold the faith.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Malleus on October 28, 2014, 11:54:50 PM
1
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Malleus on October 28, 2014, 11:56:02 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Malleus

Your "church", that which you believe "Pope Francis" is the current head of, teaches that Protestants and Schismatics are in the Church.


Show me a binding / infallible Magisterial docuмent that teaches this and highlight the words.


You're a Feeneyite who believes that Catholics only have to accept and obey infallible teachings and dogmas. This Protestant notion of belief and practice has always been condemned by the Church and is of course manifestly false.

In spite of your brazen rejection of Church authority and theological principles, you pretend to refute sedevacantists and to accuse this or that person of schism and to determine this or that person is outside the Church.

You're a misguided person who goes by Protestant ideas in which you decide what teachings you will accept and which ones you will reject, on your own authority and determination. You privately interpret the Magisterium like a Protestant.

You reject authority and the way the Church operates.

Feeneyism is almost incurable, it is extremely hard to see the light and rock-solid obstinacy doesn't make things any easier.

You refuse to heed instruction.

Instruction is grievous to him that forsaketh the way of life: he that hateth reproof shall die. -Proverbs 15:10

Quote from: Cantarella
Regardless of what Popes believe as private individuals, Catholics must believe what has been solemnly defined in the past.


Why are you so dishonest, and utter such a bold lie?

This is the OFFICIAL teaching of what you believe is the Church.

It is solemnly taught in the "Sacred Second Oecuмenical Council of the Vatican", in the New Catechism, in the New Code, IT IS EVERYWHERE.

Quote from: Cantarella
There have been a few Popes who have taught or held various heresies, but as they have not attempted to pronounce them ex cathedra, infallibility and Church indefectibility are not threatened.


This is just mindless nonsense.

You're morally hopeless, only a miracle can save you.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on October 29, 2014, 12:08:56 AM
Double Post
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on October 29, 2014, 12:10:46 AM
Quote from: Malleus

You accuse sedevacantists of being emotional and not going by facts, without giving any proof or even a single example.


But there is no need to give an example. Let the posts speak by themselves.

Take a deep breath!

Anyway, I am sleepy now and you still did not respond anything of substance,(I am guessing because you simply do not know the answers but are merely parroting sedevacantist propaganda found in Bellarmine Forums), as always! as an easy way out, you only focus on personal insults addressed to my person, as if you knew me, so it is time for me to go.

It seems to me, the strength of a Sedes argument is inversely proportional to the size of their font and the amount of direct ad nominems they can throw.  

Do not let these threads become an occasion of sin. Good night!
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: tdrev123 on October 29, 2014, 12:28:02 AM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Malleus

You accuse sedevacantists of being emotional and not going by facts, without giving any proof or even a single example.


But there is no need to give an example. Let the posts speak by themselves.

Take a deep breath!

Anyway, I am sleepy now and you still did not respond anything of substance,(I am guessing because you simply do not know the answers but are merely parroting sedevacantist propaganda found in Bellarmine Forums), as always! as an easy way out, you only focus on personal insults addressed to my person, as if you knew me, so it is time for me to go.

It seems to me, the strength of a Sedes argument is inversely proportional to the size of their font and the amount of direct ad nominems they can throw.  

Do not let these threads become an occasion of sin. Good night!


We did not respond anything of substance?  Yes, we did, you are the one who didn't.

We are parroting things?  Everything said has been said before, because it is the Church who teaches it!

Insulting your person?  Calling you a feeneyite is not insulting your person.

The size of the font? Nobody's font size was enlarged...

Ad hominems? No ad hominems were said, someone accused you of being a feeneyite but that is a theological position, and it is true, and relevant to the topic, because you are judging what is right and wrong from a Pope, but you say a Pope can't be judged....so it is relevant.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Malleus on October 29, 2014, 01:00:52 AM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Malleus

You accuse sedevacantists of being emotional and not going by facts, without giving any proof or even a single example.


But there is no need to give an example. Let the posts speak by themselves.

Take a deep breath!

Anyway, I am sleepy now and you still did not respond anything of substance,(I am guessing because you simply do not know the answers but are merely parroting sedevacantist propaganda found in Bellarmine Forums), as always! as an easy way out, you only focus on personal insults addressed to my person, as if you knew me, so it is time for me to go.

It seems to me, the strength of a Sedes argument is inversely proportional to the size of their font and the amount of direct ad nominems they can throw.  

Do not let these threads become an occasion of sin. Good night!


Well, what more can one say with such a childish and immature "response" as this? "It is evident because it is evident and don't ask me for any proof"? Should we make a poll here and see how many people agree with what you just said? Did you laugh after you posted this, knowing how patently ridiculous it is? You did didn't you?

You're not interested in the truth. You're just a troll, playing silly games and purposely avoiding having an honest, rational debate.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Iuvenalis on October 29, 2014, 01:19:00 AM
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.

I might not have read the right things but

A)if what is Shuckhardt was true, did his intent with such a gravely disordered orientation make for valid ordination?

Then his consecration would have issues and thus any ordinations he performed (Bp Pivarunas).

B)again, possibly not reading the right material to explain, serious concerns brought to my attention about Thuc line, and that is where Bp. pivarunas received his consecration

After the concerns with Schuckhardt, did CMRI ever go through and conditionally reordain all the priests ordained by Shuckhardt? Was that not necessary? What of Bp Pivarunas' consecration by a Thuc line? Concerns there? I think the main argument would be that Thuc wasn't in his right mind?

For whatever reason, Rome seems to see the SSPX consecrations and ords as valid, but not CMRI? I assume because of these reasons.

Any help would be appreciated.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: tdrev123 on October 29, 2014, 01:33:10 AM
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.

I might not have read the right things but

A)if what is Shuckhardt was true, did his intent with such a gravely disordered orientation make for valid ordination?

Then his consecration would have issues and thus any ordinations he performed (Bp Pivarunas).

B)again, possibly not reading the right material to explain, serious concerns brought to my attention about Thuc line, and that is where Bp. pivarunas received his consecration

After the concerns with Schuckhardt, did CMRI ever go through and conditionally reordain all the priests ordained by Shuckhardt? Was that not necessary? What of Bp Pivarunas' consecration by a Thuc line? Concerns there? I think the main argument would be that Thuc wasn't in his right mind?

For whatever reason, Rome seems to see the SSPX consecrations and ords as valid, but not CMRI? I assume because of these reasons.

Any help would be appreciated.


I am fairly certain that every priest has been re-ordained, almost all of the priests were either ordained by Pivarunas or by Bishop McKenna in the first place - I believe that starting from the late '80's Bishop McKenna ordained cmri priests, then Pivarunas after his elevation to the episcopate.    If the priest is older than 50, I would just ask him who ordained him.  
The thuc line is valid -http://thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf

Actually Rome does consider Thuc to be valid.  Malachi Martin received affirmation from a bishop in the vatican that his ordinations are valid, he told this to Rama Coomaswarmy.  Rome doesn't say anything about these ordinations because the Thuc line is almost unanimously sedevacantist, we reject the Pope, why would Rome accept Us?  And who cares what those modernist clowns think??
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on October 29, 2014, 04:13:14 AM
Quote from: Ambrose
Pay no attention to the Baptism of Desire deniers.  Their opinion of CMRI is clouded by their heretical worldview.

They hate CMRI because CMRI defends the 100% of the Faith.   The Feeneyites ripped out a page of their catechism, and attack all of us Catholics who keep the Fath whole and entire.  The CMRI gets the full attack of the Feeneyites and Dimond followers because they have been the most outspoken in defense of these Sacred Doctrines of the Church.

If CMRI today embraced their heresy and like them denied Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, all of these "other issues" they keep bringing up would no longer matter.  It's a side show to distract the uniformed of their real agenda.



Is Bishop Joseph Marie, a CMRI bishop consecrated by your own CMRI founder, a feeneyite? a CMRI hater?

YOUR OWN CMRI BISHOP is the one who emphatically states that the CMRI "cannot possibly be part of the Catholic Church".  

Your own bishop, one who has been within the CMRI since 1977, one who was consecrated a bishop by your own founder, one who should know, is the one who accused CMRIers of committing crimes by being in the CMRI, your own bishop warned you to get out of the CMRI while you're still alive and have the chance to get out. Your own bishop is telling you the CMRI is not a part of the Catholic Church. Is there not one of you willing to answer these charges levied against the CMRI by the bishop?

Do the docuмented words of your own bishop mean so little to you that you COMPLETELY ignore them and re-direct the thread into yet another anti-sede /  feeneyite ad hominems thread?

Not one CMRIer on this thread has even attempted to provide a shred of evidence to discredit the docuмentation and warnings given by YOUR OWN BISHOP.


Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: TKGS on October 29, 2014, 06:45:23 AM
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.

I might not have read the right things but

A)if what is Shuckhardt was true, did his intent with such a gravely disordered orientation make for valid ordination?


No one in the CMRI today traces his ordination through Shuckhardt.  Please listen to the conferences from Bishop Pivarunas on the link I provided on the first page of this topic.  He will recount the history of the CMRI and provide the evidence of the validity and licitness of their orders.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on October 29, 2014, 06:57:10 AM
Quote from: TKGS
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.

I might not have read the right things but

A)if what is Shuckhardt was true, did his intent with such a gravely disordered orientation make for valid ordination?


No one in the CMRI today traces his ordination through Shuckhardt.  Please listen to the conferences from Bishop Pivarunas on the link I provided on the first page of this topic.  He will recount the history of the CMRI and provide the evidence of the validity and licitness of their orders.



So what do you make of Bishop Joseph Marie's warnings?

What makes what he says unreliable, but Bishop Pivarunas' reliable?

Or is it unreasonable to expect devoted CMRIers to come up with reliable evidence against Bishop Joseph Marie's warnings and accusations? - As it is, it seems that all that matters to CMRIers is smells, bells and validity of Orders since warnings from one of their own bishops seem to mean nothing when it is not what they want to hear.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on October 29, 2014, 07:15:11 AM
To TKGS/Ambrose et al


Francis Schuckardt founded the CMRI and that is all one needs to know:



Romans 11:16



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



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schuckardt



And what about infallible Vatican 1?


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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: TKGS on October 29, 2014, 08:52:26 AM
Frankly, it would seem to me that the true "foundation" of the CMRI dates to when its rule was established, and this was done after Schuckardt was ejected from the community.  Prior to that, it was merely an informal association of faithful.  Of course, I don't speak for the CMRI, but the reasoning behind the detraction usually discussed about its origins seem to suggest that if the CMRI were dissolved and the same people constituted a new congregation under a different name, everything would suddenly become acceptable.  This does not make sense to me.

And if that is not correct, then its detractors are saying that there is no hope of redemption for anyone who has a shady past.  I thought that the Catholic Church taught that anyone who sinned can be redeemed.

As for wikipedia, I guess I have to take your concerns more seriously.  After all, they wouldn't allow it on wikipedia if it weren't the absolute truth, now would they?  :facepalm:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on October 29, 2014, 09:27:52 AM
To TKGS


The passage from scripture provides clear instruction for our benefit and you should humbly accept the illumination it gives, namely that God's ordering of human affiars dictates that the root of an organisation will be reflected in its integrity or otherwise. Despite your attempt to sideline the wikepedia, it is an a matter of common understanding that Franicis Schuckardt was a scandalous character. Therefore the deduction about the CMRI is clear!


But the whole situation is resolved by Vatican 1, which I posted and which you avoided commenting upon.


And what about infallible Vatican 1?


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.



The Holy Ghost here immediately dissolves sedevacantism - unless He made in any error in the use of the words "permanent" and "forever"!  On seeing this, all sedevacantists are bound to renounce this error and recognise the conciliar Popes, who whatever one may think about what they say/write/do generally, God has not and will not permit them to promulgate ex-cathedra error.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: TKGS on October 29, 2014, 10:26:44 AM
Re-posting the same thing over and over again is against the rules of CathInfo.  I have gotten your point and, I daresay, virtually everyone who has read this topic has gotten your point.  It's just that your point is worthless.

I think I understand the hatred of the CMRI, though.  Most of the hatred comes from Conciliarist Modernists through and through.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on October 29, 2014, 10:43:13 AM
To TKGS


Seeking to find false defects in your neighbour as a method of distraction from the point, is hardly a pious action.


Why did I re-post the excerpt from Vatican 1? Very obviously, because you have not answered. The question must be, why will you not address the teachings of the Holy Ghost on the permanency of succession?


Why do you not accept this simple assurance?

   

Proverbs 15:10


"Instruction is grievous to him that forsaketh the way of life."



Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 29, 2014, 02:02:41 PM
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.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 29, 2014, 02:08:21 PM
Quote from: andysloan
To TKGS/Ambrose et al


Francis Schuckardt founded the CMRI and that is all one needs to know:



Romans 11:16



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



 


Who founded the Vatican II, novus ordo religion?

The devil himself founded that novus ordo religion known as the ConciLIAR and that is all one needs to know.   :devil2:
 


Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 29, 2014, 02:18:16 PM
In truth, when all this happened DECADES AGO, and as all of you know, Catholics were scattered and not organized.  Over the years Catholics started to find one another and re-group.  Schuckardt purchased Mt. St. Michael's property and yes, Schuckardt actions with his personal sins caused a crisis within the community, however he was ousted which is more than I can say about the criminal, perverts who thrive within the Vatican II, TODAY within your church  AND with the blessings of YOUR POPE FRANCIS.

You turn a blind eye, but God sees you.  


Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on October 29, 2014, 02:22:23 PM
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.”
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 29, 2014, 02:33:38 PM
Archbishop



http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60&catname=13

http://www.the-pope.com/commthuc.html





Better worry about your pope see below:   :scared2:

Trent said:
“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.”

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella 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.  


Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan 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."




Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM 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
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 29, 2014, 03:19:32 PM
http://friarsminor.org/offerings/Archbishop%20Ngo.htm
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Luker 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: TKGS 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.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Matto 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM 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.  

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Iuvenalis 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn 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.

 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: TKGS 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: obediens 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: TKGS 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn 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?
   
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Elizabeth 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn 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?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan 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?"


 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn 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.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Elizabeth 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.







Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM 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.  
   
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan 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



Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM 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!
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: TKGS 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:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan 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?"
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM 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"
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan 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!
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM 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!
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on October 30, 2014, 05:32:58 PM
To MyrnaM,


How can you not have a problem with the SSPX when you are a sedevacantist? The SSPX recognise the pope (as is necessary for salvation!); sedevacantists do not.


Whatever the secret conviction of some in the SSPX, that is irrelevant. What matters is that as Vatican 1 testifies there is a permanent succession and we must be subject to the pope. Therefore, the CMRI is in schism and all must depart for salvation.


As is clear from my earlier post on page 11, accepting valid Popes is not modernist; neither is recognising that the NO is valid (subject to the standard norms).

On the Eucharistic fast; we are obliged to fast for one hour before reception of Holy Communion. This fast is made out of respect for Christ in Holy Communion. Your "give me a break" comment suggests you confuse this act with penitential fasting.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 30, 2014, 06:10:05 PM
Sorry Andy, I believe the pope MUST BE Catholic!  That is Catholic teaching.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Malleus on October 30, 2014, 06:18:44 PM
Cantarella,

Why haven't you answered any of my questions?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 30, 2014, 06:22:56 PM
Quote from: Malleus
Cantarella,

Why haven't you answered any of my questions?


 :popcorn:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on October 30, 2014, 06:27:32 PM
MrynaM said:


"Sorry Andy, I believe the pope MUST BE Catholic! That is Catholic teaching. "


So the Holy Ghost has made an error?


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.


And private judgement on a Pope being a heretic is prohibited!


Matthew 18:15-17

"But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican."



Don't listen to that rebellious CMRI propaganda.


"St. Jerome - in saying that a heretic departs on his own from the Body of Christ - does not preclude the Church's judgment, especially in so grave a matter as is the deposition of a pope. He refers instead to the nature of that crime, which is such as to cut someone off from the Church on its own and without other censure in addition to it - yet only so long as it should be declared by the Church... So long as he has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned" (Theologian - John of St. Thomas d. 1644 RIP)

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 30, 2014, 06:40:57 PM
Quote from: andysloan
MrynaM said:


"Sorry Andy, I believe the pope MUST BE Catholic! That is Catholic teaching. "


So the Holy Ghost has made an error?



That is why the Chair is empty; the Holy Ghost is TRUTH,  those like yourself who think Francis with the novus ordo conciLIAR predecessors are of the Holy Ghost believe the Holy Ghost has erred.  

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on October 30, 2014, 06:55:18 PM
MyrnaM said:

"That is why the Chair is empty;"


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.



Isaias 20:9-11


"For it is a people that provoketh to wrath, and lying children, children that will not hear the law of God. Who say to the seers: See not: and to them that behold: Behold not for us those things that are right: speak unto us pleasant things, see errors for us.
Take away from me the way, turn away the path from me,"



Maybe print off and ask family and friends, what perpetual successors means. And then tell them you believe the chair has been vacant for 50+ years. See what they say.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 30, 2014, 07:45:13 PM
So when the pope dies and in-between the election of the next TRUE pope, I guess we are all anathema.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Malleus on October 30, 2014, 09:03:56 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Malleus
Cantarella,

Why haven't you answered any of my questions?


 :popcorn:


Cantarella is quite the troll isn't she?

All she does is troll around typing whatever and avoiding having honest exchanges.

How can people like her live with themselves?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on October 30, 2014, 09:29:35 PM
Quote from: Malleus
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Malleus
Cantarella,

Why haven't you answered any of my questions?


 :popcorn:


Cantarella is quite the troll isn't she?

All she does is troll around typing whatever and avoiding having honest exchanges.

How can people like her live with themselves?


It is because they live by one standard for themselves and hold other people up to an entirely different set.

The SSPX publishes books and pamphlets just the same as CMRI does against certain errors which have their own subforum. Yet, SSPX gets a pass. I can only figure it is because of this double standard.

The SSPX is ok because these individuals go to mass there, gracing everyone present with their glistening orthodoxy. As if somehow having one of them in the crowd makes up for the all faults, real or perceived of the SSPX.

 The basic principle is: If you are on my team, you are right and good all the time. If you are not on my team you are bad and wrong, no amount of good or right done can ever compensate for not being on my team.

The only thing is that most SSPX or Resistance attendees are not on the same team as these individuals. In fact, Catholics of good-will are all on the same team, even in these times.

You haven't recieved an answer from La Popessa because she's probably busy proof texting and transmitting "doctrine" somewhere out there on the Internet. You won't be likely to receive an answer from the CMRI detractors either, because once their malice and ignorance is exposed, they run off and hide.




Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on October 30, 2014, 09:47:35 PM
MyrnaM said:

"So when the pope dies and in-between the election of the next TRUE pope, I guess we are all anathema."



Not all; sedevacantists are anathema for rejecting the conciliar Popes, despite the Holy Ghost declaring proof of their validity.


As Our Lord lamented:

   

John 8:45


"But if I say the truth, you believe me not."
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on October 30, 2014, 09:51:54 PM
Mabel said:

"You won't be likely to receive an answer from the CMRI detractors either, because once their malice and ignorance is exposed, they run off and hide."


Is there no 8th commandment anymore? Is slander now sin-free?


No wonder you are blinded by God!


Titus 3:10-11


"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:
Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment."



If you dare to look into your conscience that is!
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Marlelar on October 30, 2014, 10:05:58 PM
Quote from: Stubborn

Is Bishop Joseph Marie, a CMRI bishop consecrated by your own CMRI founder, a feeneyite? a CMRI hater?

YOUR OWN CMRI BISHOP is the one who emphatically states that the CMRI "cannot possibly be part of the Catholic Church".  

Your own bishop, one who has been within the CMRI since 1977, one who was consecrated a bishop by your own founder, one who should know, is the one who accused CMRIers of committing crimes by being in the CMRI, your own bishop warned you to get out of the CMRI while you're still alive and have the chance to get out. Your own bishop is telling you the CMRI is not a part of the Catholic Church. Is there not one of you willing to answer these charges levied against the CMRI by the bishop?

Do the docuмented words of your own bishop mean so little to you that you COMPLETELY ignore them and re-direct the thread into yet another anti-sede /  feeneyite ad hominems thread?

Not one CMRIer on this thread has even attempted to provide a shred of evidence to discredit the docuмentation and warnings given by YOUR OWN BISHOP.


Would you provide a link please?  I've never heard this.

Marsha
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on October 30, 2014, 11:24:36 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Mabel
He doesn't claim any authority or jurisdiction, he just helps people and dispenses the sacraments.


Then, the Sacraments are not real, they are all made up. There is more consistency in sedevacantists that stay at home alone on Sundays than the ones that attend counterfeit sects in which there is all "pretend" but no supernatural grace is really given because they are outside the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ. Sorry, but philanthropic and charitable acts do not equal supernatural power to consecrate the Body of Jesus or confer all the other Divine Sacraments, needed for salvation.


Just because our Bishop doesn't go around claiming jurisdiction, doesn't mean he doesn't have it.    God in Heaven has that under control, have a little faith.


Don't let these people confuse you.  It is to Bp. Pivarnuas' credit that he does not in word or deed pretend that he has jurisdiction.  This is what separates him from many of the others, who say they do not have jurisdiction, but give the appearance that they do.

Bp. Pivarunas is in my opinion one of the few that actually "gets it."  He know his role in this crisis and actually lives it.  I see his wisdom pass down to the CMRI priests trained by him, as they all have a correct understanding of their place in the Church and their role as emergency priests in this crisis.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on October 30, 2014, 11:35:43 PM
I find it fascinating to think of exactly who those are who are arrayed against CMRI.

1.  Feeneyites

2.  Dimond Followers

3.  Shuckardists

4.  Concilar Church supporters.

5.  SSPV followers

The more they attack CMRI, the stronger CMRI gets.  The truth is clear for all those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.  Good cannot be long hidden under a bushel basket.

All of these groups are throwing stones from their glass houses.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on October 31, 2014, 02:33:02 AM
Thuc Lineage Flow Chart & comparison to the Society of Saint Pius X.

Does the average sedevacantist care enough for the Truth to seek it earnestly?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2014, 03:08:12 AM
Quote from: Marlelar
Quote from: Stubborn

Is Bishop Joseph Marie, a CMRI bishop consecrated by your own CMRI founder, a feeneyite? a CMRI hater?

YOUR OWN CMRI BISHOP is the one who emphatically states that the CMRI "cannot possibly be part of the Catholic Church".  

Your own bishop, one who has been within the CMRI since 1977, one who was consecrated a bishop by your own founder, one who should know, is the one who accused CMRIers of committing crimes by being in the CMRI, your own bishop warned you to get out of the CMRI while you're still alive and have the chance to get out. Your own bishop is telling you the CMRI is not a part of the Catholic Church. Is there not one of you willing to answer these charges levied against the CMRI by the bishop?

Do the docuмented words of your own bishop mean so little to you that you COMPLETELY ignore them and re-direct the thread into yet another anti-sede /  feeneyite ad hominems thread?

Not one CMRIer on this thread has even attempted to provide a shred of evidence to discredit the docuмentation and warnings given by YOUR OWN BISHOP.


Would you provide a link please?  I've never heard this.

Marsha


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

It turns out that this bishop is not a bishop of the CMRI. He was made a bishop by Schuckardt but beyond that no one knows anything about him.

Initially, I thought he was like a Bishop Williamson, but I was totally wrong.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2014, 04:15:35 AM
Quote from: Ambrose
I find it fascinating to think of exactly who those are who are arrayed against CMRI.

1.  Feeneyites

2.  Dimond Followers

3.  Shuckardists

4.  Concilar Church supporters.

5.  SSPV followers

The more they attack CMRI, the stronger CMRI gets.  The truth is clear for all those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.  Good cannot be long hidden under a bushel basket.

All of these groups are throwing stones from their glass houses.  


You show that you / CMRI do not believe those on your list to be Catholic - - - so with an attitude like that, common among CI CMRIers, why wouldn't you expect an arrayment against the great CMRI - which btw, really and truly was founded upon ecclesiastical crimes - and that is an indisputable fact that CMRIers like to say is no longer an issue. Funny that you don't view yourself as a Schuckardite since without him, there would be no CMRI.

CMRIers here on CI, in this thread, seeming without even realizing it, have in common a type of cult like recorded response to everyone that questions anything about CMRI, but they offer no answer. The common mantra in this thread by the CMRIers is whoever questions CMRI is an automatic "CMRI hater".

 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on October 31, 2014, 07:59:48 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
I find it fascinating to think of exactly who those are who are arrayed against CMRI.

1.  Feeneyites

2.  Dimond Followers

3.  Shuckardists

4.  Concilar Church supporters.

5.  SSPV followers

The more they attack CMRI, the stronger CMRI gets.  The truth is clear for all those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.  Good cannot be long hidden under a bushel basket.

All of these groups are throwing stones from their glass houses.  


You show that you / CMRI do not believe those on your list to be Catholic - - - so with an attitude like that, common among CI CMRIers, why wouldn't you expect an arrayment against the great CMRI - which btw, really and truly was founded upon ecclesiastical crimes - and that is an indisputable fact that CMRIers like to say is no longer an issue. Funny that you don't view yourself as a Schuckardite since without him, there would be no CMRI.

CMRIers here on CI, in this thread, seeming without even realizing it, have in common a type of cult like recorded response to everyone that questions anything about CMRI, but they offer no answer. The common mantra in this thread by the CMRIers is whoever questions CMRI is an automatic "CMRI hater".

 


If by Shukhardt receiving orders through the old Catholics, yes. However, they were locally approved by their bishop in the very beginning.

What then are the crimes of which you are accusing modern day CMRI?

Wait, I forgot, there is the double standard again... No head of another organization ever consecrated FOUR bishops without a papal mandate, right? No bishops and priests of this group that I'm imagining ever set up schools, seminaries, chapels, priories, heard confessions, or ever gave a sermon, either. Oh wait, they would get a pass anyways, because you like them.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on October 31, 2014, 08:09:30 AM
Ambrose said:


"I find it fascinating to think of exactly who those are who are arrayed against CMRI.

1. Feeneyites

2. Dimond Followers

3. Shuckardists

4. Concilar Church supporters.

5. SSPV followers

The more they attack CMRI, the stronger CMRI gets. The truth is clear for all those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. Good cannot be long hidden under a bushel basket.

All of these groups are throwing stones from their glass houses. "




This is just propaganda!

You can add the Holy Ghost to those who hold in enmity the CMRI (and all sedevacantists.)


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.


   

Ecclesiasticus 15:13


"The Lord hateth all abomination of error, and they that fear him shall not love it."




Why don't you just cross-over to the SSPX instead of spending massive amounts of time and effort defending what is so clearly false?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2014, 11:09:10 AM
Quote from: Mabel
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
I find it fascinating to think of exactly who those are who are arrayed against CMRI.

1.  Feeneyites

2.  Dimond Followers

3.  Shuckardists

4.  Concilar Church supporters.

5.  SSPV followers

The more they attack CMRI, the stronger CMRI gets.  The truth is clear for all those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.  Good cannot be long hidden under a bushel basket.

All of these groups are throwing stones from their glass houses.  


You show that you / CMRI do not believe those on your list to be Catholic - - - so with an attitude like that, common among CI CMRIers, why wouldn't you expect an arrayment against the great CMRI - which btw, really and truly was founded upon ecclesiastical crimes - and that is an indisputable fact that CMRIers like to say is no longer an issue. Funny that you don't view yourself as a Schuckardite since without him, there would be no CMRI.

CMRIers here on CI, in this thread, seeming without even realizing it, have in common a type of cult like recorded response to everyone that questions anything about CMRI, but they offer no answer. The common mantra in this thread by the CMRIers is whoever questions CMRI is an automatic "CMRI hater".

 


If by Shukhardt receiving orders through the old Catholics, yes. However, they were locally approved by their bishop in the very beginning.

What then are the crimes of which you are accusing modern day CMRI?

Wait, I forgot, there is the double standard again... No head of another organization ever consecrated FOUR bishops without a papal mandate, right? No bishops and priests of this group that I'm imagining ever set up schools, seminaries, chapels, priories, heard confessions, or ever gave a sermon, either. Oh wait, they would get a pass anyways, because you like them.


No. It has nothing to do with the whole jurisdiction crap. That's a whole other cluster all by itself.
I do not dispute valid orders - and while the whole thing should have nothing whatsoever to do with personal likes or dislikes for the "free pass", that is what CMRIers on this thread have demonstrated is all that matters to them.

Suppose you posted an article from some SSPX bishop who said the same thing Schuckardt's bishop said, only this time it was about the SSPX - do you suppose the SSPXers would all comment back with the same replies of "SSPX Haters!" and nothing else? Would they reply with how great the SSPX really is? Would they reply back showing how dedicated SSPX priests are & etc. - yet never even acknowledge the accusations posted by one who was claiming to be one of their own bishops?  

Well, that's what CMRIers did until 11 pages later, and even then it wasn't until after having to push at least three more times within those 11 pages to get someone, anyone to even acknowledge the accusations.

Or do you suppose the CI SSPXers would immediately strive FIRST to post something to discredit the accusations - or at least acknowledge and not ignore them?

If they did completely ignore them, what would that say about the SSPX to you?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: PG on October 31, 2014, 12:01:05 PM
The resistance needs to be added to that list of those critical of the cmri.  Fr. chazal in a recent conference used the cmri as an example of how not all of tradition is traditional.  He spoke of how liberalism is in the cmri, and how their members are abusing rythm and NFP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cldzprmtJєω

At 24 mins in Fr. Chazal speaks about the cmri.  If the link doesn't work, this is from aug 17th brisbon AU 2014 conference.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: PG on October 31, 2014, 12:03:55 PM
Fr. Pfieffer also shared with me personally his opinion that the cmri have a "dark spirit".
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on October 31, 2014, 12:19:14 PM
Quote from: + PG +
The resistance needs to be added to that list of those critical of the cmri.  Fr. chazal in a recent conference used the cmri as an example of how not all of tradition is traditional.  He spoke of how liberalism is in the cmri, and how their members are abusing rythm and NFP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cldzprmtJєω

At 24 mins in Fr. Chazal speaks about the cmri.  If the link doesn't work, this is from aug 17th brisbon AU 2014 conference.  


Yes, there is more to the whole CMRI story but there really is no use in posting it because it will do no good. CMRIers do not want to hear it.

It's best if one of their own actually look into the whole matter and discover for themselves what they are supporting.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: papercut on October 31, 2014, 03:18:50 PM
Stubborn's irreproachable witness here also believes Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't even a valid priest!

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

Sounds like a totally reasonable guy.  :roll-laugh1:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on October 31, 2014, 05:09:32 PM
Quote from: + PG +
Fr. Pfieffer also shared with me personally his opinion that the cmri have a "dark spirit".


If we are going to talk about things said to us, Fr. Pfieffer told me that Feeneyites were heretics. He has also said some surprising things about others involved in the Resistance. I think anyone who has met him knows what he is like.

Ask Fr. Chazal if he has ever talked to Bishop Pivarunas or any of the CMRI clergy on the matter.

----------

How to be an authority on CMRI:
1. Never attend their masses
2. Never interview or speak with their clergy or religious
3. Do not own or subscribe to any of their publications
4. Never speak to any laity involved with CMRI
5. Do not extend any good will or benefit of the doubt towards CMRI
6. Do all research and investigations through Google and Wikipedia
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on October 31, 2014, 05:23:24 PM
+PG+ said:


"Fr. Pfieffer also shared with me personally his opinion that the cmri have a "dark spirit"

This one:

Romans 11:8

"As it is written: God hath given them the spirit of insensibility; eyes that they should not see; and ears that they should not hear."

Hence, perpetual means not perpetual.

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.




Mabel, you don't need to do tremendous research on the CMRI to know it; their status is emphatically declared by God in the last line of the above promulgation!
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: PG on October 31, 2014, 06:20:50 PM
Mabel - don't shoot the messenger.  I just don't want people to be confused into thinking the sspx/resistance isn't also critical of the cmri.  Because, CI cmri members like ambrose go around saying that they are in "communion", which is a lie.  

An undeniable problem that I see with the cmri, and this is serious, is that they invalidate everything in the NO without doubt and with the surety of dogma.  They flat out say that everything is invalid!  That is a clear sign IMO that they are usurpers and in all honesty a cult.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 31, 2014, 08:40:25 PM
Quote from: + PG +
Mabel - don't shoot the messenger.  I just don't want people to be confused into thinking the sspx/resistance isn't also critical of the cmri.  Because, CI cmri members like ambrose go around saying that they are in "communion", which is a lie.  

An undeniable problem that I see with the cmri, and this is serious, is that they invalidate everything in the NO without doubt and with the surety of dogma.  They flat out say that everything is invalid!  That is a clear sign IMO that they are usurpers and in all honesty a cult.


Of course the NO them self declare this; even NO stands for New Order, with a new form of worship, new prayers, new hymns, and omission of many doctrines, just ask any child who attends a NO Catholic school.  Ask them what is Sanctifying grace?  Ask them to define mortal sin, ask them basic questions to see yourself it is a new religion, of which CMRI want NOTHING to do with; if that offends you, sorry!

Yes, SSPX/ resistance is very critical of CMRI, because they don't have the backbone to face  the truth, YET!
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on October 31, 2014, 08:47:53 PM
MyrnaM said:


"Yes, SSPX/ resistance is very critical of CMRI, because they don't have the backbone to face  the truth"




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.



Mark 6:6


"And he wondered because of their unbelief"

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on October 31, 2014, 09:15:51 PM
To sum up, "bishop" Parivunas who ordains the CMRI priests apparently, is at best illicit and probably schismatic. The lineage comes from the Old Catholics (declared schismatics by the Church) which could not have been reconciled by another schismatic Bishop Musey (who tried to claim a territory and set up a parallel church);he was ordained by this bishop and then consecrated himself as a bishop by Bishop Carmona who was also illicit as most likely all Thuc consecrations are.

The fact that the Schuckardt group asked a bishop to reconcile it says a lot about the fact that they were indeed schismatic and they knew it. The sad part is that these poor souls asked a yet another schismatic bishop, Bishop Musey to correct their schismatic situation.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on October 31, 2014, 09:42:59 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
To sum up, "bishop" Parivunas who ordains the CMRI priests apparently, is at best illicit and probably schismatic. The lineage comes from the Old Catholics (declared schismatics by the Church) which could not have been reconciled by another schismatic Bishop Musey (who tried to claim a territory and set up a parallel church);he was ordained by this bishop and then consecrated himself as a bishop by Bishop Carmona who was also illicit as most likely all Thuc consecrations are.

The fact that the Schuckardt group asked a bishop to reconcile it says a lot about the fact that they were indeed schismatic and they knew it. The sad part is that these poor souls asked a yet another schismatic bishop, Bishop Musey to correct their schismatic situation.


It has been well established that Bishop Pivarunas' lines do not come from the Old Catholics. To perpetuate this notion is an outright lie. Therefore, you are a liar. I hope you go to confession.

Secondly, I know that Bp.Vezelis did in fact claim jurisdiction, as I have verbal testimony from those who dealt with him. I have not seen any evidence as such regarding Musey, other than Griff Ruby's work, that is not to say he didn't, but I've never met anyone who directly dealt with him who has told me so. Even if he did, he did so in error and presumably good faith.

As you know, or probably don't given your complete ignorance of the traditional movement, the SSPX in the United States was divided into two separate districts. So, if we are going to accuse Musey and Vezelis of dividing up the pie, we have to accuse the SSPX of the same. Wow, is this another double standard?

Lastly, the southern district superior of the SSPX installed two Old Catholics in a chapel before they were conditionally ordained. It was quite the controversy. Vezelis also did the same thing. Now, I'm not defending either action, but if you are going to use this as evidence against the CMRI, you should be making the same complaints about the SSPX.

Also, Musey was allegedly excommunicated by JP2, I have no clue as to whether he received any formal letter. The point is that another great and pious man was also excommunicated by JP2, you might be familiar with him. This man also set up territories, chapels, and so forth. He consecrated four bishops without permission from Rome. I will leave it to you and your Google search skills to figure that one out.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 01, 2014, 03:41:27 AM
Validity of ordinations / consecrations is something which can be speculated about forever because under the circuмstances, there is no way to prove validity or invalidity.

On the CMRI website, they say in more than one place that the CMRI traces it's roots 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."

So for those CMRIers who claim that all ties have been severed and that there are no longer any ties to the Schuckardt CMRI, your own website begs to differ.

We know Schuckardt started CMRI and was the man in charge was for 17 years, Schuckardt, who was a layman, who with no formal seminary training was ordained a priest in 1971 and a day later was consecrated a bishop. After some 17 years as the head (1967-1984), Pivarunas and others ended up  ousting him, allegedly because of his scandals having to do with impurity and drugs - not for being a heretic or anything to do with the faith.

Had he been ousted because he changed his belief and tried to perpetrate this new heretical belief on his congregation, that would be another situation altogether, but that was not the case - which is why even today the CMRI maintain the 1967 date as their inception and advertise that date rather than 1989(?), the supposed time frame that CMRI severed all ties with Schuckardt according to CIer supporters of CMRI.

So the CMRIers here should agree that CMRI even today maintains that the tree planted by Schuckardt remains. Today's CMRI is not a new tree. Per their website, it is the same tree which was planted by Schuckardt in 1967.  


Lets do one more..........


According to the CMRI website, Pivarunas entered CMRI in 1974 and was ordained a priest in 1985. That's all they say about that.

On the CMRI website, they call the seminary training of Bishop Pivarunas "usual"........." Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training, displaying proficiency in philosophy and in dogmatic and moral theology. Having received the commendation of his superiors for his progress in both virtue and learning, he was ordained to the priesthood on June 27, 1985, by the Most Reverend George Musey."

It has gone on uncontested that Schuckardt never had formal seminary training, yet Schuckardt was bishop Pivarunas' mentor, his "seminary trainer" for the years prior to his ordination. So unless Schuckardt himself is considered a seminary offering "the usual seminary training", or unless he actually had formal seminary training somewhere else and they failed to mention it, Pivarunas never had formal seminary training either.

Hopefully someone can prove this is wrong - or right, with some reliable evidence.


   
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: TKGS on November 01, 2014, 07:50:29 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Hopefully someone can prove this is wrong - or right, with some reliable evidence.    


Listen to the talks given by Bishop Pivarunas at the Fatima Conferences that are available on the link I provided on the first page of this topic.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 01, 2014, 09:40:47 AM
TKGS, the enemies of God will not listen, the question here as far as I am concerned, are these people who so hate CMRI knowing what they are doing, or are they like St. Paul who persecute in God's name, thinking they are doing good, while offending Him.

It seems to me for the moment, they are void of grace.  

They complain if on the CMRI web site is written what happened, and then beg that it be changed into a lie, so they can complain again.  Like I said, void of grace.  

 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on November 01, 2014, 11:06:08 AM
To MyrnaM,



When seated on your high throne of glory in heaven, should you see any of us "enemies of God" coming for judgement, perhaps you might mercifully intercede for us, for it is not the greatest error to believe the words "perpetual" and "forever" as stated in Vatican 1 regarding the pontifical successors, mean what is commonly understood.


1 Timothy 6:3-5


"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions,  Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth, supposing gain to be godliness."


In exchange, you can be certain of our most diligent service and honour, in which you will delight, because you will have attained the end for which you hold to your heresy.


"a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit, especially that he may lord and be honored above others." Therefore heresy is a species of pride rather than of unbelief." - St Augustine quoted by St Thomas


Many congratulations to you for gaining elite status!
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 01, 2014, 11:41:46 AM
Quote from: andysloan
To MyrnaM,



When seated on your high throne of glory in heaven, should you see any of us "enemies of God" coming for judgement, perhaps you might mercifully intercede for us, for it is not the greatest error to believe the words "perpetual" and "forever" as stated in Vatican 1 regarding the pontifical successors, mean what is commonly understood.


You are an enemy because you repeat the same things, and refuse to even read the CMRI web site about "perpetual" and what it means.  I know you refuse to read it, because you just repeat your same words, and do not even bother to refute what the CMRI site says, therefore it is obvious that you do not even want to see, you just want to spread your Modernist ways, and that is an enemy of God, Modernism.

When you stand before God, as I will, you will be on your own.  I make no judgement on your soul, because as long as you are still breathing, God is not done with you.    

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 01, 2014, 11:50:21 AM
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Stubborn
Hopefully someone can prove this is wrong - or right, with some reliable evidence.    


Listen to the talks given by Bishop Pivarunas at the Fatima Conferences that are available on the link I provided on the first page of this topic.  


This is probably the best thing to do. I haven't listened to it myself but I have interviewed several priests and nuns on the matter. They are quite open about it, they don't have anything to hide.



Obstinate:
They do trace their beginnings back to the 60s for several reasons, there are some original people in the religious order. L

I know making distinctions is not your strong point but there is a difference in sharing a common history and later becoming a separate organization.

I don't know what else to tell you, after their split with Shukhardt they cleaned house, reformed the order, recieved conditional holy orders and set things on a proper trajectory.

They were right and just to oust Shukhardt. There are just so many reasons. I don't think the ecclesiastical crime is even an angle, considering the man wasn't likely a valid bishop, and his usurpation of all sorts of powers, including ones not given to ordinary bishops. He wasn't just simply immoral, it goes way beyond that.

If the narrative and explanations given online by CMRI is not enough information for you, I suggest you call Mater Dei or Mount Saint Michael's. Tell them you are confused about their history and would like clarification. You might also keep in mind that they are extremely busy with their duties and commitments, like bringing sacraments to people like my family after hours of flying and driving. They may not have time to return your call right away. You owe it to them, in justice, to learn the truth so that you may repudiate your attempts to harm their good name.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on November 01, 2014, 12:01:44 PM
To MyrnaM


Vatican 1:session 4:


The Holy Ghost states:

"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


CMRI website:


You will immediately realize that, no, Our Lord very obviously did not establish that kind of “perpetual succession”  Fr. Martin Stepanich, O.F.M



Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on November 01, 2014, 12:09:16 PM
Mabel said:


"You might also keep in mind that they are extremely busy with their duties and commitments, like bringing sacraments to people like my family after hours of flying and driving."

   

Matthew 23:15

"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves."



Don't worry, if you call them and they discern they can hook you into the sect, they will find the time.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 01, 2014, 12:25:30 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
TKGS, the enemies of God will not listen, the question here as far as I am concerned, are these people who so hate CMRI knowing what they are doing, or are they like St. Paul who persecute in God's name, thinking they are doing good, while offending Him.

It seems to me for the moment, they are void of grace.  

They complain if on the CMRI web site is written what happened, and then beg that it be changed into a lie, so they can complain again.  Like I said, void of grace.  

 


Well you've given that same canned answer a few times already - only proves what I said:
Quote from: Stubborn
CMRIers here on CI, in this thread, seeming without even realizing it, have in common a type of cult like recorded response to everyone that questions anything about CMRI, but they offer no answer. The common mantra in this thread by the CMRIers is whoever questions CMRI is an automatic "CMRI hater".



In charity, as a CMRI unofficial representative, can you even answer the question of where your own leader received his formal seminary training?




Quote from: Mabel
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Stubborn
Hopefully someone can prove this is wrong - or right, with some reliable evidence.    


Listen to the talks given by Bishop Pivarunas at the Fatima Conferences that are available on the link I provided on the first page of this topic.  


This is probably the best thing to do. I haven't listened to it myself but I have interviewed several priests and nuns on the matter. They are quite open about it, they don't have anything to hide.



Obstinate:
They do trace their beginnings back to the 60s for several reasons, there are some original people in the religious order. L

I know making distinctions is not your strong point but there is a difference in sharing a common history and later becoming a separate organization.

I don't know what else to tell you, after their split with Shukhardt they cleaned house, reformed the order, recieved conditional holy orders and set things on a proper trajectory.

They were right and just to oust Shukhardt. There are just so many reasons. I don't think the ecclesiastical crime is even an angle, considering the man wasn't likely a valid bishop, and his usurpation of all sorts of powers, including ones not given to ordinary bishops. He wasn't just simply immoral, it goes way beyond that.

If the narrative and explanations given online by CMRI is not enough information for you, I suggest you call Mater Dei or Mount Saint Michael's. Tell them you are confused about their history and would like clarification. You might also keep in mind that they are extremely busy with their duties and commitments, like bringing sacraments to people like my family after hours of flying and driving. They may not have time to return your call right away. You owe it to them, in justice, to learn the truth so that you may repudiate your attempts to harm their good name.



No, the information on their website is not enough for me and considering what happened, it certainly should not be enough for you or anyone who supports the CMRI. If the only reason they ousted Schuckardt was due to his immorality, then the tie to him remains - not by ordination but by formation - do you get that?

I don't have the time to listen to tapes and I am not asking a trick question - I would think that for CMRIers it would be a relatively easy matter to settle the issue because THEY SHOULD ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT OBVIOUSLY, NOT ONE OF THEM DO.

Again, some accusations are presented and all we get for answers is: find out yourself or "CMRI hater!" - do you consider those an answer?

I hope those who are sitting on the fence are understanding whats going on here.

It is as I said, these issues with CMRI (and many more) are taken as being mean spirited and are taken as some type of insult by these CMRI supporters when it is not what the resident CMRIers want to hear or have not faced because they don't want to know the answer. . . . . they will dodge the questions as often as they are asked -or unless one of them FINALLY discovers the truth is not really so bad as they thought it might have been.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 01, 2014, 12:52:00 PM
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Stubborn
Hopefully someone can prove this is wrong - or right, with some reliable evidence.    


Listen to the talks given by Bishop Pivarunas at the Fatima Conferences that are available on the link I provided on the first page of this topic.  


Yes, listen to the biased talks given by Bishop Piravunas in which he demonstrates the seminary training of Bishop Piravunas. Very reliable :rolleyes:.

In the mean time, not CMRI is capable of giving straight answers to prove anything.  We are asked to read / listen to the CMRI propaganda instead. Is it because the average CMRI is just happy to find "smells and bells" on Sundays without even caring about the issue of "apostolicity", one of the marks of the True Church?

Our duty is the study of our Faith and ignorance will not be an excuse.

Quote from: Myrna

TKGS, the enemies of God will not listen


The enemies of the CMRI are the enemies of GOD now? wow, talking about cultish behavior...
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 01, 2014, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
TKGS, the enemies of God will not listen, the question here as far as I am concerned, are these people who so hate CMRI knowing what they are doing, or are they like St. Paul who persecute in God's name, thinking they are doing good, while offending Him.

It seems to me for the moment, they are void of grace.  

They complain if on the CMRI web site is written what happened, and then beg that it be changed into a lie, so they can complain again.  Like I said, void of grace.  

 


Well you've given that same canned answer a few times already - only proves what I said:
Quote from: Stubborn
CMRIers here on CI, in this thread, seeming without even realizing it, have in common a type of cult like recorded response to everyone that questions anything about CMRI, but they offer no answer. The common mantra in this thread by the CMRIers is whoever questions CMRI is an automatic "CMRI hater".



In charity, as a CMRI unofficial representative, can you even answer the question of where your own leader received his formal seminary training?




Quote from: Mabel
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Stubborn
Hopefully someone can prove this is wrong - or right, with some reliable evidence.    


Listen to the talks given by Bishop Pivarunas at the Fatima Conferences that are available on the link I provided on the first page of this topic.  


This is probably the best thing to do. I haven't listened to it myself but I have interviewed several priests and nuns on the matter. They are quite open about it, they don't have anything to hide.



Obstinate:
They do trace their beginnings back to the 60s for several reasons, there are some original people in the religious order. L

I know making distinctions is not your strong point but there is a difference in sharing a common history and later becoming a separate organization.

I don't know what else to tell you, after their split with Shukhardt they cleaned house, reformed the order, recieved conditional holy orders and set things on a proper trajectory.

They were right and just to oust Shukhardt. There are just so many reasons. I don't think the ecclesiastical crime is even an angle, considering the man wasn't likely a valid bishop, and his usurpation of all sorts of powers, including ones not given to ordinary bishops. He wasn't just simply immoral, it goes way beyond that.

If the narrative and explanations given online by CMRI is not enough information for you, I suggest you call Mater Dei or Mount Saint Michael's. Tell them you are confused about their history and would like clarification. You might also keep in mind that they are extremely busy with their duties and commitments, like bringing sacraments to people like my family after hours of flying and driving. They may not have time to return your call right away. You owe it to them, in justice, to learn the truth so that you may repudiate your attempts to harm their good name.



No, the information on their website is not enough for me and considering what happened, it certainly should not be enough for you or anyone who supports the CMRI. If the only reason they ousted Schuckardt was due to his immorality, then the tie to him remains - not by ordination but by formation - do you get that?

I don't have the time to listen to tapes and I am not asking a trick question - I would think that for CMRIers it would be a relatively easy matter to settle the issue because THEY SHOULD ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT OBVIOUSLY, NOT ONE OF THEM DO.

Again, some accusations are presented and all we get for answers is: find out yourself or "CMRI hater!" - do you consider those an answer?

I hope those who are sitting on the fence are understanding whats going on here.

It is as I said, these issues with CMRI (and many more) are taken as being mean spirited and are taken as some type of insult by these CMRI supporters when it is not what the resident CMRIers want to hear or have not faced because they don't want to know the answer. . . . . they will dodge the questions as often as they are asked -or unless one of them FINALLY discovers the truth is not really so bad as they thought it might have been.



Obstinate:
You don't have time to listen to them address your concerns? I'd say you don't have time to have those concerns then.

There are other reasons besides the immorality, I already told you that. If I detail those reasons, I worry that I might not remember the details exactly as I was told, it has been a very long time since I first visited this issue. Why?  I looked into CMRI long and hard before I went to their mass and dealt with them. I've read everything and settled it for myself.

I've never said that their formation and training wasn't largely influenced by Shuckardt, no one denies that he wasn't a huge part of their lives. The thing is that they took time to rectify the situation. If you want the particulars of what that entailed, every little detail, like I said, you will have to speak to them. I have already done my own part and questioned them personally on all of the issues. However, since I am obviously dealing with such bad-willed people, if I answer you incorrectly, or even to the best of my knowledge, you will take the worst of it. You already did that when you posted that article some many pages back. You didn't even know the name of the CMRI bishop. But now you've taken a cursory glance and you are the expert, only you are so busy being an expert that you don't have any time to research the matter and go to primary sources--which would be interviewing and contacting living witnesses.

We all know this is only about one thing, your little pet heresy. If they held to your heresy, they would be irreproachable.

Maybe you should offer a thread about all the scandals at the various Saint Benedict Centers?

You are an extremely unjust man and you have poor research skills to match your poorly formed intellect. It speaks volumes about you as to who are your enemies and your friends, especially how you treat your perceived enemies.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 01, 2014, 03:44:57 PM
Look Cantarella, a question was asked on this thread hopefully in good faith, and why not go right to what CMRI them self has to say, what is wrong with that recommendation for anyone who really wants to know.  You call that biased. Nothing but bad will and showing your true colors loud and clear.  

Your method of operation here on CI:   first you  falsely accuse CMRI of everything that your POPE does, especially when it comes to breaking of the First Commandment.  That is hypocritical and you have lost all credibility and integrity, I would think you should know better.  Why not spend your energy on correcting YOUR OWN POPE.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 01, 2014, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Stubborn
Hopefully someone can prove this is wrong - or right, with some reliable evidence.    


Listen to the talks given by Bishop Pivarunas at the Fatima Conferences that are available on the link I provided on the first page of this topic.  


Yes, listen to the biased talks given by Bishop Piravunas in which he demonstrates the seminary training of Bishop Piravunas. Very reliable :rolleyes:.

In the mean time, not CMRI is capable of giving straight answers to prove anything.  We are asked to read / listen to the CMRI propaganda instead. Is it because the average CMRI is just happy to find "smells and bells" on Sundays without even caring about the issue of "apostolicity", one of the marks of the True Church?

Our duty is the study of our Faith and ignorance will not be an excuse.

Quote from: Myrna

TKGS, the enemies of God will not listen


The enemies of the CMRI are the enemies of GOD now? wow, talking about cultish behavior...


If you cannot take someone at their word, what good is your own? Why should we trust you that he cannot be trusted to relay the history of his own life and affairs? So you, who could not even spell the name of a man you have never met, are now an expert of his life.

CMRI can't give you any answers Cantarella, nothing they say will ever satisfy you.

Please explain to all of us, for our benefit, how you submit to your local ordinary and fulfill your obligations toward the Church and God.

Ignorance is much more easily forgiven than malice and deception.

And secondly, just the fact that you would even dare to speak to an elderly person who has been a mother, a grandmother, and a well-respected woman shows again that you do not know your place. Everyone who knows Myrna, knows that she has a good reputation and that she is an outstanding Catholic. Just the fact that you would even show her such disrespect is sickening. You entire attitude towards your enemies is, in fact sickening and unCatholic.

Instead of devoting so much time to CMRI, why don't you look into yourself and your faults and hypocrisy and, as others have suggested, learn your place. People who cannot be just, accurate, or fair to their opponent should not be getting into these issues. You should just stick to your wine and popcorn.

Due to the nature sins against other people here on this forum, I am correcting you publicly. This is not something that I normally do, but as I believe you often wrong others on here, I think it is necessary. I know others here have the same observations, you are causing other people to think you are bad-willed and malicious, not only have you injured others but also yourself. I cannot even read your innoucous posts without my stomach turning because I've seen the evil things you have said.

I will go on defending CMRI. I will defend any good Catholic, especially the kind-hearted and good-willed, no matter where they go to mass or even if their beliefs on the state of the Church differ from my own. We are all Catholics, we aren't enemies, there isn't any justification for viciousness or malice.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 01, 2014, 04:06:48 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Look Cantarella, a question was asked on this thread hopefully in good faith, and why not go right to what CMRI them self has to say, what is wrong with that recommendation for anyone who really wants to know.  You call that biased. Nothing but bad will and showing your true colors loud and clear.  

Your method of operation here on CI:   first you  falsely accuse CMRI of everything that your POPE does, especially when it comes to breaking of the First Commandment.  That is hypocritical and you have lost all credibility and integrity, I would think you should know better.  Why not spend your energy on correcting YOUR OWN POPE.



Myrna,
What you say is unforunately, very true. I'm afraid that no explanation will suffice. It is too bad, because even if Catholics who differ on these matters left one another in peace, much more good could be accomplished.

It is very difficult to watch the good names of others tarnished so unjustly. The crazy thing is that CMRI and even people that go to their masses have never done anything to these people personally.

I know that it doesn't mean much, but it truly pains me to see someone like you disrespected, even though I'm sure you are gaining much merit. The wicked always hate the good.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on November 01, 2014, 05:06:08 PM
To MyrnaM/Mabel


As we see from your writings:

2 Peter 3:2-3

"And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.  And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you."


It is an act of charity to seek to withdraw you from your error:


Jude 1:22-23

"And some indeed reprove, being judged: But others save, pulling them out of the fire. And on others have mercy, in fear,"



"He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place."
(God the Father - Dialogues; Treatise on Obedience)


James 5:20



"He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins."


Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 01, 2014, 05:15:45 PM
Mabel thank you, but I don't really deserve your kind words, and not to worry about them hurting me, I have a very thick skin when it comes to defending the Church.

I must say that this quote of your really made my day.

Quote
You should just stick to your wine and popcorn.
   :roll-laugh1:

Its time for me to leave this thread before I say something I regret to people who do not want an answer anyway.   :smash-pc:
 


Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 01, 2014, 05:17:27 PM
When one must recourse to personal attacks, one have already lost all argument...which is the problem with the 99.9 of sedevacantists here and the reason why any discussion with them is pointless.

Anyone who can read these threads objectively can see that once the error of sedevacantism is exposed, sedevacantists can only respond with insults which attack the person instead of the post.  

My posts are written on a general level and are not intended to hurt anyone personally but merely expose the error, however, the same respect is never showed to me by the sedevacantists who feel offended with my posts, which is fine with me given that Cathinfo is not a personal venue for me by any means, but more of an entertaining intellectual exercise.

If Mabel is unable to read what I have to say about the errors of sedevacantism or the schismatic condition of the CMRI without taking it that personally, (just as I can calmly read about the unfounded charges of heresy of Saint Benedict Center), then the problem is hers and not mine and she probably should not be upsetting herself by reading these threads.  

By the way, there is a HIDE button in case you really feel indisposed to read my posts Mabel, and cannot compose yourself and your prompt need of "correcting" me.

Take a deep breath, lady and have some tea or maybe a glass of wine and popcorn would do you some good.   :popcorn:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 01, 2014, 05:45:03 PM
Quote from: Mabel


Obstinate:
You don't have time to listen to them address your concerns? I'd say you don't have time to have those concerns then.

There are other reasons besides the immorality, I already told you that. If I detail those reasons, I worry that I might not remember the details exactly as I was told, it has been a very long time since I first visited this issue. Why?  I looked into CMRI long and hard before I went to their mass and dealt with them. I've read everything and settled it for myself.

I've never said that their formation and training wasn't largely influenced by Shuckardt, no one denies that he wasn't a huge part of their lives. The thing is that they took time to rectify the situation. If you want the particulars of what that entailed, every little detail, like I said, you will have to speak to them. I have already done my own part and questioned them personally on all of the issues. However, since I am obviously dealing with such bad-willed people, if I answer you incorrectly, or even to the best of my knowledge, you will take the worst of it. You already did that when you posted that article some many pages back. You didn't even know the name of the CMRI bishop. But now you've taken a cursory glance and you are the expert, only you are so busy being an expert that you don't have any time to research the matter and go to primary sources--which would be interviewing and contacting living witnesses.

We all know this is only about one thing, your little pet heresy. If they held to your heresy, they would be irreproachable.

Maybe you should offer a thread about all the scandals at the various Saint Benedict Centers?

You are an extremely unjust man and you have poor research skills to match your poorly formed intellect. It speaks volumes about you as to who are your enemies and your friends, especially how you treat your perceived enemies.



One thing we can say with certainty is that you obviously have no idea if your leader ever had formal seminary training and you couldn't care one way or the other.

Schuckardt's  ousting was not entirely due to his immorality - true, I never said it was. I said I didn't care about the ordinations and that this is primarily about the claim from the CMRI sect that there are no ties to Schuckardt - which your own web site, while not explicitly saying so, says so - and obviously so - but you will dodge this fact any way you can rather than admit it.

Again, rather than answer a clear question with a clear answer, you resort to side tracking, weaseling and ad hominems - but I am the unjust man for asking the question and staying that course until one of you weasels answer.

The fact remains that you submit to a bishop who learned the faith he and his priests preaches today from Schuckardt - yet you claim there are no ties to Schuckardt, as if the re-ordinations erased Pivarunas' 10 years of Schuckardt indoctrination and formation.

You guys are absolutely acting like you've been programmed to give the same response to whoever questions CMRI.

Pivarunas  is your bishop and leader, I challenge you to find out where your bishop received his seminary formation from.

If that challenge is still offensive to you - there is something wrong with you - and Myrna and TKGS and the other CMRIers who offer no answer but rather all  take the same offense at a pertinent subject, particularly for those contemplating attending CMRI. If you cannot see that, I am telling you that based on your reply that there is something terribly wrong with you - it seems like cult brainwashing.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on November 01, 2014, 06:47:23 PM
They all know very well it is false; but fundamental to a sect is that the members all count themselves in some measure, superior to those outside.

The strength of this vanity in the soul and the pleasure derived from the self-exaltation is so great, that it is very difficult to get them to surrender it. Seeing the doctrinal distinction as their own glory, they fight tooth & nail against those who reasonably correct them. Even so do they discard right reason, trampling over/ignoring the most simple proofs evidencing against them and also the law of Christ (to Whom supposedly they are faithful to) in their scorning opponents, even so far as to call them evil in definition of opposing them.


It is a very serious issue, because these people are in a state of damnation as God the Father makes clear to St Catherine of Siena, in one of my earlier posts.

As for Francis Schukardt:


Romans 11:16


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


2 Peter 2:1


"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition,



Case closed for anyone of good sense; but God gave us all free-will.   

Osee 13:9


"Destruction is thy own, O Israel"
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Croix de Fer on November 01, 2014, 07:09:31 PM
I'm pretty much a sedeprivationist, and I've never been to a CMRI chapel, but I still think CMRI is most definitely among the remnant of the true Catholic Faith / Church. I love CMRI.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on November 01, 2014, 07:42:00 PM
Ascent said:

"I'm pretty much a sedeprivationist."



It's satan who creates all these terms, fanning people's vanity, to try to splinter unity. God keeps everything very simple.


2 Corinthians 11:3


"But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ."



The Holy Ghost has spoken in Vatican 1. End of story. You don't have to agree with everything the Pope says or does. God will keep him from any dogmatic error.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 01, 2014, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Mabel


Obstinate:
You don't have time to listen to them address your concerns? I'd say you don't have time to have those concerns then.

There are other reasons besides the immorality, I already told you that. If I detail those reasons, I worry that I might not remember the details exactly as I was told, it has been a very long time since I first visited this issue. Why?  I looked into CMRI long and hard before I went to their mass and dealt with them. I've read everything and settled it for myself.

I've never said that their formation and training wasn't largely influenced by Shuckardt, no one denies that he wasn't a huge part of their lives. The thing is that they took time to rectify the situation. If you want the particulars of what that entailed, every little detail, like I said, you will have to speak to them. I have already done my own part and questioned them personally on all of the issues. However, since I am obviously dealing with such bad-willed people, if I answer you incorrectly, or even to the best of my knowledge, you will take the worst of it. You already did that when you posted that article some many pages back. You didn't even know the name of the CMRI bishop. But now you've taken a cursory glance and you are the expert, only you are so busy being an expert that you don't have any time to research the matter and go to primary sources--which would be interviewing and contacting living witnesses.

We all know this is only about one thing, your little pet heresy. If they held to your heresy, they would be irreproachable.

Maybe you should offer a thread about all the scandals at the various Saint Benedict Centers?

You are an extremely unjust man and you have poor research skills to match your poorly formed intellect. It speaks volumes about you as to who are your enemies and your friends, especially how you treat your perceived enemies.



One thing we can say with certainty is that you obviously have no idea if your leader ever had formal seminary training and you couldn't care one way or the other.

Schuckardt's  ousting was not entirely due to his immorality - true, I never said it was. I said I didn't care about the ordinations and that this is primarily about the claim from the CMRI sect that there are no ties to Schuckardt - which your own web site, while not explicitly saying so, says so - and obviously so - but you will dodge this fact any way you can rather than admit it.

Again, rather than answer a clear question with a clear answer, you resort to side tracking, weaseling and ad hominems - but I am the unjust man for asking the question and staying that course until one of you weasels answer.

The fact remains that you submit to a bishop who learned the faith he and his priests preaches today from Schuckardt - yet you claim there are no ties to Schuckardt, as if the re-ordinations erased Pivarunas' 10 years of Schuckardt indoctrination and formation.

You guys are absolutely acting like you've been programmed to give the same response to whoever questions CMRI.

Pivarunas  is your bishop and leader, I challenge you to find out where your bishop received his seminary formation from.

If that challenge is still offensive to you - there is something wrong with you - and Myrna and TKGS and the other CMRIers who offer no answer but rather all  take the same offense at a pertinent subject, particularly for those contemplating attending CMRI. If you cannot see that, I am telling you that based on your reply that there is something terribly wrong with you - it seems like cult brainwashing.



Other than your agenda to attack and attempt to discredit CMRI, what has caused you to question Bp. Pivarunas seminary training over 3 decades ago?

Have you noticed that he fails to follow rubrics during the Mass?  Have you seen any defect in his understanding of theology or Canon Law?  Have you seen him or heard of him behaving in a manner unbecoming of a priest?

I know it is none of these, so why not be honest and tell us the real reason why you are going after Bp. Pivarunas.  From my standpoint, my guess is that you detest his defense of the twin Catholic teachings on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, and also his reaction to the crisis in the Church using Catholic principles that lead to the conclusion that there is a vacant see.

This has nothing to do with Bp. Pivarunas and the CMRI, it has everything to do with your worldview shaped by your Feeneyite and sedeplenist ideas.  

I don't have a problem with sedeplenists, only dogmatic sedeplenists.  This thread shows the horrible fruits of this error.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on November 01, 2014, 08:44:30 PM
To Ambrose

You always come across as somewhat statesman-like in your writings, but you share the same common-guilt as the others.

CMRI is a schismatic sect outside the unity of the validly elected Pontiffs and by subscription, you are in mortal sin according to Church dogma.

Instead of studying and adding knowledge, ask Our Lady for the cross in pursuit of an increase in love and God and neighbour. Then she will free you from your errors.

The "horrible fruits" of present day tradition is that most have no earnest interest in the cross. If they did, there would be no errors or disunity.
   

Luke 14:27

"And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple."
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2014, 03:55:51 AM
Quote from: Ambrose

Other than your agenda to attack and attempt to discredit CMRI, what has caused you to question Bp. Pivarunas seminary training over 3 decades ago?

Have you noticed that he fails to follow rubrics during the Mass?  Have you seen any defect in his understanding of theology or Canon Law?  Have you seen him or heard of him behaving in a manner unbecoming of a priest?

I know it is none of these, so why not be honest and tell us the real reason why you are going after Bp. Pivarunas.  From my standpoint, my guess is that you detest his defense of the twin Catholic teachings on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, and also his reaction to the crisis in the Church using Catholic principles that lead to the conclusion that there is a vacant see.

This has nothing to do with Bp. Pivarunas and the CMRI, it has everything to do with your worldview shaped by your Feeneyite and sedeplenist ideas.  

I don't have a problem with sedeplenists, only dogmatic sedeplenists.  This thread shows the horrible fruits of this error.



If you do not know or care where your bishop received his formal seminary training from, why all the drama? Why all the side tracking? Why not just say "I don't know" or "It doesn't matter to me"? Or say anything, anything at all with an actual reply in actual reference to the question asked.

Everyone already knows that according to the CMRIers that I'm one of the "CMRI haters", one of the "CMRI detractors", "Baptism of Desire deniers",  I "attack all of us Catholics who keep the Fath whole and entire", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", "a misguided person who goes by Protestant ideas", an "unjust man", a "feeneyite", a heretic, a "non-Catholic", (and that's only from the first few pages of this thread) - and whatever other derogatory names and phrases you can add to that list.

This is the display of CMRIers version of a  "wonderful Christian charity" as Emitte Lucem Tuam put it toward the beginning of this thread. Rather than more displays of your "wonderful Christian charity" (better to use the term Catholic charity imo) why not just answer the question?

Ok! So enough demonstrating of the CMRI "wonderful Christian charity" already, just answer the question of where your superior received his seminary training. Where did he get his Priestly Formation from?

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 02, 2014, 07:17:11 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose

Other than your agenda to attack and attempt to discredit CMRI, what has caused you to question Bp. Pivarunas seminary training over 3 decades ago?

Have you noticed that he fails to follow rubrics during the Mass?  Have you seen any defect in his understanding of theology or Canon Law?  Have you seen him or heard of him behaving in a manner unbecoming of a priest?

I know it is none of these, so why not be honest and tell us the real reason why you are going after Bp. Pivarunas.  From my standpoint, my guess is that you detest his defense of the twin Catholic teachings on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, and also his reaction to the crisis in the Church using Catholic principles that lead to the conclusion that there is a vacant see.

This has nothing to do with Bp. Pivarunas and the CMRI, it has everything to do with your worldview shaped by your Feeneyite and sedeplenist ideas.  

I don't have a problem with sedeplenists, only dogmatic sedeplenists.  This thread shows the horrible fruits of this error.



If you do not know or care where your bishop received his formal seminary training from, why all the drama? Why all the side tracking? Why not just say "I don't know" or "It doesn't matter to me"? Or say anything, anything at all with an actual reply in actual reference to the question asked.

Everyone already knows that according to the CMRIers that I'm one of the "CMRI haters", one of the "CMRI detractors", "Baptism of Desire deniers",  I "attack all of us Catholics who keep the Fath whole and entire", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", "a misguided person who goes by Protestant ideas", an "unjust man", a "feeneyite", a heretic, a "non-Catholic", (and that's only from the first few pages of this thread) - and whatever other derogatory names and phrases you can add to that list.

This is the display of CMRIers version of a  "wonderful Christian charity" as Emitte Lucem Tuam put it toward the beginning of this thread. Rather than more displays of your "wonderful Christian charity" (better to use the term Catholic charity imo) why not just answer the question?

Ok! So enough demonstrating of the CMRI "wonderful Christian charity" already, just answer the question of where your superior received his seminary training. Where did he get his Priestly Formation from?



The only bishop I have died long ago.  Bp. Piavarunas is not my bishop.  You really should educate yourself before writing.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 02, 2014, 09:01:08 AM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose

Other than your agenda to attack and attempt to discredit CMRI, what has caused you to question Bp. Pivarunas seminary training over 3 decades ago?

Have you noticed that he fails to follow rubrics during the Mass?  Have you seen any defect in his understanding of theology or Canon Law?  Have you seen him or heard of him behaving in a manner unbecoming of a priest?

I know it is none of these, so why not be honest and tell us the real reason why you are going after Bp. Pivarunas.  From my standpoint, my guess is that you detest his defense of the twin Catholic teachings on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, and also his reaction to the crisis in the Church using Catholic principles that lead to the conclusion that there is a vacant see.

This has nothing to do with Bp. Pivarunas and the CMRI, it has everything to do with your worldview shaped by your Feeneyite and sedeplenist ideas.  

I don't have a problem with sedeplenists, only dogmatic sedeplenists.  This thread shows the horrible fruits of this error.



If you do not know or care where your bishop received his formal seminary training from, why all the drama? Why all the side tracking? Why not just say "I don't know" or "It doesn't matter to me"? Or say anything, anything at all with an actual reply in actual reference to the question asked.

Everyone already knows that according to the CMRIers that I'm one of the "CMRI haters", one of the "CMRI detractors", "Baptism of Desire deniers",  I "attack all of us Catholics who keep the Fath whole and entire", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", "a misguided person who goes by Protestant ideas", an "unjust man", a "feeneyite", a heretic, a "non-Catholic", (and that's only from the first few pages of this thread) - and whatever other derogatory names and phrases you can add to that list.

This is the display of CMRIers version of a  "wonderful Christian charity" as Emitte Lucem Tuam put it toward the beginning of this thread. Rather than more displays of your "wonderful Christian charity" (better to use the term Catholic charity imo) why not just answer the question?

Ok! So enough demonstrating of the CMRI "wonderful Christian charity" already, just answer the question of where your superior received his seminary training. Where did he get his Priestly Formation from?



The only bishop I have died long ago.  Bp. Piavarunas is not my bishop.  You really should educate yourself before writing.  


In other words, Ambrose does not know either.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Croix de Fer on November 02, 2014, 09:03:01 AM
Quote from: andysloan


It's satan who creates all these terms, fanning people's vanity, to try to splinter unity. God keeps everything very simple.


Yeah, and Satan can quote Scripture, too, which is what you seem to do every time you post here at CathInfo while you defend modernism, heresy and apostasy.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 02, 2014, 09:04:24 AM
Quote from: Stubborn

If that challenge is still offensive to you - there is something wrong with you - and Myrna and TKGS and the other CMRIers who offer no answer but rather all  take the same offense at a pertinent subject, particularly for those contemplating attending CMRI. If you cannot see that, I am telling you that based on your reply that there is something terribly wrong with you - it seems like cult brainwashing.



Their dramatic over-reaction only confirms the allegations of CMRI being a "dark spirited" cult.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 02, 2014, 09:10:03 AM
Quote from: Ambrose

I don't have a problem with sedeplenists, only dogmatic sedeplenists.  This thread shows the horrible fruits of this error.


Dogmatic sedeplenists? what a novel term!. That is the default position of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The best way to identify heresy is by checking if the concept in question is a novelty. If it is, then chances are that there is heresy. The Fathers of the Church would have laughed at this type of Modernist terms so frequently used in sedevacantist propaganda.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on November 02, 2014, 09:43:57 AM
Ascent said:

"Yeah, and Satan can quote Scripture, too, which is what you seem to do every time you post here at CathInfo while you defend modernism, heresy and apostasy. "


Is defending the validity of the conciliar Popes in accordance with the assurances of the Holy Ghost at Vatican 1 and rejecting private judgement of heresy/deposition of Popes in accordance with Matthew 18:15-17, modernism/heresy/apostasy?

No; it is obedience to God!
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 02, 2014, 10:25:26 AM
Quote from: Ambrose


The only bishop I have died long ago.  Bp. Piavarunas is not my bishop.  You really should educate yourself before writing.  


Don't bother. They don't understand how to obey a local ordinary. They also think that having contact with someone once every five years for a few minutes makes you part of a cult. Apparently though, it is possible to brainwash someone with even casual contact. In that case, maybe they aren't really bad willed, it's just that they visited the SBC and a Feeneyite coughed on them, effectively brainwashing them. Now, they recieve monthly updates via a Feeneyite brainwashing cold virus.

Just kidding, thought I would throw that in there because they are so fond of fiction.

Let me know if Obstinate ever contacts Bp. Pivarunas to clear up his troubled conscience over his seminary training. I know he wouldn't like to do that because it would be just and charitable, but hey, sometimes you have to try something new.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2014, 10:40:25 AM
Well so far there are two obstinate CMRIers and one wannabe, who obstinately refuse to face the facts - or offer any.

There have been three or four other obstinate fact rejecting CMRIers replying in this thread - let's see if they'll all demonstrate more of that CMRI inspired "wonderful Christian charity" as these two and a half have, or if they'll actually provide an answer to the question before they resume with their "wonderful Christian charity" as taught by their CMRI toward anyone who asks questions about their self proclaimed remnant, the CMRI.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 02, 2014, 10:45:26 AM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose

Other than your agenda to attack and attempt to discredit CMRI, what has caused you to question Bp. Pivarunas seminary training over 3 decades ago?

Have you noticed that he fails to follow rubrics during the Mass?  Have you seen any defect in his understanding of theology or Canon Law?  Have you seen him or heard of him behaving in a manner unbecoming of a priest?

I know it is none of these, so why not be honest and tell us the real reason why you are going after Bp. Pivarunas.  From my standpoint, my guess is that you detest his defense of the twin Catholic teachings on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, and also his reaction to the crisis in the Church using Catholic principles that lead to the conclusion that there is a vacant see.

This has nothing to do with Bp. Pivarunas and the CMRI, it has everything to do with your worldview shaped by your Feeneyite and sedeplenist ideas.  

I don't have a problem with sedeplenists, only dogmatic sedeplenists.  This thread shows the horrible fruits of this error.



If you do not know or care where your bishop received his formal seminary training from, why all the drama? Why all the side tracking? Why not just say "I don't know" or "It doesn't matter to me"? Or say anything, anything at all with an actual reply in actual reference to the question asked.

Everyone already knows that according to the CMRIers that I'm one of the "CMRI haters", one of the "CMRI detractors", "Baptism of Desire deniers",  I "attack all of us Catholics who keep the Fath whole and entire", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", "a misguided person who goes by Protestant ideas", an "unjust man", a "feeneyite", a heretic, a "non-Catholic", (and that's only from the first few pages of this thread) - and whatever other derogatory names and phrases you can add to that list.

This is the display of CMRIers version of a  "wonderful Christian charity" as Emitte Lucem Tuam put it toward the beginning of this thread. Rather than more displays of your "wonderful Christian charity" (better to use the term Catholic charity imo) why not just answer the question?

Ok! So enough demonstrating of the CMRI "wonderful Christian charity" already, just answer the question of where your superior received his seminary training. Where did he get his Priestly Formation from?




The only bishop I have died long ago.  Bp. Piavarunas is not my bishop.  You really should educate yourself before writing.  


In other words, Ambrose does not know either.


No, I am well aware of who my ordinary was when he was alive.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 02, 2014, 10:52:20 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Well so far there are two obstinate CMRIers and one wannabe, who obstinately refuse to face the facts - or offer any.

There have been three or four other obstinate fact rejecting CMRIers replying in this thread - let's see if they'll all demonstrate more of that CMRI inspired "wonderful Christian charity" as these two and a half have, or if they'll actually provide an answer to the question before they resume with their "wonderful Christian charity" as taught by their CMRI toward anyone who asks questions about their self proclaimed remnant, the CMRI.


When you choose to be the aggressor, don't complain about the "lack of charity" of those who will not sit idly by and allow you to destroy the reputations of good men and an organization that does so much good for so many.

The last I checked CMRI did nothing to you ever.  They go about  their business bringing the sacraments to Catholics, educating children, visiting the sick, etc.  

You are the one who chooses to go after them, but don't expect those of us who know these good priests and sisters to just sit by and let you trash their good names.  You then have the nerve to say we are the ones lacking charity.  

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2014, 11:19:20 AM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Well so far there are two obstinate CMRIers and one wannabe, who obstinately refuse to face the facts - or offer any.

There have been three or four other obstinate fact rejecting CMRIers replying in this thread - let's see if they'll all demonstrate more of that CMRI inspired "wonderful Christian charity" as these two and a half have, or if they'll actually provide an answer to the question before they resume with their "wonderful Christian charity" as taught by their CMRI toward anyone who asks questions about their self proclaimed remnant, the CMRI.


When you choose to be the aggressor, don't complain about the "lack of charity" of those who will not sit idly by and allow you to destroy the reputations of good men and an organization that does so much good for so many.

The last I checked CMRI did nothing to you ever.  They go about  their business bringing the sacraments to Catholics, educating children, visiting the sick, etc.  

You are the one who chooses to go after them, but don't expect those of us who know these good priests and sisters to just sit by and let you trash their good names.  You then have the nerve to say we are the ones lacking charity.  



You already had your chance to answer the question - you refused, now please hold back on your wonderful Christian charity until after the other three or four reply or until after someone answers the question. All the CMRI "wonderful Christian charity" is cluttering up the thread.

Not sure exactly why you all are afraid to answer the question, perhaps you all are afraid of what you might discover?

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 02, 2014, 11:25:42 AM
Stubborn, others and I have suggested you go direct to the source to get your answer to your question, asked in bad will, but since your refuse, I will post the link for you just to make it easy.

http://www.cmri.org/bishop-mark-a-pivarunas-cmri.shtml
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 02, 2014, 11:28:29 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Well so far there are two obstinate CMRIers and one wannabe, who obstinately refuse to face the facts - or offer any.

There have been three or four other obstinate fact rejecting CMRIers replying in this thread - let's see if they'll all demonstrate more of that CMRI inspired "wonderful Christian charity" as these two and a half have, or if they'll actually provide an answer to the question before they resume with their "wonderful Christian charity" as taught by their CMRI toward anyone who asks questions about their self proclaimed remnant, the CMRI.


When you choose to be the aggressor, don't complain about the "lack of charity" of those who will not sit idly by and allow you to destroy the reputations of good men and an organization that does so much good for so many.

The last I checked CMRI did nothing to you ever.  They go about  their business bringing the sacraments to Catholics, educating children, visiting the sick, etc.  

You are the one who chooses to go after them, but don't expect those of us who know these good priests and sisters to just sit by and let you trash their good names.  You then have the nerve to say we are the ones lacking charity.  



You already had your chance to answer the question - you refused, now please hold back on your wonderful Christian charity until after the other three or four reply or until after someone answers the question. All the CMRI "wonderful Christian charity" is cluttering up the thread.

Not sure exactly why you all are afraid to answer the question, perhaps you all are afraid of what you might discover?



I have no reason to doubt his assertions of his seminary training as deccribed by the CMRI website.  I know Bp. Pivarunas, have been to his masses, and I have never observed any sign of a lack of training in his duties as a priest.  This also goes for his overall formation of character which comes through seminary training.

With that said, you are only bringing up this non-issue of his over 3 decades old training because the other mud you threw at him and CMRI earlier in this thread didn't stick.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 02, 2014, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Stubborn, others and I have suggested you go direct to the source to get your answer to your question, asked in bad will, but since your refuse, I will post the link for you just to make it easy.

http://www.cmri.org/bishop-mark-a-pivarunas-cmri.shtml


But Myrna, he says he doesn't have the time to listen.  :jester:

Strange when he is on CathInfo morning, afternoon, evenings and night.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 02, 2014, 11:34:29 AM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Well so far there are two obstinate CMRIers and one wannabe, who obstinately refuse to face the facts - or offer any.

There have been three or four other obstinate fact rejecting CMRIers replying in this thread - let's see if they'll all demonstrate more of that CMRI inspired "wonderful Christian charity" as these two and a half have, or if they'll actually provide an answer to the question before they resume with their "wonderful Christian charity" as taught by their CMRI toward anyone who asks questions about their self proclaimed remnant, the CMRI.


When you choose to be the aggressor, don't complain about the "lack of charity" of those who will not sit idly by and allow you to destroy the reputations of good men and an organization that does so much good for so many.

The last I checked CMRI did nothing to you ever.  They go about  their business bringing the sacraments to Catholics, educating children, visiting the sick, etc.  

You are the one who chooses to go after them, but don't expect those of us who know these good priests and sisters to just sit by and let you trash their good names.  You then have the nerve to say we are the ones lacking charity.  



You already had your chance to answer the question - you refused, now please hold back on your wonderful Christian charity until after the other three or four reply or until after someone answers the question. All the CMRI "wonderful Christian charity" is cluttering up the thread.

Not sure exactly why you all are afraid to answer the question, perhaps you all are afraid of what you might discover?



I have no reason to doubt his assertions of his seminary training as deccribed by the CMRI website.  I know Bp. Pivarunas, have been to his masses, and I have never observed any sign of a lack of training in his duties as a priest.  This also goes for his overall formation of character which comes through seminary training.

With that said, you are only bringing up this non-issue of his over 3 decades old training because the other mud you threw at him and CMRI earlier in this thread didn't stick.



That's because it is easy for him to throw mud at someone from a screen name. He doesn't have to dirty his own but he can do what he likes with the name of Bp.Pivarunas. Maybe when he calls he can also apologize for that, too.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2014, 12:02:14 PM
More examples of CMRI's "wonderful Christian charity", but still no answer.

Please try hard as you can to refrain from any more of your wonderful Christian charity, at least until someone replies with an answer or until the other CMRIers reply with their wonderful Christian charity.

There's gotta be at least one CMRIer who knows where "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training" at. Lurker and TKGS said it was not a secret society - so why not come out and tell us?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 02, 2014, 12:06:37 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
More examples of CMRI's "wonderful Christian charity", but still no answer.

Please try hard as you can to refrain from any more of your wonderful Christian charity, at least until someone replies with an answer or until the other CMRIers reply with their wonderful Christian charity.

There's gotta be at least one CMRIer who knows where "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training" at. Lurker and TKGS said it was not a secret society - so why not come out and tell us?


You wouldn't know charity if it stared you in the face.  :facepalm:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2014, 12:16:16 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
More examples of CMRI's "wonderful Christian charity", but still no answer.

Please try hard as you can to refrain from any more of your wonderful Christian charity, at least until someone replies with an answer or until the other CMRIers reply with their wonderful Christian charity.

There's gotta be at least one CMRIer who knows where "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training" at. Lurker and TKGS said it was not a secret society - so why not come out and tell us?


You wouldn't know charity if it stared you in the face.  :facepalm:


It's becoming clearer why no CMRIer wants to find out where "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training" at.

Using your replies as an example, it's plain to see that in their "wonderful Christian charity", they'd be calling you names and making unfounded derogatory comments as they kicked you completely outta there for good if you asked that question.



Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 02, 2014, 12:43:13 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
More examples of CMRI's "wonderful Christian charity", but still no answer.

Please try hard as you can to refrain from any more of your wonderful Christian charity, at least until someone replies with an answer or until the other CMRIers reply with their wonderful Christian charity.

There's gotta be at least one CMRIer who knows where "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training" at. Lurker and TKGS said it was not a secret society - so why not come out and tell us?


You wouldn't know charity if it stared you in the face.  :facepalm:


It's becoming clearer why no CMRIer wants to find out where "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training" at.

Using your replies as an example, it's plain to see that in their "wonderful Christian charity", they'd be calling you names and making unfounded derogatory comments as they kicked you completely outta there for good if you asked that question.





I already told you that I am comfortable with Bp. Pivarunas competence as a priest.  I do not have the need to go further with this,and I am not going to do your work for you.  

If you want answers because you have questions, go to the source as many have suggested on here.  

I have never seen CMRI "kick" people out.  The only examples of this would be for taking action against someone would be the most grave reasons such as public disorder or the spreading of heresy, not asking questions.  

I also find this "cult" talk laughable.  CMRI is hands off, many people come and go, go to SSPX or independent chapels one week, CMRI the next.  Some don't show up for months or even only go to mass once a year.  The CMRI priests know their place, and never use an authority that they do not have.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 02, 2014, 02:33:42 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
More examples of CMRI's "wonderful Christian charity", but still no answer.

Please try hard as you can to refrain from any more of your wonderful Christian charity, at least until someone replies with an answer or until the other CMRIers reply with their wonderful Christian charity.

There's gotta be at least one CMRIer who knows where "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training" at. Lurker and TKGS said it was not a secret society - so why not come out and tell us?


Okay Stubborn,  let me ask you a question.  Where did your leader get his training from?  I am asking you, where did YOUR "POPE" FRANCIS receive his training from??

By the looks of it, your leader must have received his
training from the :devil2:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2014, 03:19:32 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
More examples of CMRI's "wonderful Christian charity", but still no answer.

Please try hard as you can to refrain from any more of your wonderful Christian charity, at least until someone replies with an answer or until the other CMRIers reply with their wonderful Christian charity.

There's gotta be at least one CMRIer who knows where "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training" at. Lurker and TKGS said it was not a secret society - so why not come out and tell us?


You wouldn't know charity if it stared you in the face.  :facepalm:


It's becoming clearer why no CMRIer wants to find out where "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training" at.

Using your replies as an example, it's plain to see that in their "wonderful Christian charity", they'd be calling you names and making unfounded derogatory comments as they kicked you completely outta there for good if you asked that question.





I already told you that I am comfortable with Bp. Pivarunas competence as a priest.  I do not have the need to go further with this,and I am not going to do your work for you.  

If you want answers because you have questions, go to the source as many have suggested on here.  

I have never seen CMRI "kick" people out.  The only examples of this would be for taking action against someone would be the most grave reasons such as public disorder or the spreading of heresy, not asking questions.  

I also find this "cult" talk laughable.  CMRI is hands off, many people come and go, go to SSPX or independent chapels one week, CMRI the next.  Some don't show up for months or even only go to mass once a year.  The CMRI priests know their place, and never use an authority that they do not have.  


Yes yes, we all know you and the other CMRIers are comfortable - who cares?

All I am asking of those who support that place is to answer a simple question with what should be an answer with less than 4 or 5 words - if that.

How you cannot see that your eluding  the answer shows you and the others are hiding something is beyond me.

Hopefully the lurkers reading this thread see right through you as well.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 02, 2014, 03:32:42 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn
More examples of CMRI's "wonderful Christian charity", but still no answer.

Please try hard as you can to refrain from any more of your wonderful Christian charity, at least until someone replies with an answer or until the other CMRIers reply with their wonderful Christian charity.

There's gotta be at least one CMRIer who knows where "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training" at. Lurker and TKGS said it was not a secret society - so why not come out and tell us?


Okay Stubborn,  let me ask you a question.  Where did your leader get his training from?  I am asking you, where did YOUR "POPE" FRANCIS receive his training from??

By the looks of it, your leader must have received his
training from the :devil2:


So you couldn't care less where your leader received his Priestly Formation from - that's fine with me. I tell you what, I will keep asking that question and you keep replying by showering this thread with your "wonderful Christian charity", your non-answers and your ad hominems - at some point you may break and actually reply with some type of actual answer to the question - I highly doubt it, but it might happen.

In the mean time, consider this scenario..................

Me: "knock,knock,knock".

CMRI: opens door . . "Can I help you?"

Me: Yes, we are having a discussion on CI about the CMRI and I would like to know - where did Bishop Pavarunas receive his seminary training from?

CMRI: You lousy CMRI hater, you CMRI detractor, Baptism of Desire denier you! You attack all of us Catholics who keep the Fath whole and entire, you're a feeneyite, a misguided person who goes by Protestant ideas, an unjust man, a a heretic and a non-Catholic! *slams door in face* as I walk away I hear - "and don't come back"!

The above scenario happened right here in this thread. There is something wrong with you if you can't see that.  

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 02, 2014, 07:03:07 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
More examples of CMRI's "wonderful Christian charity", but still no answer.

Please try hard as you can to refrain from any more of your wonderful Christian charity, at least until someone replies with an answer or until the other CMRIers reply with their wonderful Christian charity.

There's gotta be at least one CMRIer who knows where "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training" at. Lurker and TKGS said it was not a secret society - so why not come out and tell us?


You wouldn't know charity if it stared you in the face.  :facepalm:


It's becoming clearer why no CMRIer wants to find out where "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training" at.

Using your replies as an example, it's plain to see that in their "wonderful Christian charity", they'd be calling you names and making unfounded derogatory comments as they kicked you completely outta there for good if you asked that question.





I already told you that I am comfortable with Bp. Pivarunas competence as a priest.  I do not have the need to go further with this,and I am not going to do your work for you.  

If you want answers because you have questions, go to the source as many have suggested on here.  

I have never seen CMRI "kick" people out.  The only examples of this would be for taking action against someone would be the most grave reasons such as public disorder or the spreading of heresy, not asking questions.  

I also find this "cult" talk laughable.  CMRI is hands off, many people come and go, go to SSPX or independent chapels one week, CMRI the next.  Some don't show up for months or even only go to mass once a year.  The CMRI priests know their place, and never use an authority that they do not have.  


Yes yes, we all know you and the other CMRIers are comfortable - who cares?

All I am asking of those who support that place is to answer a simple question with what should be an answer with less than 4 or 5 words - if that.

How you cannot see that your eluding  the answer shows you and the others are hiding something is beyond me.

Hopefully the lurkers reading this thread see right through you as well.


And....we keep answering you.  We know Bp. Pivarunas is well trained.  It shows.  I also noticed that you did not answer Myrna about your spiritual leader's training.  I guess you can't answer a simple question.

If you want to learn about his training go to www.cmri.org and follow the contact information to ask your questions since you "care" so much.  We are not going to do your work for you.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 02, 2014, 07:05:28 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn
More examples of CMRI's "wonderful Christian charity", but still no answer.

Please try hard as you can to refrain from any more of your wonderful Christian charity, at least until someone replies with an answer or until the other CMRIers reply with their wonderful Christian charity.

There's gotta be at least one CMRIer who knows where "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training" at. Lurker and TKGS said it was not a secret society - so why not come out and tell us?


Okay Stubborn,  let me ask you a question.  Where did your leader get his training from?  I am asking you, where did YOUR "POPE" FRANCIS receive his training from??

By the looks of it, your leader must have received his
training from the :devil2:


So you couldn't care less where your leader received his Priestly Formation from - that's fine with me. I tell you what, I will keep asking that question and you keep replying by showering this thread with your "wonderful Christian charity", your non-answers and your ad hominems - at some point you may break and actually reply with some type of actual answer to the question - I highly doubt it, but it might happen.

In the mean time, consider this scenario..................

Me: "knock,knock,knock".

CMRI: opens door . . "Can I help you?"

Me: Yes, we are having a discussion on CI about the CMRI and I would like to know - where did Bishop Pavarunas receive his seminary training from?

CMRI: You lousy CMRI hater, you CMRI detractor, Baptism of Desire denier you! You attack all of us Catholics who keep the Fath whole and entire, you're a feeneyite, a misguided person who goes by Protestant ideas, an unjust man, a a heretic and a non-Catholic! *slams door in face* as I walk away I hear - "and don't come back"!

The above scenario happened right here in this thread. There is something wrong with you if you can't see that.  



That's becuase we all see through you.  Your not following anyone.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on November 02, 2014, 11:31:52 PM
Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.

   The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.
St Thomas - ST 2:2 q5;a3

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS005.html#SSQ5OUTP1



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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 03, 2014, 04:42:43 AM
Quote from: Ambrose


And....we keep answering you.  We know Bp. Pivarunas is well trained.  It shows.  I also noticed that you did not answer Myrna about your spiritual leader's training.  I guess you can't answer a simple question.


You cannot even get yourself to reply with an honest answer even once in this entire thread.

Your constant evading of the question proves that you are a liar, proves that you do not know and do not care where he received his Priestly Formation from.

You constant dodging and side tracking demonstrates you have something to hide, some reason you are afraid to find out. And I won't answer stupid questions like that from Myrna or anyone else on this thread when the only reason that question was asked in the first place is because she is also purposely evading answering the question, most likely for the same reasons you are.

Quote from: Ambrose

If you want to learn about his training go to www.cmri.org and follow the contact information to ask your questions since you "care" so much.  We are not going to do your work for you.


More evading.

Why not come out and say that you've done every search you can think of but can't find out where he received his "usual seminary training" from? That way you'd at least be replying with an honest answer to a clear question.


Quote from: Ambrose

That's becuase we all see through you.  Your not following anyone.


You all see some threat, real or imagined we cannot say for sure, most likely to your fallacious dreams. Whatever the threat is that you fear, you certainly believe there is no defense against it or you wouldn't all be of the same mind in being afraid to answer it and even to attempt to answer it.

There is simply no other reason you all remain obstinately dishonest in your display of wonderful Christian charity in answering one simple question that certainly all CMRI promoters such as yourself should know and have known the answer too all along.


Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 03, 2014, 05:51:24 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose


And....we keep answering you.  We know Bp. Pivarunas is well trained.  It shows.  I also noticed that you did not answer Myrna about your spiritual leader's training.  I guess you can't answer a simple question.


You cannot even get yourself to reply with an honest answer even once in this entire thread.

Your constant evading of the question proves that you are a liar, proves that you do not know and do not care where he received his Priestly Formation from.

You constant dodging and side tracking demonstrates you have something to hide, some reason you are afraid to find out. And I won't answer stupid questions like that from Myrna or anyone else on this thread when the only reason that question was asked in the first place is because she is also purposely evading answering the question, most likely for the same reasons you are.

Quote from: Ambrose

If you want to learn about his training go to www.cmri.org and follow the contact information to ask your questions since you "care" so much.  We are not going to do your work for you.


More evading.

Why not come out and say that you've done every search you can think of but can't find out where he received his "usual seminary training" from? That way you'd at least be replying with an honest answer to a clear question.


Quote from: Ambrose

That's becuase we all see through you.  Your not following anyone.


You all see some threat, real or imagined we cannot say for sure, most likely to your fallacious dreams. Whatever the threat is that you fear, you certainly believe there is no defense against it or you wouldn't all be of the same mind in being afraid to answer it and even to attempt to answer it.

There is simply no other reason you all remain obstinately dishonest in your display of wonderful Christian charity in answering one simple question that certainly all CMRI promoters such as yourself should know and have known the answer too all along.




You have no clue what lying is if you think I lied to you.  Yet another blunder for you in theology.

I owe you nothing as far as getting answers for you.  I will say it again, if you want your question answered do your own work.

For myself, I am satisfied with Bp. Pivarunas's training.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 03, 2014, 05:52:59 AM
By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 03, 2014, 07:25:50 AM
Quote from: Ambrose
By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


The pope was trained in and excelled in a modernist university - as if you didn't know that. Which one? I don't know and I don't care. If you want to know, find out for yourself.

Now, why are you afraid to give an answer to the question?





Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 03, 2014, 07:40:20 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


The pope was trained in and excelled in a modernist university - as if you didn't know that. Which one? I don't know and I don't care. If you want to know, find out for yourself.

Now, why are you afraid to give an answer to the question?




Francis is your spiritual leader, so you should care.

I have answered your question, are you not able to read?

I am taking the claim of Bp. Pivaraunas on its face.  Why?  Because, I have met him, been to his mass, and have dealt with him, and in every instance he appeared to me to be well trained, knowledgable, and of good character.  

Now, you are the one with the problem who is doubting his word, so you do your own digging, I am not your servant.  

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 03, 2014, 08:17:32 AM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


The pope was trained in and excelled in a modernist university - as if you didn't know that. Which one? I don't know and I don't care. If you want to know, find out for yourself.

Now, why are you afraid to give an answer to the question?




Francis is your spiritual leader, so you should care.

I have answered your question, are you not able to read?

I am taking the claim of Bp. Pivaraunas on its face.  Why?  Because, I have met him, been to his mass, and have dealt with him, and in every instance he appeared to me to be well trained, knowledgable, and of good character.  

Now, you are the one with the problem who is doubting his word, so you do your own digging, I am not your servant.  



Your leader received his Priestly Formation from his face value? Where is that?

Another moronic  non-answer.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 03, 2014, 08:19:29 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


The pope was trained in and excelled in a modernist university - as if you didn't know that. Which one? I don't know and I don't care. If you want to know, find out for yourself.

Now, why are you afraid to give an answer to the question?



 :roll-laugh1:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 03, 2014, 11:21:02 AM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


The pope was trained in and excelled in a modernist university - as if you didn't know that. Which one? I don't know and I don't care. If you want to know, find out for yourself.

Now, why are you afraid to give an answer to the question?



 :roll-laugh1:


What's funny is that I am not defending or in any was weaseling - you CMRIers on the other hand are too scared to admit that you don't care. And you won't even say what it is you are so scared of - it's obviously something you cannot defend.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 03, 2014, 11:28:11 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


The pope was trained in and excelled in a modernist university - as if you didn't know that. Which one? I don't know and I don't care. If you want to know, find out for yourself.

Now, why are you afraid to give an answer to the question?



 :roll-laugh1:


What's funny is that I am not defending or in any was weaseling - you CMRIers on the other hand are too scared to admit that you don't care. And you won't even say what it is you are so scared of - it's obviously something you cannot defend.


Then they use the childish strategy to reverse the question or bash the SSPX in comparison, as if this thread was not about specifically the CMRI.  

Quote

By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


Typical sede counter-argument when there is nothing left for them to say. Very juvenile. Their whole argument has been long lost at the exact time of their first ad hominem.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 03, 2014, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


The pope was trained in and excelled in a modernist university - as if you didn't know that. Which one? I don't know and I don't care. If you want to know, find out for yourself.

Now, why are you afraid to give an answer to the question?



 :roll-laugh1:


What's funny is that I am not defending or in any was weaseling - you CMRIers on the other hand are too scared to admit that you don't care. And you won't even say what it is you are so scared of - it's obviously something you cannot defend.


Then they use the childish strategy to reverse the question or bash the SSPX in comparison, as if this thread was not about specifically the CMRI.  

Quote

By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


Typical sede counter-argument when there is nothing left for them to say. Very juvenile. Their whole argument has been long lost at the exact time of their first ad hominem.  


Yes,
I hope to keep this thread going for as long as they keep trying to avoid this whole issue - which is obviously an extremely important issue to them based on their constancy in avoiding providing an answer, any answer at all.

I think it should be common knowledge that nothing would stop an honest person from answering the question or saying they do not know the answer - only dishonest people who are either afraid of what the answer means or are too prideful to admit they do not know the answer carry on the way these people do.

As I said, hopefully any honest fence sitters out there who are lurking this thread are seeing what these self proclaimed remnant CMRIers are doing, hence, what they are all about.  



 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 03, 2014, 11:54:30 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


The pope was trained in and excelled in a modernist university - as if you didn't know that. Which one? I don't know and I don't care. If you want to know, find out for yourself.

Now, why are you afraid to give an answer to the question?




Francis is your spiritual leader, so you should care.

I have answered your question, are you not able to read?

I am taking the claim of Bp. Pivaraunas on its face.  Why?  Because, I have met him, been to his mass, and have dealt with him, and in every instance he appeared to me to be well trained, knowledgable, and of good character.  

Now, you are the one with the problem who is doubting his word, so you do your own digging, I am not your servant.  



Your leader received his Priestly Formation from his face value? Where is that?

Another moronic  non-answer.


You really need to take a remedial reading class.  I catch you lacking in comprehension constantly.  

Now, spend some time and look up the saying, "take at face value," and educate yourself.

After this, reread my answer for you:

Now, you are the one with the problem who is doubting his word, so you do your own digging, I am not your servant.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 03, 2014, 11:57:47 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


The pope was trained in and excelled in a modernist university - as if you didn't know that. Which one? I don't know and I don't care. If you want to know, find out for yourself.

Now, why are you afraid to give an answer to the question?



 :roll-laugh1:


What's funny is that I am not defending or in any was weaseling - you CMRIers on the other hand are too scared to admit that you don't care. And you won't even say what it is you are so scared of - it's obviously something you cannot defend.


Then they use the childish strategy to reverse the question or bash the SSPX in comparison, as if this thread was not about specifically the CMRI.  

Quote

By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


Typical sede counter-argument when there is nothing left for them to say. Very juvenile. Their whole argument has been long lost at the exact time of their first ad hominem.  


Yes,
I hope to keep this thread going for as long as they keep trying to avoid this whole issue - which is obviously an extremely important issue to them based on their constancy in avoiding providing an answer, any answer at all.

I think it should be common knowledge that nothing would stop an honest person from answering the question or saying they do not know the answer - only dishonest people who are either afraid of what the answer means or are too prideful to admit they do not know the answer carry on the way these people do.

As I said, hopefully any honest fence sitters out there who are lurking this thread are seeing what these self proclaimed remnant CMRIers are doing, hence, what they are all about.  

 


We keep answering you, you just don't like the answer.  Your not getting the ammo you want to attack CMRI, and are annoyed with our "lack of charity" for not helping you with your own private research that you plan on using against CMRI.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 03, 2014, 12:15:25 PM
Quote from: + PG +
The resistance needs to be added to that list of those critical of the cmri.  Fr. chazal in a recent conference used the cmri as an example of how not all of tradition is traditional.  He spoke of how liberalism is in the cmri, and how their members are abusing rythm and NFP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cldzprmtJєω

At 24 mins in Fr. Chazal speaks about the cmri.  If the link doesn't work, this is from aug 17th brisbon AU 2014 conference.  


And of course he provides no evidence for his assertion.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 03, 2014, 12:21:03 PM
Quote from: + PG +
Mabel - don't shoot the messenger.  I just don't want people to be confused into thinking the sspx/resistance isn't also critical of the cmri.  Because, CI cmri members like ambrose go around saying that they are in "communion", which is a lie.  

An undeniable problem that I see with the cmri, and this is serious, is that they invalidate everything in the NO without doubt and with the surety of dogma.  They flat out say that everything is invalid!  That is a clear sign IMO that they are usurpers and in all honesty a cult.


No, I am not in communion with you, but I am in communion with all Catholics.  

Since you severed yourself from the Church by cutting yourself off from Pope Pius XII, post 1951, I will not remain in communion with you as a schismatic.  

I also do not remain in communion with heretics, but as the Feeneyites are too ignorant to understand theology, I will await the judgment of the Church on their sect.

But for you, you should know better, Pius XII was universally accepted, his laws and teachings universally peacefully accepted.  You look back over 60 years and sit in judgment of Pius XII.  

Your soul is in great danger.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 03, 2014, 01:37:13 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


The pope was trained in and excelled in a modernist university - as if you didn't know that. Which one? I don't know and I don't care. If you want to know, find out for yourself.

Now, why are you afraid to give an answer to the question?




Francis is your spiritual leader, so you should care.

I have answered your question, are you not able to read?

I am taking the claim of Bp. Pivaraunas on its face.  Why?  Because, I have met him, been to his mass, and have dealt with him, and in every instance he appeared to me to be well trained, knowledgable, and of good character.  

Now, you are the one with the problem who is doubting his word, so you do your own digging, I am not your servant.  



Your leader received his Priestly Formation from his face value? Where is that?

Another moronic  non-answer.


You really need to take a remedial reading class.  I catch you lacking in comprehension constantly.  

Now, spend some time and look up the saying, "take at face value," and educate yourself.

After this, reread my answer for you:

Now, you are the one with the problem who is doubting his word, so you do your own digging, I am not your servant.  


Well I ask where your leader received his Priestly Formation from and you say you took him at face value.

If you consider that an answer then I am correct in saying you provided another moronic non-answer.

You are scared of something - must be the truth because what else is there to fear?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 03, 2014, 01:43:25 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


The pope was trained in and excelled in a modernist university - as if you didn't know that. Which one? I don't know and I don't care. If you want to know, find out for yourself.

Now, why are you afraid to give an answer to the question?



 :roll-laugh1:


What's funny is that I am not defending or in any was weaseling - you CMRIers on the other hand are too scared to admit that you don't care. And you won't even say what it is you are so scared of - it's obviously something you cannot defend.


Then they use the childish strategy to reverse the question or bash the SSPX in comparison, as if this thread was not about specifically the CMRI.  

Quote

By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


Typical sede counter-argument when there is nothing left for them to say. Very juvenile. Their whole argument has been long lost at the exact time of their first ad hominem.  


Yes,
I hope to keep this thread going for as long as they keep trying to avoid this whole issue - which is obviously an extremely important issue to them based on their constancy in avoiding providing an answer, any answer at all.

I think it should be common knowledge that nothing would stop an honest person from answering the question or saying they do not know the answer - only dishonest people who are either afraid of what the answer means or are too prideful to admit they do not know the answer carry on the way these people do.

As I said, hopefully any honest fence sitters out there who are lurking this thread are seeing what these self proclaimed remnant CMRIers are doing, hence, what they are all about.  

 


We keep answering you, you just don't like the answer.  Your not getting the ammo you want to attack CMRI, and are annoyed with our "lack of charity" for not helping you with your own private research that you plan on using against CMRI.



If THAT'S what you're scared of, me using your information against CMRI, then CMRI must be a giant spineless weakling if the members such as yourself are afraid of me LOL! LOL! That is the funniest thing you have posted yet - I gave you a thumbs up for that one!
    :roll-laugh1:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 03, 2014, 03:10:43 PM
I was hesitant to post this, I thought it much better for Stubborn to do his own reseach but it seems he is just too Stubborn.  I just hate long posts but since Stubborn in insists.  

Bishop Pivarunas was trained thusly and accordingly:

Quote
 

AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD

TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.



1. By the inscrutable design of Divine Providence We were raised to this summit of the Catholic priesthood. From that moment Our thoughts were turned to all the innumerable children whom God entrusted to Us. Yet, in a special way, We have felt an affectionate and earnest solicitude towards those who have the commission to be "the salt of the earth and the light of the world," for those who have been signaled out and adorned by the priestly character. In a still more special way Our thoughts have turned towards those dearly beloved young students who are being educated in the shadow of the sanctuary and are preparing themselves for this most noble charge, the priesthood.

2. Even in the first months of Our Pontificate, before We had addressed Our solemn word to the whole Catholic world, We hastened to lay stress upon the principles and ideals which ought to guide and inspire the education of future priests. This we did by Our Apostolic Letter Officiorum omnium written on the first of August, 1922, to Our beloved son, the Cardinal Prefect of the sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities. And whenever Our pastoral watchfulness prompts Us to consider more in particular the good estate and the needs of the Church, Our attention is directed always, and before all things else, to priests and clergy.

3. Nor is there lacking witness to this Our special interest in the priesthood. For We have erected many new seminaries; and others We have, at great expense, provided with new and befitting buildings, or endowed more liberally with revenues or staff, that they may the more worthily attain their high aim.

4. Upon the occasion of Our Sacerdotal Jubilee, We allowed that event, so blessed in its memories, to be celebrated with some solemnity, and We even encouraged with fatherly gratification the marks of filial affection which came to Us from every part of the globe. Our reason was that We regarded this celebration not so much as a homage to Our Person, as a dutiful tribute of honor to the dignity of the priestly character.

5. Similarly, We decreed a reform of studies in ecclesiastical faculties, by the Apostolic Constitution Deus scientiarum Dominus, of the twenty-fourth of May, 1931. Our special purpose in this decree was to make even broader and higher the culture and learning of priests.

6. This matter, indeed, is of so great and universal importance that We think fitting to devote to it a special Encyclical; since it is Our desire that the faithful, who already possess the priceless gift of Faith, may appreciate the sublimity of the Catholic Priesthood and its providential mission in the world; that those, too, who do not yet possess the Faith, but with uprightness and sincerity are in search of Truth, may share this appreciation with the faithful; above all, that those who are themselves called may have still deeper understanding and esteem of their vocation. This subject is particularly opportune at the present moment, for it is the end of the year which has seen extended, beyond the Eternal City to the whole Catholic world, the Jubilee of the Redemption. This Extraordinary Jubilee, at Lourdes, came, like a sunset, to a splendid close. There, under the mantle of the Immaculate, for a fervent and uninterrupted Eucharistic Triduum, gathered together Catholic clergy of every tongue and rite. Our beloved and venerated priests, never more energetic in well-doing than during this special Holy Year, are the ministers of the Redemption of which this year was the Jubilee. Moreover, this year, as We said in the Apostolic Constitution Quod nuper, commemorated, likewise, the nineteenth centenary of the institution of the priesthood.

7. Our previous Encyclicals were directed to throwing the light of Catholic doctrine upon the gravest of the problems peculiar to modern life. Our present Encyclical finds a natural place among these others, opportunely supplementing them. The priest is, indeed, both by vocation and divine commission, the chief apostle and tireless furtherer of the Christian education of youth; in the name of God, the priest blesses Christian marriage, and defends its sanctity and indissolubility against the attacks and evasions suggested by cupidity and sensuality; the priest contributes more effectively to the solution, or at least the mitigation, of social conflicts, since he preaches Christian brotherhood, declares to all their mutual obligations of justice and charity, brings peace to hearts embittered by moral and economic hardship, and alike to rich and poor points out the only true riches to which all men both can and should aspire. Finally, the priest is the most valorous leader in that crusade of expiation and penance to which We have invited all men of good will. For there is need of reparation for the blasphemies, wickedness and crimes which dishonor humanity today, an age perhaps unparalleled in its need for the mercy and pardon of God. The enemies of the Church themselves well know the vital importance of the priesthood; for against the priesthood in particular, as We have already had to lament in the case of Our dear Mexico, they direct the point of their attacks. It is the priesthood they desire to be rid of; that they may clear the way for that destruction of the Church, which has been so often attempted yet never achieved.

8. The human race has always felt the need of a priesthood: of men, that is, who have the official charge to be mediators between God and humanity, men who should consecrate themselves entirely to this mediation, as to the very purpose of their lives, men set aside to offer to God public prayers and sacrifices in the name of human society. For human society as such is bound to offer to God public and social worship. It is bound to acknowledge in Him its Supreme Lord and first beginning, and to strive toward Him as to its last end, to give Him thanks and offer Him propitiation. In fact, priests are to be found among all peoples whose customs are known, except those compelled by violence to act against the most sacred laws of human nature. They may, indeed, be in the service of false divinities; but wherever religion is professed, wherever altars are built, there also is a priesthood surrounded by particular marks of honor and veneration.

9. Yet in the splendor of Divine Revelation the priest is seen invested with a dignity far greater still. This dignity was foreshadowed of old by the venerable and mysterious figure of Melchisedech, Priest and King, whom St. Paul recalls as prefiguring the Person and Priesthood of Christ Our Lord Himself.

10. The priest, according to the magnificent definition given by St. Paul is indeed a man Ex hominibus assumptus, "taken from amongst men," yet pro hominibus constituitur in his quae sunt ad Deum, "ordained for men in the things that appertain to God": his office is not for human things, and things that pass away, however lofty and valuable these may seem; but for things divine and enduring. These eternal things may, perhaps, through ignorance, be scorned and contemned, or even attacked with diabolical fury and malice, as sad experience has often proved, and proves even today; but they always continue to hold the first place in the aspirations, individual and social, of humanity, because the human heart feels irresistibly it is made for God and is restless till it rests in Him.

11. The Old Law, inspired by God and promulgated by Moses, set up a priesthood, which was, in this manner, of divine institution; and determined for it every detail of its duty, residence and rite. It would seem that God, in His great care for them, wished to impress upon the still primitive mind of the Jєωιѕн people one great central idea. This idea throughout the history of the chosen people, was to shed its light over all events, laws, ranks and offices: the idea of sacrifice and priesthood. These were to become, through faith in the future Messias, a source of hope, glory, power and spiritual liberation. The temple of Solomon, astonishing in richness and splendor, was still more wonderful in its rites and ordinances. Erected to the one true God as a tabernacle of the divine Majesty upon earth, it was also a sublime poem sung to that sacrifice and that priesthood, which, though type and symbol, was still so august, that the sacred figure of its High Priest moved the conqueror Alexander the Great, to bow in reverence; and God Himself visited His wrath upon the impious king Balthasar because he made revel with the sacred vessels of the temple. Yet that ancient priesthood derived its greatest majesty and glory from being a foretype of the Christian priesthood; the priesthood of the New and eternal Covenant sealed with the Blood of the Redeemer of the world, Jesus Christ, true God and true Man.

12. The Apostle of the Gentiles thus perfectly sums up what may be said of the greatness, the dignity and the duty of the Christian priesthood: Sic nos existimet homo Ut ministros Christi et dispensatores mysteriorum Dei - "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God." The priest is the minister of Christ, an instrument, that is to say, in the hands of the Divine Redeemer. He continues the work of the redemption in all its world-embracing universality and divine efficacy, that work that wrought so marvelous a transformation in the world. Thus the priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed "another Christ"; for, in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ. "As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you," is spoken to the priest, and hence the priest, like Christ, continues to give "glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will."

13. For, in the first place, as the Council of Trent teaches, Jesus Christ at the Last Supper instituted the sacrifice and the priesthood of the New Covenant: "our Lord and God, although once and for all, by means of His death on the altar of the cross, He was to offer Himself to God the Father, that thereon He might accomplish eternal Redemption; yet because death was not to put an end to his priesthood, at the Last Supper, the same night in which He was betrayed in order to leave to His beloved spouse the Church, a sacrifice which should be visible (as the nature of man requires), which should represent that bloody sacrifice, once and for all to be completed on the cross, which should perpetuate His memory to the end of time, and which should apply its saving power unto the remission of sins we daily commit, showing Himself made a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, offered to God the Father, under the appearance of bread and wine, His Body and Blood, giving them to the apostles (whom He was then making priests of the New Covenant) to be consumed under the signs of these same things, and commanded the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood to offer them, by the words 'Do this in commemoration of Me.' "

14. And thenceforth, the Apostles, and their successors in the priesthood, began to lift to heaven that "clean oblation" foretold by Malachy, through which the name of God is great among the gentiles. And now, that same oblation in every part of the world and at every hour of the day and night, is offered and will continue to be offered without interruption till the end of time: a true sacrificial act, not merely symbolical, which has a real efficacy unto the reconciliation of sinners with the Divine Majesty.

15. "Appeased by this oblation, the Lord grants grace and the gift of repentance, and forgives iniquities and sins, however great." The reason of this is given by the same Council in these words: "For there is one and the same Victim, there is present the same Christ who once offered Himself upon the Cross, who now offers Himself by the ministry of priests, only the manner of the offering being different."

16. And thus the ineffable greatness of the human priest stands forth in all its splendor; for he has power over the very Body of Jesus Christ, and makes It present upon our altars. In the name of Christ Himself he offers It a victim infinitely pleasing to the Divine Majesty. "Wondrous things are these," justly exclaims St. John Chrysostom, "so wonderful, they surpass wonder."

17. Besides this power over the real Body of Christ, the priest has received other powers, august and sublime, over His Mystical Body of Christ, a doctrine so dear to St. Paul; this beautiful doctrine that shows us the Person of the Word-made-Flesh in union with all His brethren. For from Him to them comes a supernatural influence, so that they, with Him as Head, form a single Body of which they are the members. Now a priest is the appointed "dispenser of the mysteries of God," for the benefit of the members of the mystical Body of Christ; since he is the ordinary minister of nearly all the Sacraments, - those channels through which the grace of the Savior flows for the good of humanity. The Christian, at almost every important stage of his mortal career, finds at his side the priest with power received from God, in the act of communicating or increasing that grace which is the supernatural life of his soul.

18. Scarcely is he born before the priest baptizing him, brings him by a new birth to a more noble and precious life, a supernatural life, and makes him a son of God and of the Church of Jesus Christ. To strengthen him to fight bravely in spiritual combats, a priest invested with special dignity makes him a soldier of Christ by holy chrism. Then, as soon as he is able to recognize and value the Bread of Angels, the priest gives It to him, the living and life-giving Food come down from Heaven. If he fall, the priest raises him up again in the name of God, and reconciles him to God with the Sacrament of Penance. Again, if he is called by God to found a family and to collaborate with Him in the transmission of human life throughout the world, thus increasing the number of the faithful on earth and, thereafter, the ranks of the elect in Heaven, the priest is there to bless his espousals and unblemished love; and when, finally, arrived at the portals of eternity, the Christian feels the need of strength and courage before presenting himself at the tribunal of the Divine Judge, the priest with the holy oils anoints the failing members of the sick or dying Christian, and reconsecrates and comforts him.

19. Thus the priest accompanies the Christian throughout the pilgrimage of this life to the gates of Heaven. He accompanies the body to its resting place in the grave with rites and prayers of immortal hope. And even beyond the threshold of eternity he follows the soul to aid it with Christian suffrages, if need there be of further purification and alleviation. Thus, from the cradle to the grave the priest is ever beside the faithful, a guide, a solace, a minister of salvation and dispenser of grace and blessing.

20. But among all these powers of the priest over the Mystical Body of Christ for the benefit of the faithful, there is one of which the simple mention made above will not content Us. This is that power which, as St. John Chrysostom says: "God gave neither to Angels nor Archangels" - the power to remit sins. "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain they are retained"; a tremendous power, so peculiar to God that even human pride could not make the mind conceive that it could be given to man. "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And, when we see it exercised by a mere man there is reason to ask ourselves, not, indeed, with pharisaical scandal, but with reverent surprise at such a dignity: "Who is this that forgiveth sins also?" But it is so: the God-Man who possessed the "power on earth to forgive sins" willed to hand it on to His priests; to relieve, in His divine generosity and mercy, the need of moral purification which is rooted in the human heart.

21. What a comfort to the guilty, when, stung with remorse and repenting of his sins, he hears the word of the priest who says to him in God's name: "I absolve thee from thy sins!" These words fall, it is true, from the lips of one who, in his turn, must needs beg the same absolution from another priest. This does not debase the merciful gift; but makes it, rather, appear greater; since beyond the weak creature is seen more clearly the hand of God through whose power is wrought this wonder. As an illustrious layman has written, treating with rare competence of spiritual things: ". . . when a priest, groaning in spirit at his own unworthiness and at the loftiness of his office, places his consecrated hands upon our heads; when, humiliated at finding himself the dispenser of the Blood of the Covenant; each time amazed as he pronounces the words that give life; when a sinner has absolved a sinner; we, who rise from our knees before him, feel we have done nothing debasing. . . We have been at the feet of a man who represented Jesus Christ, . . . we have been there to receive the dignity of free men and of sons of God."

22. These august powers are conferred upon the priest in a special Sacrament designed to this end: they are not merely passing or temporary in the priest, but are stable and perpetual, united as they are with the indelible character imprinted on his soul whereby he becomes "a priest forever"; whereby he becomes like unto Him in whose eternal priesthood he has been made a sharer. Even the most lamentable downfall, which, through human frailty, is possible to a priest, can never blot out from his soul the priestly character. But along with this character and these powers, the priest through the Sacrament of Orders receives new and special grace with special helps. Thereby, if only he will loyally further, by his free and personal cooperation, the divinely powerful action of the grace itself, he will be able worthily to fulfill all the duties, however arduous, of his lofty calling. He will not be overborne, but will be able to bear the tremendous responsibilities inherent to his priestly duty; responsibilities which have made fearful even the stoutest champions of the Christian priesthood, men like St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Charles and many others.

23. The Catholic priest is minister of Christ and dispenser of the mysteries of God in another way, that is, by his words. The "ministry of the word" is a right which is inalienable; it is a duty which cannot be disallowed; for it is imposed by Jesus Christ Himself: "Going, therefore, teach ye all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." The Church of Christ, depository and infallible guardian of divine revelation, by means of her priests, pours out the treasures of heavenly truth; she preaches Him who is "the true Light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world"; she sows with divine bounty that seed which is small and worthless to the profane eyes of the world, but which is like the mustard seed of the Gospel. For it has within itself power to strike strong deep roots in souls which are sincere and thirsting for the truth, and make them like sturdy trees able to withstand the wildest storms.

24. Amidst all the aberrations of human thought, infatuated by a false emancipation from every law and curb; and amidst the awful corruptions of human malice, the Church rises up like a bright lighthouse warning by the clearness of its beam every deviation to right or left from the way of truth, and pointing out to one and all the right course that they should follow. Woe if ever this beacon should be - We do not say extinguished, for that is impossible owing to the unfailing promises on which it is founded - but if it should be hindered from shedding far and wide its beneficent light! We see already with Our own eyes whither the world has been brought by its arrogant rejection of divine revelation, and its pursuit of false philosophical and moral theories that bear the specious name of "science." That it has not fallen still lower down the slope of error and vice is due to the guidance of the light of Christian truth that always shines in the world. Now the Church exercises her "ministry of the word" through her priests of every grade of the Hierarchy, in which each has his wisely allotted place. These she sends everywhere as unwearied heralds of the good tidings which alone can save and advance true civilization and culture, or help them to rise again. The word of the priest enters the soul and brings light and power; the voice of the priest rises calmly above the storms of passion, fearlessly to proclaim the truth, and exhort to the good; that truth which elucidates and solves the gravest problems of human life; that good which no misfortune can take from us, which death but secures and renders immortal.

25. Consider the truths themselves which the priest if faithful to his ministry, must frequently inculcate. Ponder them one by one and dwell upon their inner power; for they make plain the influence of the priest, and how strong and beneficent it can be for the moral education, social concord and peaceful development of peoples. He brings home to young and old the fleeting nature of the present life; the perishableness of earthly goods; the value of spiritual goods and of the immortal soul; the severity of divine judgment; the spotless holiness of the divine gaze that reads the hearts of all; the justice of God, which "will render to every man according to his works." These and similar lessons the priest teaches; a teaching fitted indeed to moderate the feverish search for pleasure, and the uncontrolled greed for worldly goods, that debase so much of modern life, and spur on the different classes of society to fight one another like enemies, instead of helping one another like friends. In this clash of selfish interest, and unleashed hate, and dark plans of revenge, nothing could be better or more powerful to help, than loudly to proclaim the "new commandment" of Christ. That commandment enjoins a love which extends to all, knows no barriers nor national boundaries, excludes no race, excepts not even its own enemies.

26. The experience of twenty centuries fully and gloriously reveals the power for good of the word of the priest. Being the faithful echo and reecho of the "word of God," which "is living and effectual and more piercing than any two-edged sword,' it too reaches "unto the division of the soul and spirit"; it awakens heroism of every kind, in every class and place, and inspires the self forgetting deeds of the most generous hearts. All the good that Christian civilization has brought into the world is due, at least radically, to the word and works of the Catholic priesthood. Such a past might, to itself, serve as sufficient guarantee for the future; but we have a still more secure guarantee, "a more firm prophetical word" in the infallible promises of Christ.

27. The work, too, of the Missions manifests most vividly the power of expansion given by divine grace to the Church. This work is advanced and carried on principally by priests. Pioneers of faith and love, at the cost of innumerable sacrifices, they extend and widen the Kingdom of God upon earth.

28. Finally, the priest, in another way, follows the example of Christ. Of Him it is written that He "passed the whole night in the prayer of God" and "ever lives to make intercession for us"; and like Him, the priest, is public and official intercessor of humanity before God; he has the duty and commission of offering to God in the name of the Church, over and above sacrifice strictly so-called, the "sacrifice of praise," in public and official prayer; for several times each day with psalms, prayers and hymns taken in great part from the inspired books, he pays to God this dutiful tribute of adoration and thus performs his necessary office of interceding for humanity. And never did humanity, in its afflictions, stand more in need of intercession and of the divine help which it brings. Who can tell how many chastisements priestly prayer wards off from sinful mankind, how many blessings it brings down and secures?

29. If Our Lord made such magnificent and solemn promises even to private prayers, how much more powerful must be that prayer which is said ex officio in the name of the Church, the beloved Spouse of the Savior? The Christian, though in prosperity so often forgetful of God, yet in the depth of his heart keeps his confidence in prayer, feels that prayer is all powerful, and as by a holy instinct, in every distress, in every peril whether private or public, has recourse with special trust to the prayer of the priest. To it the unfortunate of every sort look for comfort; to it they have recourse, seeking divine aid in all the vicissitudes of this exile here on earth. Truly does the "priest occupy a place midway between God and human nature: from Him bringing to us absolving beneficence, offering our prayers to Him and appeasing the wrathful Lord."

30. A last tribute to the priesthood is given by the enemies of the Church. For as We have said on a previous page, they show that they fully appreciate the dignity and importance of the Catholic priesthood, by directing against it their first and fiercest blows; since they know well how close is the tie that binds the Church to her priests. The most rabid enemies of the Catholic priesthood are today the very enemies of God; a homage indeed to the priesthood, showing it the more worthy of honor and veneration.

31. Most sublime, then, Venerable Brethren, is the dignity of the priesthood. Even the falling away of the few unworthy in the priesthood, however deplorable and distressing it may be, cannot dim the splendor of so lofty a dignity. Much less can the unworthiness of a few cause the worth and merit of so many to be overlooked; and how many have been, and are, in the priesthood, preeminent in holiness, in learning, in works of zeal, nay, even in martyrdom.

32. Nor must it be forgotten that personal unworthiness does not hinder the efficacy of a priest's ministry. For the unworthiness of the minister does not make void the Sacraments he administers; since the Sacraments derive their efficacy from the Blood of Christ, independently of the sanctity of the instrument, or, as scholastic language expresses it, the Sacraments work their effect ex opere operato.

33. Nevertheless, it is quite true that so holy an office demands holiness in him who holds it. A priest should have a loftiness of spirit, a purity of heart and a sanctity of life befitting the solemnity and holiness of the office he holds. For this, as We have said, makes the priest a mediator between God and man; a mediator in the place, and by the command of Him who is "the one mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ." The priest must, therefore, approach as close as possible to the perfection of Him whose vicar he is, and render himself ever more and more pleasing to God, by the sanctity of his life and of his deeds; because more than the scent of incense, or the beauty of churches and altars, God loves and accepts holiness. "They who are the intermediaries between God and His people," says St. Thomas, "must bear a good conscience before God, and a good name among men." On the contrary, whosoever handles and administers holy things, while blameworthy in his life, profanes them and is guilty of sacrilege: "They who are not holy ought not to handle holy things."

34. For this reason even in the Old Testament God commanded His priests and levites: "Let them therefore be holy because I am also holy: the Lord who sanctify them." In his canticle for the dedication of the temple, Solomon the Wise made this same request to the Lord in favor of the sons of Aaron: "Let Thy priests be clothed with justice: and let Thy saints rejoice." So, Venerable Brethren, may we not ask with St. Robert Bellarmine: "If so great uprightness, holiness and lively devotion was required of priests who offered sheep and oxen, and praised God for the moral blessings; what, I ask, is required of those priests who sacrifice the Divine Lamb and give thanks for eternal blessings?" "A great dignity," exclaims St. Lawrence Justinian, "but great too is the responsibility; placed high in the eyes of men they must also be lifted up to the peak of virtue before the eye of Him who seeth all; otherwise their elevation will be not to their merit but to their damnation."

35. And surely every reason We have urged in showing the dignity of the Catholic priesthood does but reinforce its obligation of singular holiness; for as the Angelic Doctor teaches: "To fulfill the duties of Holy Orders, common goodness does not suffice; but excelling goodness is required; that they who receive Orders and are thereby higher in rank than the people, may also be higher in holiness." The Eucharistic Sacrifice in which the Immaculate Victim who taketh away the sins of the world is immolated, requires in a special way that the priest, by a holy and spotless life, should make himself as far as he can, less unworthy of God, to whom he daily offers that adorable Victim, the very Word of God incarnate for love of us. Agnoscite quod agitis, imitamini quod tractatis, "realize what you are doing, and imitate what you handle," says the Church through the Bishop to the deacons as they are about to be consecrated priests. The priest is also the almoner of God's graces of which the Sacraments are the channels; how grave a reproach would it be, for one who dispenses these most precious graces were he himself without them, or were he even to esteem them lightly and guard them with little care.

36. Moreover, the priest must teach the truths of faith; but the truths of religion are never so worthily and effectively taught as when taught by virtue; because in the common saying: "Deeds speak louder than words." The priest must preach the law of the Gospel; but for that preaching to be effective, the most obvious and, by the Grace of God, the most persuasive argument, is to see the actual practice of the law in him who preaches it. St. Gregory the Great gives the reason: "The voice which penetrates the hearts of the hearers, is the voice commended by the speaker's own life; because what his word enjoins, his example helps to bring about." This exactly is what Holy Scripture says of our Divine Savior: He "began to do and to teach." And the crowds hailed Him, not so much because "never did man speak like this man," but rather because "He hath done all things well." On the other hand, they who "say and do not," practicing not what they preach, become like the scribes and Pharisees. And Our Lord's rebuke to the other hand, they who "say and do not," practicing not what they preach, the word of God, was yet administered publicly, in the presence of the listening crowd: "The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you observe and do: but according to their work do ye not." A preacher who does not try to ratify by his life's example the truth he preaches, only pulls down with one hand what he builds up with the other. On the contrary, God greatly blesses the labor of those heralds of the gospel who attend first to their own holiness; they see their apostolate flourishing and fruitful, and in the day of the harvest, "coming they shall come with joyfulness carrying in their sheaves."

37. It would be a grave error fraught with many dangers should the priest, carried away by false zeal, neglect his own sanctification, and become over immersed in the external works, however holy, of the priestly ministry. Thereby, he would run a double risk. In the first place he endangers his own salvation, as the great Apostle of the Gentiles feared for himself: "But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway." In the second place he might lose, if not divine grace, certainly that unction of the Holy Spirit which gives such a marvelous force and efficacy to the external apostolate.

38. Now to all Christians in general it has been said: "Be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect"; how much more then should the priest consider these words of the Divine Master as spoken to himself, called as he is by a special vocation to follow Christ more closely. Hence the Church publicly urges on all her clerics this most grave duty, placing it in the code of her laws: "Clerics must lead a life, both interior and exterior, more holy than the laity, and be an example to them by excelling in virtue and good works." And since the priest is an ambassador for Christ, he should so live as to be able with truth to make his own the words of the Apostle: "Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ"; he ought to live as another Christ who by the splendor of His virtue enlightened and still enlightens the world.

39. It is plain, then, that all Christian virtues should flourish in the soul of the priest. Yet there are some virtues which in a very particular manner attach themselves to the priest as most befitting and necessary to him. Of these the first is piety, or godliness, according to the exhortation of the Apostle to his beloved Timothy: Exerce . . .teipsum ad pietatem, "exercise thyself unto godliness." Indeed the priest's relations with God are so intimate, so delicate and so frequent, that clearly they should ever be graced by the sweet odor of piety; if "godliness is profitable to all things," it is especially profitable to a right exercise of the priestly charge. Without piety the holiest practices, the most solemn rites of the sacred ministry, will be performed mechanically and out of habit; they will be devoid of spirit, unction and life. But remark, Venerable Brethren, the piety of which We speak is not that shallow and superficial piety which attracts but does not nourish, is busy but does not sanctify. We mean that solid piety which is not dependent upon changing mood or feeling. It is based upon principles of sound doctrine; it is ruled by staunch convictions; and so it resists the assaults and the illusions of temptation. This piety should primarily be directed towards God our Father in Heaven; yet it should be extended also to the Mother of God. The priest even more than the faithful should have devotion to Our Lady, for the relation of the priest to Christ is more deeply and truly like that which Mary bears to her Divine Son.

40. It is impossible to treat of the piety of a Catholic priest without being drawn on to speak, too, of another most precious treasure of the Catholic priesthood, that is, of chastity; for from piety springs the meaning and the beauty of chastity. Clerics of the Latin Church in higher Orders are bound by a grave obligation of chastity; so grave is the obligation in them of its perfect and total observance that a transgression involves the added guilt of sacrilege.

41. Though this law does not bind, in all its amplitude, clerics of the Oriental Churches, yet among them also, ecclesiastical celibacy is revered; indeed in some cases, especially in the higher Orders of the Hierarchy, it is a necessary and obligatory requisite.

42. A certain connection between this virtue and the sacerdotal ministry can be seen even by the light of reason alone: since "God is a Spirit," it is only fitting that he who dedicates and consecrates himself to God's service should in some way "divest himself of the body." The ancient Romans perceived this fitness; one of their laws which ran Ad divos adeunto caste, "approach the gods chastely," is quoted by one of their greatest orators with the following comment: "The law orders us to present ourselves to the gods in chastity - of spirit, that is, in which are all things, or does this exclude chastity of the body, which is to be understood, since the spirit is so far superior to the body; for it should be remembered that bodily chastity cannot be preserved, unless spiritual chastity be maintained." In the Old Law, Moses in the name of God commanded Aaron and his sons to remain within the Tabernacle, and so to keep continent, during the seven days in which they were exercising their sacred functions.

43. But the Christian priesthood, being much superior to that of the Old Law, demanded a still greater purity. The law of ecclesiastical celibacy, whose first written traces pre-suppose a still earlier unwritten practice, dates back to a canon of the Council of Elvira, at the beginning of the fourth century, when persecution still raged. This law only makes obligatory what might in any case almost be termed a moral exigency that springs from the Gospel and the Apostolic preaching. For the Divine Master showed such high esteem for chastity, and exalted it as something beyond the common power; He Himself was the Son of a Virgin Mother, Florem Matris Virginis, and was brought up in the virgin family of Joseph and Mary; He showed special love for pure souls such as the two Johns - the Baptist and the Evangelist. The great Apostle Paul, faithful interpreter of the New Law and of the mind of Christ, preached the inestimable value of virginity, in view of a more fervent service of God, and gave the reason when he said: "He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God." All this had almost inevitable consequences: the priests of the New Law felt the heavenly attraction of this chosen virtue; they sought to be of the number of those "to whom it is given to take this word," and they spontaneously bound themselves to its observance. Soon it came about that the practice, in the Latin Church, received the sanction of ecclesiastical law. The Second Council of Carthage at the end of the fourth century declared: "What the Apostles taught, and the early Church preserved, let us too, observe."

44. In the Oriental Church, too, most illustrious Fathers bear witness to the excellence of Catholic celibacy. In this matter as in others there was harmony between the Latin and Oriental Churches where accurate discipline flourished. St. Epiphanius at the end of the fourth century tells us that celibacy applied even to the subdiaconate: "The Church does not on any account admit a man living in the wedded state and having children, even though he have only one wife, to the orders of deacon, priest, bishop or subdeacon; but only him whose wife be dead or who should abstain from the use of marriage; this is done in those places especially where the ecclesiastical canons are accurately followed." The Deacon of Edessa and Doctor of the Universal Church, well called the Harp of the Holy Spirit, St. Ephraem, the Syrian, is particularly eloquent on this matter. In one of his poems, addressed to his friend, the bishop Abraham, he says: "Thou art true to thy name, Abraham, for thou also art the father of many: but because thou hast no wife as Abraham had Sara, behold thy flock is thy spouse. Bring up its children in thy truth; may they become to thee children of the spirit and sons of the promise that makes them heirs to Eden. O sweet fruit of chastity, in which the priesthood finds its delights . . . the horn of plenty flowed over and anointed thee, a hand rested on thee and chose thee out, the Church desired thee and held thee dear." And in another place: "It is not enough for the priest and the name of the priesthood, it is not enough, I say, for him who offers up the living body, to cleanse his soul and tongue and hand and make spotless his whole body; but he must at all times be absolutely and preeminently pure, because he is established as a mediator between God and the human race. May He be praised who made His servants clean!" St. John Chrysostom affirms: "The priest must be so pure that, if he were to be lifted up and placed in the heavens themselves, he might take a place in the midst of the Angels."

45. In short the very height, or, to use St. Epiphanius' phrase, "the incredible honor and dignity" of the Christian priesthood, which We have briefly described, shows how becoming is clerical celibacy and the law which enjoins it. Priests have a duty which, in a certain way, is higher than that of the most pure spirits "who stand before the Lord." Is it not right, then, that he live an all but angelic life? A priest is one who should be totally dedicated to the things of the Lord. Is it not right, then, that he be entirely detached from the things of the world, and have his conversation in Heaven? A priest's charge is to be solicitous for the eternal salvation of souls, continuing in their regard the work of the Redeemer. Is it not, then, fitting that he keep himself free from the cares of a family, which would absorb a great part of his energies?

46. And truly an ordination ceremony, frequent though it be in the Catholic Church, never fails to touch the hearts of those present: how admirable a sight, these young ordinands, who before receiving the subdiaconate, before, that is, consecrating themselves utterly to the service and the worship of God, freely renounce the joys and the pleasures which might rightfully be theirs in another walk of life. We say "freely," for though, after ordination, they are no longer free to contract earthly marriage, nevertheless they advance to ordination itself unconstrained by any law or person, and of their own spontaneous choice!

47. Notwithstanding all this, We do not wish that what We said in commendation of clerical celibacy should be interpreted as though it were Our mind in any way to blame, or, as it were, disapprove the different discipline legitimately prevailing in the Oriental Church. What We have said has been meant solely to exalt in the Lord something We consider one of the purest glories of the Catholic priesthood; something which seems to us to correspond better to the desires of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and to His purposes in regard to priestly souls.

48. Not less than by his chastity, the Catholic priest ought to be distinguished by his detachment. Surrounded by the corruptions of a world in which everything can be bought and sold, he must pass through them utterly free of selfishness. He must holily spurn all vile greed of earthly gains, since he is in search of souls, not of money, of the glory of God, not his own. He is no mercenary working for a temporal recompense, nor yet an employee who, whilst attending conscientiously to duties of his office, at the same time is looking to his career and personal promotion; he is the "good soldier of Christ" who "entangleth not himself with secular business: that he may please Him to whom he hath engaged himself."

49. The minister of God is a father of souls; and he knows that his toils and his cares cannot adequately be repaid with wealth and honors of earth. He is not indeed forbidden to receive fitting sustenance, according to the teaching of the Apostle: "They that serve the altar may partake with the altar . . . so also the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel." But once "called to the inheritance of the Lord," as his very title "cleric" declares, a priest must expect no other recompense than that promised by Christ to His Apostles: "Your reward is very great in Heaven." Woe to the priest who, forgetful of these divine promises should become "greedy of filthy lucre." Woe if he join the herd of the worldly over whom the Church like the Apostle grieves: "All seek the things that are their own: not the things that are Jesus Christ's." Such a priest, besides failing in his vocation, would earn the contempt even of his own people. They would perceive in him the deplorable contradiction between his conduct and the doctrine so clearly expounded by Christ, which the priest is bound to teach: "Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust and moth consume and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up to yourselves treasures in Heaven." Judas, an Apostle of Christ, "one of the twelve," as the Evangelists sadly observe, was led down to the abyss of iniquity precisely through the spirit of greed for earthly things. Remembering him, it is easy to grasp how this same spirit could have brought such harm upon the Church throughout the centuries: greed, called by the Holy Spirit the "root of all evil," can incite to any crime; and a priest who is poisoned by this vice, even though he stop short of crime, will nevertheless, consciously or unconsciously, make common cause with the enemies of God and of the Church, and cooperate in their evil designs.

50. On the other hand, by sincere disinterestedness the priest can hope to win the hearts of all. For detachment from earthly goods, if inspired by lively faith, is always accompanied by tender compassion towards the unfortunate of every kind. Thus the priest becomes a veritable father of the poor. Mindful of the touching words of his Savior, "As long as you did it to one of these My least brethren, you did it to Me," he sees in them, and, with particular affection, venerates and loves Jesus Christ Himself.

51. Thus the Catholic priest is freed from the bonds of a family and of self-interest, - the chief bonds which could bind him too closely to earth. Thus freed, his heart will more readily take flame from that heavenly fire that burns in the Heart of Jesus; that fire that seeks only to inflame apostolic hearts and through them "cast fire on all the earth." This is the fire of zeal. Like the zeal of Jesus described in Holy Scripture, the zeal of the priest for the glory of God and the salvation of souls sought to consume him. It should make him forget himself and all earthly things. It should powerfully urge him to dedicate himself utterly to his sublime work, and to search out means ever more effective for an apostolate ever wider and ever better.

52. The Good Shepherd said: "And other sheep I have that are not of this fold; them also I must bring;" and again, "See the countries for they are white already to the harvest." How can a priest meditate upon these words and not feel his heart enkindled with yearning to lead souls to the Heart of the Good Shepherd? How can he fail to offer himself to the Lord of the harvest for unremitting toil? Our Lord saw the multitudes "Iying like sheep that have no shepherd." Such multitudes are to be seen today not only in the far distant lands of the missions, but also, alas! in countries which have been Christian for centuries. How can a priest see such multitudes and not feel deeply within himself an echo of that divine pity which so often moved the Heart of the Son of God? - a priest, we say, who is conscious of possessing the words of life and of having in his hands the God-given means of regeneration and salvation?

53. But thanks be to God, it is just this flame of apostolic zeal which is one of the brightest Jєωels in the crown of the Catholic priesthood. Our heart fills with fatherly consolation at the sight of Our Brothers and Our beloved Sons, Bishops and Priests, who like chosen troops ever prompt to the call of their chief hasten to all outposts of this vast field. There they engage in the peaceful but bitter warfare of truth against error, of light against darkness, of the Kingdom of God against the kingdom of Satan.

54. But, by its very nature as an active and courageous company, the Catholic priesthood must have the spirit of discipline, or, to use a more deeply Christian word, obedience. It is obedience which binds together all ranks into the harmony of the Church's Hierarchy.

55. The Bishop, in his admonition to the ordinands, says: "With certain wonderful variety Holy Church is clothed, made comely and is ruled; since in her some are consecrated Pontiffs, and other priests of lesser degree, and from many members of differing dignity there is formed one Body of Christ." This obedience priests promised to the Bishop after Ordination, the holy oil still fresh on their hands. On the day of his consecration the Bishop, in his turn, swore obedience to the supreme visible Head of the Church, the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Let then obedience bind ever closer together these various members of the Hierarchy, one with another, and all with the Head; and thus make the Church Militant a foe truly terrible to the enemies of God, ut castrorum aciem ordinatam, "as an army set in array." Let obedience temper excessive zeal on the one hand, and put the spur to weakness and slackness on the other. Let it assign to each his place and station. These each should accept without resistance; for otherwise the magnificent work of the Church in the world would be sadly hindered. Let each one see in the arrangement of his hierarchical Superiors the arrangements of the only true Head, whom all obey: Jesus Christ, Our Lord, who became for us "obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross . "

56. The divine High Priest wished us to have abundant witness to His own most perfect obedience to the Eternal Father; for this reason both the Prophecies and the Gospels often testify to the entire submission of the Son of God to the will of the Father. "When He cometh into the world He saith; sacrifice and oblation Thou wouldst not: but a body Thou has fitted to Me. . .Then said I: Behold I come. In the head of the book it is written of Me that I should do Thy will, O God. . ." "My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me." On His very cross He consecrated obedience. He did not wish to commit His soul into the hands of His Father before having declared that all was fulfilled in Him that the Sacred Scriptures had foretold; He had accomplished the entire charge entrusted to Him by the Father, even to the last deeply mysterious "I thirst," which He pronounced "that the Scripture might be fulfilled." By these words He wished to show that zeal even the most ardent ought always to be completely subjected to the will of the Father; that our zeal should always be controlled by obedience to those who for us, have the place of the Father, and convey to us His will, in other words our lawful Superiors in the Hierarchy.

57. But the portrait of the Catholic priest which we intend to exhibit to the world would be unfinished were We to omit another most important feature,--learning. This the Church requires of him; for the Catholic priest is set up as a "Master in Israel"; he has received from Jesus Christ the office and commission of teaching truth: "Teach . . . all nations." He must teach the truth that heals and saves; and because of this teaching, like the Apostle of the Gentiles, he has a duty towards "the learned and the unlearned." But how can he teach unless he himself possess knowledge? "The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth," said the Holy Spirit in the Prophecy of Malachy. Who could ever utter a word in praise of sacerdotal learning more weighty than that which divine Wisdom itself once spoke by the mouth of Osee: "Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to Me." The priest should have full grasp of the Catholic teaching on faith and morals; he should know how to present it to others; and he should be able to give the reasons for the dogmas, laws and observances of the Church of which he is minister. Profane sciences have indeed made much progress; but in religious questions there is much ignorance still darkening the mind of our contemporaries. This ignorance the priest must dispel. Never was more pointed than today the warning of Tertullian, "Hoc unum gestit interdum (veritas), ne ignorata damnetur," "This alone truth sometime craves, that it be not condemned unheard." It is the priest's task to clear away from men's minds the mass of prejudices and misunderstandings which hostile adversaries have piled up; the modern mind is eager for the truth, and the priest should be able to point it out with serene frankness; there are souls still hesitating, distressed by doubts, and the priest should inspire courage and trust, and guide them with calm security to the safe port of faith, faith accepted by both head and heart; error makes its onslaughts, arrogant and persistent, and the priest should know how to meet them with a defense vigorous and active, yet solid and unruffled.

58. Therefore, Venerable Brethren, it is necessary that the priest, even among the absorbing tasks of his charge, and ever with a view to it, should continue his theological studies with unremitting zeal. The knowledge acquired at the seminary is indeed a sufficient foundation with which to begin; but it must be grasped more thoroughly, and perfected by an ever-increasing knowledge and understanding of the sacred sciences. Herein is the source of effective preaching and of influence over the souls of others. Yet even more is required. The dignity of the office he holds and the maintenance of a becoming respect and esteem among the people, which helps so much in his pastoral work, demand more than purely ecclesiastical learning. The priest must be graced by no less knowledge and culture than is usual among well-bred and well-educated people of his day. This is to say that he must be healthily modern, as is the Church, which is at home in all times and all places, and adapts itself to all; which blesses and furthers all healthy initiative and has no fear of the progress, even the most daring progress, of science; if only it be true science.

59. Indeed, in all ages the Catholic clergy has distinguished itself in every field of human knowledge; in fact, in certain centuries it so took the lead in the field of learning that the word "cleric" became synonymous with "learned." The Church preserved and saved the treasures of ancient culture, which without her and her monasteries would have been almost entirely lost; and her most illustrious Doctors show that all human knowledge can help to throw light upon and to defend the Catholic faith. An illustrious example of this We Ourselves have recently called to the world's attention. For We crowned with the halo of sanctity and the glorious title of Doctor of the Church that great teacher of the incomparable Aquinas: Albert of Cologne, whom his contemporaries had already honored with the titles of Great and of Universal Doctor.

60. Today it could hardly be hoped that the clergy could hold a similar primacy in every branch of knowledge; the range of human science has become so vast that no man can comprehend it all, much less become distinguished in each of its numberless branches. Nevertheless wise encouragement and help should be given to those members of the clergy, who, by taste and special gifts, feel a call to devote themselves to study and research, in this or that branch of science, in this or that art; they do not thereby deny their clerical profession; for all this, undertaken within just limits and under the guidance of the Church, redounds to the good estate of the Church and to the glory of her divine Head, Jesus Christ. And among the rest of the clergy, none should remain content with a standard of learning and culture which sufficed, perhaps, in other times; they must try to attain - or, rather, they must actually attain - a higher standard of general education and of learning. It must be broader and more complete; and it must correspond to the generally higher level and wider scope of modern education as compared with the past.

61. Sometimes, it is true, and even in modern times, Our Lord makes the world, as it were, His plaything; for He has been pleased to elect to the priestly state men almost devoid of that learning of which We have been speaking; and through them He has worked wonders. But He did this that all might learn, if there be a choice, to prize holiness more than learning; not to place more trust in human than in divine means. He did this because the world has need, from time to time, to hear repeated that wholesome, practical lesson: "The foolish things of the world hath God chosen to confound the wise . . . that no flesh should glory in His sight."

62. In the natural order, divine miracles suspend for a moment the effect of physical laws, but do not revoke them. So, too, the case of these Saints, real living miracles in whom high sanctity made up for all the rest, does not make the lesson We have been teaching any the less true or any the less necessary.

63. It is clear, then, that virtue and learning are required, that there is need of example and of edification, need for the priest to spread on all sides, and to all who draw near him "the good odor of Christ." This need is today more keenly felt, and has become more evident and urgent. This is because of Catholic Action, that movement so consoling, which has within it the power to spur on to the very highest ideals of perfection. Through Catholic Action the relations of the laity with priests are becoming more frequent and more intimate. And in this collaboration, the laity quite naturally look upon the priest not merely as a guide, but as a model also of Christian life and of apostolic virtue.

64. The state of the priesthood is thus most sublime, and the gifts it calls for very lofty. Hence, Venerable Brethren, the inescapable necessity of giving candidates for the sanctuary a training correspondingly superior.

65. Conscious of this necessity, the Church down the ages has shown for nothing a more tender solicitude and motherly care than for the training of her priests. She is not unaware that, as the religious and moral conditions of peoples depend in great measure upon their priests, so too, the future of the priest depends on the training he has received. The words of the Holy Spirit apply no less truly to him than to others: "A young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it." Hence, the Church, moved by the Holy Spirit, has willed that everywhere seminaries should be erected, where candidates for the priesthood may be trained and educated with singular care.

66. The seminary is and should be the apple of your eye, Venerable Brethren, who share with Us the heavy weight of the government of the Church; it is, and should be, the chief object of your solicitude. Careful above all should be the choice of superiors and professors; and, in a most special manner, of the spiritual father, who has so delicate and so important a part in the nurture of the priestly spirit. Give the best of your clergy to your seminaries; do not fear to take them from other positions. These positions may seem of greater moment, but in reality their importance is not to be compared with that of the seminaries, which is capital and indispensable. Seek also from elsewhere, wherever you can find them, men really fitted for this noble task. Let them be such as teach priestly virtues, rather by example than by words, men who are capable of imparting, together with learning, a solid, manly and apostolic spirit. Make piety, purity, discipline and study flourish in the seminary. With prudent foresight, arm and fortify the immature minds of students both against the temptations of the present, and against the far more serious perils of the future. For they will be exposed to all the temptations of the world, in the midst of which they must live, "that they save all."

67. Now it is of great importance, as We have said, that priests should have a learning adequate to the requirements of the age. For the attainment of this, in addition to a solid classical education, there is required both instruction and training in scholastic philosophy "according to the method, and the mind and the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas" - ad Angelicl Doctoris rationem, doctrinam et principia. This Our Illustrious Predecessor, Leo XIII, has called the philosophia perennis. It is essential to the future priest. It will help him to a thorough understanding of dogma. It will effectively forearm him against modern errors of whatever sort. It will sharpen his mind to distinguish truth from falsehood. It will form him to habits of intellectual clearness, so necessary in any studies or problems of the future. It will give him a great superiority over others, whose mere erudition, perhaps, is wider but who lack philosophical training.

68. There are some regions, where the dioceses are small, or students unhappily few, or where there is a shortage of means and suitable men. Hence it is impossible for every diocese to have its own seminary, equipped according to all the regulations of Canon Law and other prescriptions of the Church. Where this happens, it is most proper that the Bishops of the district should help one another in brotherly charity, should concentrate and unite their forces in a common seminary, fully worthy of its high purpose. The great advantages of such concentration amply repay the sacrifices entailed in obtaining it. It is indeed a sacrifice, grievous to the fatherly heart of a Bishop, to see his clerics, even for a time, taken away from their shepherd, who wishes himself to give his future co-workers his own apostolic spirit; and to see them taken away from the diocese which is to be the field of their ministry. But these sacrifices will all be repaid with interest when these clerics return as priests. They will be better formed, and more richly endowed with spiritual wealth, which they will spend with greater generosity and with greater profit to their diocese. Therefore, We have never let pass an opportunity to favor, and encourage and foster such efforts. Often, in fact, We have suggested and recommended them. On Our part, also, wherever We thought it necessary, We have Ourselves, as is well known, erected or improved or enlarged several such regional seminaries, not without heavy expense and trouble; and We will continue in the future, by the help of God, to apply Ourselves with all zeal to this work; for We hold it to be the most conducive to the good of the Church.

69. This achievement in the erection and management of Seminaries for the education of future priests deserves all praise. But it would be of little avail, were there any lack of care in the selecting and approving of candidates. In this selection and approval, all who are in charge of the clergy should have some part: superiors, spiritual directors and confessors, each in the manner and within the limits proper to his office. They must indeed foster and strengthen vocations with sedulous care; but with no less zeal they must discourage unsuitable candidates, and in good time send them away from a path not meant for them. Such are all youths who show a lack of necessary fitness, and who are, therefore, unlikely to persevere in the priestly ministry both worthily and becomingly. In these matters hesitation and delay is a serious mistake and may do serious harm. It is far better to dismiss an unfit student in the early stages; but if, for any reason, such dismissal has been delayed, the mistake should be corrected as soon as it is known. There should be no human consideration or false mercy. Such false mercy would be a real cruelty, not only towards the Church, to whom would be given an unfitted or unworthy minister, but also towards the youth himself; for, thus embarked upon a false course, he would find himself exposed to the risk of becoming a stumbling block to himself and to others with peril of eternal ruin.

70. The Head of the seminar
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 03, 2014, 03:56:54 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
I was hesitant to post this, I thought it much better for Stubborn to do his own reseach but it seems he is just too Stubborn.  I just hate long posts but since Stubborn in insists.  

Bishop Pivarunas was trained thusly and accordingly:

Quote
 

AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD

TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.



1. By the inscrutable design of Divine Providence We were raised to this summit of the Catholic priesthood. From that moment Our thoughts were turned to all the innumerable children whom God entrusted to Us. Yet, in a special way, We have felt an affectionate and earnest solicitude towards those who have the commission to be "the salt of the earth and the light of the world," for those who have been signaled out and adorned by the priestly character. In a still more special way Our thoughts have turned towards those dearly beloved young students who are being educated in the shadow of the sanctuary and are preparing themselves for this most noble charge, the priesthood.

2. Even in the first months of Our Pontificate, before We had addressed Our solemn word to the whole Catholic world, We hastened to lay stress upon the principles and ideals which ought to guide and inspire the education of future priests. This we did by Our Apostolic Letter Officiorum omnium written on the first of August, 1922, to Our beloved son, the Cardinal Prefect of the sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities. And whenever Our pastoral watchfulness prompts Us to consider more in particular the good estate and the needs of the Church, Our attention is directed always, and before all things else, to priests and clergy.

3. Nor is there lacking witness to this Our special interest in the priesthood. For We have erected many new seminaries; and others We have, at great expense, provided with new and befitting buildings, or endowed more liberally with revenues or staff, that they may the more worthily attain their high aim.

4. Upon the occasion of Our Sacerdotal Jubilee, We allowed that event, so blessed in its memories, to be celebrated with some solemnity, and We even encouraged with fatherly gratification the marks of filial affection which came to Us from every part of the globe. Our reason was that We regarded this celebration not so much as a homage to Our Person, as a dutiful tribute of honor to the dignity of the priestly character.

5. Similarly, We decreed a reform of studies in ecclesiastical faculties, by the Apostolic Constitution Deus scientiarum Dominus, of the twenty-fourth of May, 1931. Our special purpose in this decree was to make even broader and higher the culture and learning of priests.

6. This matter, indeed, is of so great and universal importance that We think fitting to devote to it a special Encyclical; since it is Our desire that the faithful, who already possess the priceless gift of Faith, may appreciate the sublimity of the Catholic Priesthood and its providential mission in the world; that those, too, who do not yet possess the Faith, but with uprightness and sincerity are in search of Truth, may share this appreciation with the faithful; above all, that those who are themselves called may have still deeper understanding and esteem of their vocation. This subject is particularly opportune at the present moment, for it is the end of the year which has seen extended, beyond the Eternal City to the whole Catholic world, the Jubilee of the Redemption. This Extraordinary Jubilee, at Lourdes, came, like a sunset, to a splendid close. There, under the mantle of the Immaculate, for a fervent and uninterrupted Eucharistic Triduum, gathered together Catholic clergy of every tongue and rite. Our beloved and venerated priests, never more energetic in well-doing than during this special Holy Year, are the ministers of the Redemption of which this year was the Jubilee. Moreover, this year, as We said in the Apostolic Constitution Quod nuper, commemorated, likewise, the nineteenth centenary of the institution of the priesthood.

7. Our previous Encyclicals were directed to throwing the light of Catholic doctrine upon the gravest of the problems peculiar to modern life. Our present Encyclical finds a natural place among these others, opportunely supplementing them. The priest is, indeed, both by vocation and divine commission, the chief apostle and tireless furtherer of the Christian education of youth; in the name of God, the priest blesses Christian marriage, and defends its sanctity and indissolubility against the attacks and evasions suggested by cupidity and sensuality; the priest contributes more effectively to the solution, or at least the mitigation, of social conflicts, since he preaches Christian brotherhood, declares to all their mutual obligations of justice and charity, brings peace to hearts embittered by moral and economic hardship, and alike to rich and poor points out the only true riches to which all men both can and should aspire. Finally, the priest is the most valorous leader in that crusade of expiation and penance to which We have invited all men of good will. For there is need of reparation for the blasphemies, wickedness and crimes which dishonor humanity today, an age perhaps unparalleled in its need for the mercy and pardon of God. The enemies of the Church themselves well know the vital importance of the priesthood; for against the priesthood in particular, as We have already had to lament in the case of Our dear Mexico, they direct the point of their attacks. It is the priesthood they desire to be rid of; that they may clear the way for that destruction of the Church, which has been so often attempted yet never achieved.

8. The human race has always felt the need of a priesthood: of men, that is, who have the official charge to be mediators between God and humanity, men who should consecrate themselves entirely to this mediation, as to the very purpose of their lives, men set aside to offer to God public prayers and sacrifices in the name of human society. For human society as such is bound to offer to God public and social worship. It is bound to acknowledge in Him its Supreme Lord and first beginning, and to strive toward Him as to its last end, to give Him thanks and offer Him propitiation. In fact, priests are to be found among all peoples whose customs are known, except those compelled by violence to act against the most sacred laws of human nature. They may, indeed, be in the service of false divinities; but wherever religion is professed, wherever altars are built, there also is a priesthood surrounded by particular marks of honor and veneration.

9. Yet in the splendor of Divine Revelation the priest is seen invested with a dignity far greater still. This dignity was foreshadowed of old by the venerable and mysterious figure of Melchisedech, Priest and King, whom St. Paul recalls as prefiguring the Person and Priesthood of Christ Our Lord Himself.

10. The priest, according to the magnificent definition given by St. Paul is indeed a man Ex hominibus assumptus, "taken from amongst men," yet pro hominibus constituitur in his quae sunt ad Deum, "ordained for men in the things that appertain to God": his office is not for human things, and things that pass away, however lofty and valuable these may seem; but for things divine and enduring. These eternal things may, perhaps, through ignorance, be scorned and contemned, or even attacked with diabolical fury and malice, as sad experience has often proved, and proves even today; but they always continue to hold the first place in the aspirations, individual and social, of humanity, because the human heart feels irresistibly it is made for God and is restless till it rests in Him.

11. The Old Law, inspired by God and promulgated by Moses, set up a priesthood, which was, in this manner, of divine institution; and determined for it every detail of its duty, residence and rite. It would seem that God, in His great care for them, wished to impress upon the still primitive mind of the Jєωιѕн people one great central idea. This idea throughout the history of the chosen people, was to shed its light over all events, laws, ranks and offices: the idea of sacrifice and priesthood. These were to become, through faith in the future Messias, a source of hope, glory, power and spiritual liberation. The temple of Solomon, astonishing in richness and splendor, was still more wonderful in its rites and ordinances. Erected to the one true God as a tabernacle of the divine Majesty upon earth, it was also a sublime poem sung to that sacrifice and that priesthood, which, though type and symbol, was still so august, that the sacred figure of its High Priest moved the conqueror Alexander the Great, to bow in reverence; and God Himself visited His wrath upon the impious king Balthasar because he made revel with the sacred vessels of the temple. Yet that ancient priesthood derived its greatest majesty and glory from being a foretype of the Christian priesthood; the priesthood of the New and eternal Covenant sealed with the Blood of the Redeemer of the world, Jesus Christ, true God and true Man.

12. The Apostle of the Gentiles thus perfectly sums up what may be said of the greatness, the dignity and the duty of the Christian priesthood: Sic nos existimet homo Ut ministros Christi et dispensatores mysteriorum Dei - "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God." The priest is the minister of Christ, an instrument, that is to say, in the hands of the Divine Redeemer. He continues the work of the redemption in all its world-embracing universality and divine efficacy, that work that wrought so marvelous a transformation in the world. Thus the priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed "another Christ"; for, in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ. "As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you," is spoken to the priest, and hence the priest, like Christ, continues to give "glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will."

13. For, in the first place, as the Council of Trent teaches, Jesus Christ at the Last Supper instituted the sacrifice and the priesthood of the New Covenant: "our Lord and God, although once and for all, by means of His death on the altar of the cross, He was to offer Himself to God the Father, that thereon He might accomplish eternal Redemption; yet because death was not to put an end to his priesthood, at the Last Supper, the same night in which He was betrayed in order to leave to His beloved spouse the Church, a sacrifice which should be visible (as the nature of man requires), which should represent that bloody sacrifice, once and for all to be completed on the cross, which should perpetuate His memory to the end of time, and which should apply its saving power unto the remission of sins we daily commit, showing Himself made a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, offered to God the Father, under the appearance of bread and wine, His Body and Blood, giving them to the apostles (whom He was then making priests of the New Covenant) to be consumed under the signs of these same things, and commanded the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood to offer them, by the words 'Do this in commemoration of Me.' "

14. And thenceforth, the Apostles, and their successors in the priesthood, began to lift to heaven that "clean oblation" foretold by Malachy, through which the name of God is great among the gentiles. And now, that same oblation in every part of the world and at every hour of the day and night, is offered and will continue to be offered without interruption till the end of time: a true sacrificial act, not merely symbolical, which has a real efficacy unto the reconciliation of sinners with the Divine Majesty.

15. "Appeased by this oblation, the Lord grants grace and the gift of repentance, and forgives iniquities and sins, however great." The reason of this is given by the same Council in these words: "For there is one and the same Victim, there is present the same Christ who once offered Himself upon the Cross, who now offers Himself by the ministry of priests, only the manner of the offering being different."

16. And thus the ineffable greatness of the human priest stands forth in all its splendor; for he has power over the very Body of Jesus Christ, and makes It present upon our altars. In the name of Christ Himself he offers It a victim infinitely pleasing to the Divine Majesty. "Wondrous things are these," justly exclaims St. John Chrysostom, "so wonderful, they surpass wonder."

17. Besides this power over the real Body of Christ, the priest has received other powers, august and sublime, over His Mystical Body of Christ, a doctrine so dear to St. Paul; this beautiful doctrine that shows us the Person of the Word-made-Flesh in union with all His brethren. For from Him to them comes a supernatural influence, so that they, with Him as Head, form a single Body of which they are the members. Now a priest is the appointed "dispenser of the mysteries of God," for the benefit of the members of the mystical Body of Christ; since he is the ordinary minister of nearly all the Sacraments, - those channels through which the grace of the Savior flows for the good of humanity. The Christian, at almost every important stage of his mortal career, finds at his side the priest with power received from God, in the act of communicating or increasing that grace which is the supernatural life of his soul.

18. Scarcely is he born before the priest baptizing him, brings him by a new birth to a more noble and precious life, a supernatural life, and makes him a son of God and of the Church of Jesus Christ. To strengthen him to fight bravely in spiritual combats, a priest invested with special dignity makes him a soldier of Christ by holy chrism. Then, as soon as he is able to recognize and value the Bread of Angels, the priest gives It to him, the living and life-giving Food come down from Heaven. If he fall, the priest raises him up again in the name of God, and reconciles him to God with the Sacrament of Penance. Again, if he is called by God to found a family and to collaborate with Him in the transmission of human life throughout the world, thus increasing the number of the faithful on earth and, thereafter, the ranks of the elect in Heaven, the priest is there to bless his espousals and unblemished love; and when, finally, arrived at the portals of eternity, the Christian feels the need of strength and courage before presenting himself at the tribunal of the Divine Judge, the priest with the holy oils anoints the failing members of the sick or dying Christian, and reconsecrates and comforts him.

19. Thus the priest accompanies the Christian throughout the pilgrimage of this life to the gates of Heaven. He accompanies the body to its resting place in the grave with rites and prayers of immortal hope. And even beyond the threshold of eternity he follows the soul to aid it with Christian suffrages, if need there be of further purification and alleviation. Thus, from the cradle to the grave the priest is ever beside the faithful, a guide, a solace, a minister of salvation and dispenser of grace and blessing.

20. But among all these powers of the priest over the Mystical Body of Christ for the benefit of the faithful, there is one of which the simple mention made above will not content Us. This is that power which, as St. John Chrysostom says: "God gave neither to Angels nor Archangels" - the power to remit sins. "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain they are retained"; a tremendous power, so peculiar to God that even human pride could not make the mind conceive that it could be given to man. "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And, when we see it exercised by a mere man there is reason to ask ourselves, not, indeed, with pharisaical scandal, but with reverent surprise at such a dignity: "Who is this that forgiveth sins also?" But it is so: the God-Man who possessed the "power on earth to forgive sins" willed to hand it on to His priests; to relieve, in His divine generosity and mercy, the need of moral purification which is rooted in the human heart.

21. What a comfort to the guilty, when, stung with remorse and repenting of his sins, he hears the word of the priest who says to him in God's name: "I absolve thee from thy sins!" These words fall, it is true, from the lips of one who, in his turn, must needs beg the same absolution from another priest. This does not debase the merciful gift; but makes it, rather, appear greater; since beyond the weak creature is seen more clearly the hand of God through whose power is wrought this wonder. As an illustrious layman has written, treating with rare competence of spiritual things: ". . . when a priest, groaning in spirit at his own unworthiness and at the loftiness of his office, places his consecrated hands upon our heads; when, humiliated at finding himself the dispenser of the Blood of the Covenant; each time amazed as he pronounces the words that give life; when a sinner has absolved a sinner; we, who rise from our knees before him, feel we have done nothing debasing. . . We have been at the feet of a man who represented Jesus Christ, . . . we have been there to receive the dignity of free men and of sons of God."

22. These august powers are conferred upon the priest in a special Sacrament designed to this end: they are not merely passing or temporary in the priest, but are stable and perpetual, united as they are with the indelible character imprinted on his soul whereby he becomes "a priest forever"; whereby he becomes like unto Him in whose eternal priesthood he has been made a sharer. Even the most lamentable downfall, which, through human frailty, is possible to a priest, can never blot out from his soul the priestly character. But along with this character and these powers, the priest through the Sacrament of Orders receives new and special grace with special helps. Thereby, if only he will loyally further, by his free and personal cooperation, the divinely powerful action of the grace itself, he will be able worthily to fulfill all the duties, however arduous, of his lofty calling. He will not be overborne, but will be able to bear the tremendous responsibilities inherent to his priestly duty; responsibilities which have made fearful even the stoutest champions of the Christian priesthood, men like St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Charles and many others.

23. The Catholic priest is minister of Christ and dispenser of the mysteries of God in another way, that is, by his words. The "ministry of the word" is a right which is inalienable; it is a duty which cannot be disallowed; for it is imposed by Jesus Christ Himself: "Going, therefore, teach ye all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." The Church of Christ, depository and infallible guardian of divine revelation, by means of her priests, pours out the treasures of heavenly truth; she preaches Him who is "the true Light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world"; she sows with divine bounty that seed which is small and worthless to the profane eyes of the world, but which is like the mustard seed of the Gospel. For it has within itself power to strike strong deep roots in souls which are sincere and thirsting for the truth, and make them like sturdy trees able to withstand the wildest storms.

24. Amidst all the aberrations of human thought, infatuated by a false emancipation from every law and curb; and amidst the awful corruptions of human malice, the Church rises up like a bright lighthouse warning by the clearness of its beam every deviation to right or left from the way of truth, and pointing out to one and all the right course that they should follow. Woe if ever this beacon should be - We do not say extinguished, for that is impossible owing to the unfailing promises on which it is founded - but if it should be hindered from shedding far and wide its beneficent light! We see already with Our own eyes whither the world has been brought by its arrogant rejection of divine revelation, and its pursuit of false philosophical and moral theories that bear the specious name of "science." That it has not fallen still lower down the slope of error and vice is due to the guidance of the light of Christian truth that always shines in the world. Now the Church exercises her "ministry of the word" through her priests of every grade of the Hierarchy, in which each has his wisely allotted place. These she sends everywhere as unwearied heralds of the good tidings which alone can save and advance true civilization and culture, or help them to rise again. The word of the priest enters the soul and brings light and power; the voice of the priest rises calmly above the storms of passion, fearlessly to proclaim the truth, and exhort to the good; that truth which elucidates and solves the gravest problems of human life; that good which no misfortune can take from us, which death but secures and renders immortal.

25. Consider the truths themselves which the priest if faithful to his ministry, must frequently inculcate. Ponder them one by one and dwell upon their inner power; for they make plain the influence of the priest, and how strong and beneficent it can be for the moral education, social concord and peaceful development of peoples. He brings home to young and old the fleeting nature of the present life; the perishableness of earthly goods; the value of spiritual goods and of the immortal soul; the severity of divine judgment; the spotless holiness of the divine gaze that reads the hearts of all; the justice of God, which "will render to every man according to his works." These and similar lessons the priest teaches; a teaching fitted indeed to moderate the feverish search for pleasure, and the uncontrolled greed for worldly goods, that debase so much of modern life, and spur on the different classes of society to fight one another like enemies, instead of helping one another like friends. In this clash of selfish interest, and unleashed hate, and dark plans of revenge, nothing could be better or more powerful to help, than loudly to proclaim the "new commandment" of Christ. That commandment enjoins a love which extends to all, knows no barriers nor national boundaries, excludes no race, excepts not even its own enemies.

26. The experience of twenty centuries fully and gloriously reveals the power for good of the word of the priest. Being the faithful echo and reecho of the "word of God," which "is living and effectual and more piercing than any two-edged sword,' it too reaches "unto the division of the soul and spirit"; it awakens heroism of every kind, in every class and place, and inspires the self forgetting deeds of the most generous hearts. All the good that Christian civilization has brought into the world is due, at least radically, to the word and works of the Catholic priesthood. Such a past might, to itself, serve as sufficient guarantee for the future; but we have a still more secure guarantee, "a more firm prophetical word" in the infallible promises of Christ.

27. The work, too, of the Missions manifests most vividly the power of expansion given by divine grace to the Church. This work is advanced and carried on principally by priests. Pioneers of faith and love, at the cost of innumerable sacrifices, they extend and widen the Kingdom of God upon earth.

28. Finally, the priest, in another way, follows the example of Christ. Of Him it is written that He "passed the whole night in the prayer of God" and "ever lives to make intercession for us"; and like Him, the priest, is public and official intercessor of humanity before God; he has the duty and commission of offering to God in the name of the Church, over and above sacrifice strictly so-called, the "sacrifice of praise," in public and official prayer; for several times each day with psalms, prayers and hymns taken in great part from the inspired books, he pays to God this dutiful tribute of adoration and thus performs his necessary office of interceding for humanity. And never did humanity, in its afflictions, stand more in need of intercession and of the divine help which it brings. Who can tell how many chastisements priestly prayer wards off from sinful mankind, how many blessings it brings down and secures?

29. If Our Lord made such magnificent and solemn promises even to private prayers, how much more powerful must be that prayer which is said ex officio in the name of the Church, the beloved Spouse of the Savior? The Christian, though in prosperity so often forgetful of God, yet in the depth of his heart keeps his confidence in prayer, feels that prayer is all powerful, and as by a holy instinct, in every distress, in every peril whether private or public, has recourse with special trust to the prayer of the priest. To it the unfortunate of every sort look for comfort; to it they have recourse, seeking divine aid in all the vicissitudes of this exile here on earth. Truly does the "priest occupy a place midway between God and human nature: from Him bringing to us absolving beneficence, offering our prayers to Him and appeasing the wrathful Lord."

30. A last tribute to the priesthood is given by the enemies of the Church. For as We have said on a previous page, they show that they fully appreciate the dignity and importance of the Catholic priesthood, by directing against it their first and fiercest blows; since they know well how close is the tie that binds the Church to her priests. The most rabid enemies of the Catholic priesthood are today the very enemies of God; a homage indeed to the priesthood, showing it the more worthy of honor and veneration.

31. Most sublime, then, Venerable Brethren, is the dignity of the priesthood. Even the falling away of the few unworthy in the priesthood, however deplorable and distressing it may be, cannot dim the splendor of so lofty a dignity. Much less can the unworthiness of a few cause the worth and merit of so many to be overlooked; and how many have been, and are, in the priesthood, preeminent in holiness, in learning, in works of zeal, nay, even in martyrdom.

32. Nor must it be forgotten that personal unworthiness does not hinder the efficacy of a priest's ministry. For the unworthiness of the minister does not make void the Sacraments he administers; since the Sacraments derive their efficacy from the Blood of Christ, independently of the sanctity of the instrument, or, as scholastic language expresses it, the Sacraments work their effect ex opere operato.

33. Nevertheless, it is quite true that so holy an office demands holiness in him who holds it. A priest should have a loftiness of spirit, a purity of heart and a sanctity of life befitting the solemnity and holiness of the office he holds. For this, as We have said, makes the priest a mediator between God and man; a mediator in the place, and by the command of Him who is "the one mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ." The priest must, therefore, approach as close as possible to the perfection of Him whose vicar he is, and render himself ever more and more pleasing to God, by the sanctity of his life and of his deeds; because more than the scent of incense, or the beauty of churches and altars, God loves and accepts holiness. "They who are the intermediaries between God and His people," says St. Thomas, "must bear a good conscience before God, and a good name among men." On the contrary, whosoever handles and administers holy things, while blameworthy in his life, profanes them and is guilty of sacrilege: "They who are not holy ought not to handle holy things."

34. For this reason even in the Old Testament God commanded His priests and levites: "Let them therefore be holy because I am also holy: the Lord who sanctify them." In his canticle for the dedication of the temple, Solomon the Wise made this same request to the Lord in favor of the sons of Aaron: "Let Thy priests be clothed with justice: and let Thy saints rejoice." So, Venerable Brethren, may we not ask with St. Robert Bellarmine: "If so great uprightness, holiness and lively devotion was required of priests who offered sheep and oxen, and praised God for the moral blessings; what, I ask, is required of those priests who sacrifice the Divine Lamb and give thanks for eternal blessings?" "A great dignity," exclaims St. Lawrence Justinian, "but great too is the responsibility; placed high in the eyes of men they must also be lifted up to the peak of virtue before the eye of Him who seeth all; otherwise their elevation will be not to their merit but to their damnation."

35. And surely every reason We have urged in showing the dignity of the Catholic priesthood does but reinforce its obligation of singular holiness; for as the Angelic Doctor teaches: "To fulfill the duties of Holy Orders, common goodness does not suffice; but excelling goodness is required; that they who receive Orders and are thereby higher in rank than the people, may also be higher in holiness." The Eucharistic Sacrifice in which the Immaculate Victim who taketh away the sins of the world is immolated, requires in a special way that the priest, by a holy and spotless life, should make himself as far as he can, less unworthy of God, to whom he daily offers that adorable Victim, the very Word of God incarnate for love of us. Agnoscite quod agitis, imitamini quod tractatis, "realize what you are doing, and imitate what you handle," says the Church through the Bishop to the deacons as they are about to be consecrated priests. The priest is also the almoner of God's graces of which the Sacraments are the channels; how grave a reproach would it be, for one who dispenses these most precious graces were he himself without them, or were he even to esteem them lightly and guard them with little care.

36. Moreover, the priest must teach the truths of faith; but the truths of religion are never so worthily and effectively taught as when taught by virtue; because in the common saying: "Deeds speak louder than words." The priest must preach the law of the Gospel; but for that preaching to be effective, the most obvious and, by the Grace of God, the most persuasive argument, is to see the actual practice of the law in him who preaches it. St. Gregory the Great gives the reason: "The voice which penetrates the hearts of the hearers, is the voice commended by the speaker's own life; because what his word enjoins, his example helps to bring about." This exactly is what Holy Scripture says of our Divine Savior: He "began to do and to teach." And the crowds hailed Him, not so much because "never did man speak like this man," but rather because "He hath done all things well." On the other hand, they who "say and do not," practicing not what they preach, become like the scribes and Pharisees. And Our Lord's rebuke to the other hand, they who "say and do not," practicing not what they preach, the word of God, was yet administered publicly, in the presence of the listening crowd: "The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you observe and do: but according to their work do ye not." A preacher who does not try to ratify by his life's example the truth he preaches, only pulls down with one hand what he builds up with the other. On the contrary, God greatly blesses the labor of those heralds of the gospel who attend first to their own holiness; they see their apostolate flourishing and fruitful, and in the day of the harvest, "coming they shall come with joyfulness carrying in their sheaves."

37. It would be a grave error fraught with many dangers should the priest, carried away by false zeal, neglect his own sanctification, and become over immersed in the external works, however holy, of the priestly ministry. Thereby, he would run a double risk. In the first place he endangers his own salvation, as the great Apostle of the Gentiles feared for himself: "But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway." In the second place he might lose, if not divine grace, certainly that unction of the Holy Spirit which gives such a marvelous force and efficacy to the external apostolate.

38. Now to all Christians in general it has been said: "Be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect"; how much more then should the priest consider these words of the Divine Master as spoken to himself, called as he is by a special vocation to follow Christ more closely. Hence the Church publicly urges on all her clerics this most grave duty, placing it in the code of her laws: "Clerics must lead a life, both interior and exterior, more holy than the laity, and be an example to them by excelling in virtue and good works." And since the priest is an ambassador for Christ, he should so live as to be able with truth to make his own the words of the Apostle: "Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ"; he ought to live as another Christ who by the splendor of His virtue enlightened and still enlightens the world.

39. It is plain, then, that all Christian virtues should flourish in the soul of the priest. Yet there are some virtues which in a very particular manner attach themselves to the priest as most befitting and necessary to him. Of these the first is piety, or godliness, according to the exhortation of the Apostle to his beloved Timothy: Exerce . . .teipsum ad pietatem, "exercise thyself unto godliness." Indeed the priest's relations with God are so intimate, so delicate and so frequent, that clearly they should ever be graced by the sweet odor of piety; if "godliness is profitable to all things," it is especially profitable to a right exercise of the priestly charge. Without piety the holiest practices, the most solemn rites of the sacred ministry, will be performed mechanically and out of habit; they will be devoid of spirit, unction and life. But remark, Venerable Brethren, the piety of which We speak is not that shallow and superficial piety which attracts but does not nourish, is busy but does not sanctify. We mean that solid piety which is not dependent upon changing mood or feeling. It is based upon principles of sound doctrine; it is ruled by staunch convictions; and so it resists the assaults and the illusions of temptation. This piety should primarily be directed towards God our Father in Heaven; yet it should be extended also to the Mother of God. The priest even more than the faithful should have devotion to Our Lady, for the relation of the priest to Christ is more deeply and truly like that which Mary bears to her Divine Son.

40. It is impossible to treat of the piety of a Catholic priest without being drawn on to speak, too, of another most precious treasure of the Catholic priesthood, that is, of chastity; for from piety springs the meaning and the beauty of chastity. Clerics of the Latin Church in higher Orders are bound by a grave obligation of chastity; so grave is the obligation in them of its perfect and total observance that a transgression involves the added guilt of sacrilege.

41. Though this law does not bind, in all its amplitude, clerics of the Oriental Churches, yet among them also, ecclesiastical celibacy is revered; indeed in some cases, especially in the higher Orders of the Hierarchy, it is a necessary and obligatory requisite.

42. A certain connection between this virtue and the sacerdotal ministry can be seen even by the light of reason alone: since "God is a Spirit," it is only fitting that he who dedicates and consecrates himself to God's service should in some way "divest himself of the body." The ancient Romans perceived this fitness; one of their laws which ran Ad divos adeunto caste, "approach the gods chastely," is quoted by one of their greatest orators with the following comment: "The law orders us to present ourselves to the gods in chastity - of spirit, that is, in which are all things, or does this exclude chastity of the body, which is to be understood, since the spirit is so far superior to the body; for it should be remembered that bodily chastity cannot be preserved, unless spiritual chastity be maintained." In the Old Law, Moses in the name of God commanded Aaron and his sons to remain within the Tabernacle, and so to keep continent, during the seven days in which they were exercising their sacred functions.

43. But the Christian priesthood, being much superior to that of the Old Law, demanded a still greater purity. The law of ecclesiastical celibacy, whose first written traces pre-suppose a still earlier unwritten practice, dates back to a canon of the Council of Elvira, at the beginning of the fourth century, when persecution still raged. This law only makes obligatory what might in any case almost be termed a moral exigency that springs from the Gospel and the Apostolic preaching. For the Divine Master showed such high esteem for chastity, and exalted it as something beyond the common power; He Himself was the Son of a Virgin Mother, Florem Matris Virginis, and was brought up in the virgin family of Joseph and Mary; He showed special love for pure souls such as the two Johns - the Baptist and the Evangelist. The great Apostle Paul, faithful interpreter of the New Law and of the mind of Christ, preached the inestimable value of virginity, in view of a more fervent service of God, and gave the reason when he said: "He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God." All this had almost inevitable consequences: the priests of the New Law felt the heavenly attraction of this chosen virtue; they sought to be of the number of those "to whom it is given to take this word," and they spontaneously bound themselves to its observance. Soon it came about that the practice, in the Latin Church, received the sanction of ecclesiastical law. The Second Council of Carthage at the end of the fourth century declared: "What the Apostles taught, and the early Church preserved, let us too, observe."

44. In the Oriental Church, too, most illustrious Fathers bear witness to the excellence of Catholic celibacy. In this matter as in others there was harmony between the Latin and Oriental Churches where accurate discipline flourished. St. Epiphanius at the end of the fourth century tells us that celibacy applied even to the subdiaconate: "The Church does not on any account admit a man living in the wedded state and having children, even though he have only one wife, to the orders of deacon, priest, bishop or subdeacon; but only him whose wife be dead or who should abstain from the use of marriage; this is done in those places especially where the ecclesiastical canons are accurately followed." The Deacon of Edessa and Doctor of the Universal Church, well called the Harp of the Holy Spirit, St. Ephraem, the Syrian, is particularly eloquent on this matter. In one of his poems, addressed to his friend, the bishop Abraham, he says: "Thou art true to thy name, Abraham, for thou also art the father of many: but because thou hast no wife as Abraham had Sara, behold thy flock is thy spouse. Bring up its children in thy truth; may they become to thee children of the spirit and sons of the promise that makes them heirs to Eden. O sweet fruit of chastity, in which the priesthood finds its delights . . . the horn of plenty flowed over and anointed thee, a hand rested on thee and chose thee out, the Church desired thee and held thee dear." And in another place: "It is not enough for the priest and the name of the priesthood, it is not enough, I say, for him who offers up the living body, to cleanse his soul and tongue and hand and make spotless his whole body; but he must at all times be absolutely and preeminently pure, because he is established as a mediator between God and the human race. May He be praised who made His servants clean!" St. John Chrysostom affirms: "The priest must be so pure that, if he were to be lifted up and placed in the heavens themselves, he might take a place in the midst of the Angels."

45. In short the very height, or, to use St. Epiphanius' phrase, "the incredible honor and dignity" of the Christian priesthood, which We have briefly described, shows how becoming is clerical celibacy and the law which enjoins it. Priests have a duty which, in a certain way, is higher than that of the most pure spirits "who stand before the Lord." Is it not right, then, that he live an all but angelic life? A priest is one who should be totally dedicated to the things of the Lord. Is it not right, then, that he be entirely detached from the things of the world, and have his conversation in Heaven? A priest's charge is to be solicitous for the eternal salvation of souls, continuing in their regard the work of the Redeemer. Is it not, then, fitting that he keep himself free from the cares of a family, which would absorb a great part of his energies?

46. And truly an ordination ceremony, frequent though it be in the Catholic Church, never fails to touch the hearts of those present: how admirable a sight, these young ordinands, who before receiving the subdiaconate, before, that is, consecrating themselves utterly to the service and the worship of God, freely renounce the joys and the pleasures which might rightfully be theirs in another walk of life. We say "freely," for though, after ordination, they are no longer free to contract earthly marriage, nevertheless they advance to ordination itself unconstrained by any law or person, and of their own spontaneous choice!

47. Notwithstanding all this, We do not wish that what We said in commendation of clerical celibacy should be interpreted as though it were Our mind in any way to blame, or, as it were, disapprove the different discipline legitimately prevailing in the Oriental Church. What We have said has been meant solely to exalt in the Lord something We consider one of the purest glories of the Catholic priesthood; something which seems to us to correspond better to the desires of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and to His purposes in regard to priestly souls.

48. Not less than by his chastity, the Catholic priest ought to be distinguished by his detachment. Surrounded by the corruptions of a world in which everything can be bought and sold, he must pass through them utterly free of selfishness. He must holily spurn all vile greed of earthly gains, since he is in search of souls, not of money, of the glory of God, not his own. He is no mercenary working for a temporal recompense, nor yet an employee who, whilst attending conscientiously to duties of his office, at the same time is looking to his career and personal promotion; he is the "good soldier of Christ" who "entangleth not himself with secular business: that he may please Him to whom he hath engaged himself."

49. The minister of God is a father of souls; and he knows that his toils and his cares cannot adequately be repaid with wealth and honors of earth. He is not indeed forbidden to receive fitting sustenance, according to the teaching of the Apostle: "They that serve the altar may partake with the altar . . . so also the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel." But once "called to the inheritance of the Lord," as his very title "cleric" declares, a priest must expect no other recompense than that promised by Christ to His Apostles: "Your reward is very great in Heaven." Woe to the priest who, forgetful of these divine promises should become "greedy of filthy lucre." Woe if he join the herd of the worldly over whom the Church like the Apostle grieves: "All seek the things that are their own: not the things that are Jesus Christ's." Such a priest, besides failing in his vocation, would earn the contempt even of his own people. They would perceive in him the deplorable contradiction between his conduct and the doctrine so clearly expounded by Christ, which the priest is bound to teach: "Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust and moth consume and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up to yourselves treasures in Heaven." Judas, an Apostle of Christ, "one of the twelve," as the Evangelists sadly observe, was led down to the abyss of iniquity precisely through the spirit of greed for earthly things. Remembering him, it is easy to grasp how this same spirit could have brought such harm upon the Church throughout the centuries: greed, called by the Holy Spirit the "root of all evil," can incite to any crime; and a priest who is poisoned by this vice, even though he stop short of crime, will nevertheless, consciously or unconsciously, make common cause with the enemies of God and of the Church, and cooperate in their evil designs.

50. On the other hand, by sincere disinterestedness the priest can hope to win the hearts of all. For detachment from earthly goods, if inspired by lively faith, is always accompanied by tender compassion towards the unfortunate of every kind. Thus the priest becomes a veritable father of the poor. Mindful of the touching words of his Savior, "As long as you did it to one of these My least brethren, you did it to Me," he sees in them, and, with particular affection, venerates and loves Jesus Christ Himself.

51. Thus the Catholic priest is freed from the bonds of a family and of self-interest, - the chief bonds which could bind him too closely to earth. Thus freed, his heart will more readily take flame from that heavenly fire that burns in the Heart of Jesus; that fire that seeks only to inflame apostolic hearts and through them "cast fire on all the earth." This is the fire of zeal. Like the zeal of Jesus described in Holy Scripture, the zeal of the priest for the glory of God and the salvation of souls sought to consume him. It should make him forget himself and all earthly things. It should powerfully urge him to dedicate himself utterly to his sublime work, and to search out means ever more effective for an apostolate ever wider and ever better.

52. The Good Shepherd said: "And other sheep I have that are not of this fold; them also I must bring;" and again, "See the countries for they are white already to the harvest." How can a priest meditate upon these words and not feel his heart enkindled with yearning to lead souls to the Heart of the Good Shepherd? How can he fail to offer himself to the Lord of the harvest for unremitting toil? Our Lord saw the multitudes "Iying like sheep that have no shepherd." Such multitudes are to be seen today not only in the far distant lands of the missions, but also, alas! in countries which have been Christian for centuries. How can a priest see such multitudes and not feel deeply within himself an echo of that divine pity which so often moved the Heart of the Son of God? - a priest, we say, who is conscious of possessing the words of life and of having in his hands the God-given means of regeneration and salvation?

53. But thanks be to God, it is just this flame of apostolic zeal which is one of the brightest Jєωels in the crown of the Catholic priesthood. Our heart fills with fatherly consolation at the sight of Our Brothers and Our beloved Sons, Bishops and Priests, who like chosen troops ever prompt to the call of their chief hasten to all outposts of this vast field. There they engage in the peaceful but bitter warfare of truth against error, of light against darkness, of the Kingdom of God against the kingdom of Satan.

54. But, by its very nature as an active and courageous company, the Catholic priesthood must have the spirit of discipline, or, to use a more deeply Christian word, obedience. It is obedience which binds together all ranks into the harmony of the Church's Hierarchy.

55. The Bishop, in his admonition to the ordinands, says: "With certain wonderful variety Holy Church is clothed, made comely and is ruled; since in her some are consecrated Pontiffs, and other priests of lesser degree, and from many members of differing dignity there is formed one Body of Christ." This obedience priests promised to the Bishop after Ordination, the holy oil still fresh on their hands. On the day of his consecration the Bishop, in his turn, swore obedience to the supreme visible Head of the Church, the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Let then obedience bind ever closer together these various members of the Hierarchy, one with another, and all with the Head; and thus make the Church Militant a foe truly terrible to the enemies of God, ut castrorum aciem ordinatam, "as an army set in array." Let obedience temper excessive zeal on the one hand, and put the spur to weakness and slackness on the other. Let it assign to each his place and station. These each should accept without resistance; for otherwise the magnificent work of the Church in the world would be sadly hindered. Let each one see in the arrangement of his hierarchical Superiors the arrangements of the only true Head, whom all obey: Jesus Christ, Our Lord, who became for us "obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross . "

56. The divine High Priest wished us to have abundant witness to His own most perfect obedience to the Eternal Father; for this reason both the Prophecies and the Gospels often testify to the entire submission of the Son of God to the will of the Father. "When He cometh into the world He saith; sacrifice and oblation Thou wouldst not: but a body Thou has fitted to Me. . .Then said I: Behold I come. In the head of the book it is written of Me that I should do Thy will, O God. . ." "My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me." On His very cross He consecrated obedience. He did not wish to commit His soul into the hands of His Father before having declared that all was fulfilled in Him that the Sacred Scriptures had foretold; He had accomplished the entire charge entrusted to Him by the Father, even to the last deeply mysterious "I thirst," which He pronounced "that the Scripture might be fulfilled." By these words He wished to show that zeal even the most ardent ought always to be completely subjected to the will of the Father; that our zeal should always be controlled by obedience to those who for us, have the place of the Father, and convey to us His will, in other words our lawful Superiors in the Hierarchy.

57. But the portrait of the Catholic priest which we intend to exhibit to the world would be unfinished were We to omit another most important feature,--learning. This the Church requires of him; for the Catholic priest is set up as a "Master in Israel"; he has received from Jesus Christ the office and commission of teaching truth: "Teach . . . all nations." He must teach the truth that heals and saves; and because of this teaching, like the Apostle of the Gentiles, he has a duty towards "the learned and the unlearned." But how can he teach unless he himself possess knowledge? "The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth," said the Holy Spirit in the Prophecy of Malachy. Who could ever utter a word in praise of sacerdotal learning more weighty than that which divine Wisdom itself once spoke by the mouth of Osee: "Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to Me." The priest should have full grasp of the Catholic teaching on faith and morals; he should know how to present it to others; and he should be able to give the reasons for the dogmas, laws and observances of the Church of which he is minister. Profane sciences have indeed made much progress; but in religious questions there is much ignorance still darkening the mind of our contemporaries. This ignorance the priest must dispel. Never was more pointed than today the warning of Tertullian, "Hoc unum gestit interdum (veritas), ne ignorata damnetur," "This alone truth sometime craves, that it be not condemned unheard." It is the priest's task to clear away from men's minds the mass of prejudices and misunderstandings which hostile adversaries have piled up; the modern mind is eager for the truth, and the priest should be able to point it out with serene frankness; there are souls still hesitating, distressed by doubts, and the priest should inspire courage and trust, and guide them with calm security to the safe port of faith, faith accepted by both head and heart; error makes its onslaughts, arrogant and persistent, and the priest should know how to meet them with a defense vigorous and active, yet solid and unruffled.

58. Therefore, Venerable Brethren, it is necessary that the priest, even among the absorbing tasks of his charge, and ever with a view to it, should continue his theological studies with unremitting zeal. The knowledge acquired at the seminary is indeed a sufficient foundation with which to begin; but it must be grasped more thoroughly, and perfected by an ever-increasing knowledge and understanding of the sacred sciences. Herein is the source of effective preaching and of influence over the souls of others. Yet even more is required. The dignity of the office he holds and the maintenance of a becoming respect and esteem among the people, which helps so much in his pastoral work, demand more than purely ecclesiastical learning. The priest must be graced by no less knowledge and culture than is usual among well-bred and well-educated people of his day. This is to say that he must be healthily modern, as is the Church, which is at home in all times and all places, and adapts itself to all; which blesses and furthers all healthy initiative and has no fear of the progress, even the most daring progress, of science; if only it be true science.

59. Indeed, in all ages the Catholic clergy has distinguished itself in every field of human knowledge; in fact, in certain centuries it so took the lead in the field of learning that the word "cleric" became synonymous with "learned." The Church preserved and saved the treasures of ancient culture, which without her and her monasteries would have been almost entirely lost; and her most illustrious Doctors show that all human knowledge can help to throw light upon and to defend the Catholic faith. An illustrious example of this We Ourselves have recently called to the world's attention. For We crowned with the halo of sanctity and the glorious title of Doctor of the Church that great teacher of the incomparable Aquinas: Albert of Cologne, whom his contemporaries had already honored with the titles of Great and of Universal Doctor.

60. Today it could hardly be hoped that the clergy could hold a similar primacy in every branch of knowledge; the range of human science has become so vast that no man can comprehend it all, much less become distinguished in each of its numberless branches. Nevertheless wise encouragement and help should be given to those members of the clergy, who, by taste and special gifts, feel a call to devote themselves to study and research, in this or that branch of science, in this or that art; they do not thereby deny their clerical profession; for all this, undertaken within just limits and under the guidance of the Church, redounds to the good estate of the Church and to the glory of her divine Head, Jesus Christ. And among the rest of the clergy, none should remain content with a standard of learning and culture which sufficed, perhaps, in other times; they must try to attain - or, rather, they must actually attain - a higher standard of general education and of learning. It must be broader and more complete; and it must correspond to the generally higher level and wider scope of modern education as compared with the past.

61. Sometimes, it is true, and even in modern times, Our Lord makes the world, as it were, His plaything; for He has been pleased to elect to the priestly state men almost devoid of that learning of which We have been speaking; and through them He has worked wonders. But He did this that all might learn, if there be a choice, to prize holiness more than learning; not to place more trust in human than in divine means. He did this because the world has need, from time to time, to hear repeated that wholesome, practical lesson: "The foolish things of the world hath God chosen to confound the wise . . . that no flesh should glory in His sight."

62. In the natural order, divine miracles suspend for a moment the effect of physical laws, but do not revoke them. So, too, the case of these Saints, real living miracles in whom high sanctity made up for all the rest, does not make the lesson We have been teaching any the less true or any the less necessary.

63. It is clear, then, that virtue and learning are required, that there is need of example and of edification, need for the priest to spread on all sides, and to all who draw near him "the good odor of Christ." This need is today more keenly felt, and has become more evident and urgent. This is because of Catholic Action, that movement so consoling, which has within it the power to spur on to the very highest ideals of perfection. Through Catholic Action the relations of the laity with priests are becoming more frequent and more intimate. And in this collaboration, the laity quite naturally look upon the priest not merely as a guide, but as a model also of Christian life and of apostolic virtue.

64. The state of the priesthood is thus most sublime, and the gifts it calls for very lofty. Hence, Venerable Brethren, the inescapable necessity of giving candidates for the sanctuary a training correspondingly superior.

65. Conscious of this necessity, the Church down the ages has shown for nothing a more tender solicitude and motherly care than for the training of her priests. She is not unaware that, as the religious and moral conditions of peoples depend in great measure upon their priests, so too, the future of the priest depends on the training he has received. The words of the Holy Spirit apply no less truly to him than to others: "A young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it." Hence, the Church, moved by the Holy Spirit, has willed that everywhere seminaries should be erected, where candidates for the priesthood may be trained and educated with singular care.

66. The seminary is and should be the apple of your eye, Venerable Brethren, who share with Us the heavy weight of the government of the Church; it is, and should be, the chief object of your solicitude. Careful above all should be the choice of superiors and professors; and, in a most special manner, of the spiritual father, who has so delicate and so important a part in the nurture of the priestly spirit. Give the best of your clergy to your seminaries; do not fear to take them from other positions. These positions may seem of greater moment, but in reality their importance is not to be compared with that of the seminaries, which is capital and indispensable. Seek also from elsewhere, wherever you can find them, men really fitted for this noble task. Let them be such as teach priestly virtues, rather by example than by words, men who are capable of imparting, together with learning, a solid, manly and apostolic spirit. Make piety, purity, discipline and study flourish in the seminary. With prudent foresight, arm and fortify the immature minds of students both against the temptations of the present, and against the far more serious perils of the future. For they will be exposed to all the temptations of the world, in the midst of which they must live, "that they save all."

67. Now it is of great importance, as We have said, that priests should have a learning adequate to the requirements of the age. For the attainment of this, in addition to a solid classical education, there is required both instruction and training in scholastic philosophy "according to the method, and the mind and the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas" - ad Angelicl Doctoris rationem, doctrinam et principia. This Our Illustrious Predecessor, Leo XIII, has called the philosophia perennis. It is essential to the future priest. It will help him to a thorough understanding of dogma. It will effectively forearm him against modern errors of whatever sort. It will sharpen his mind to distinguish truth from falsehood. It will form him to habits of intellectual clearness, so necessary in any studies or problems of the future. It will give him a great superiority over others, whose mere erudition, perhaps, is wider but who lack philosophical training.

68. There are some regions, where the dioceses are small, or students unhappily few, or where there is a shortage of means and suitable men. Hence it is impossible for every diocese to have its own seminary, equipped according to all the regulations of Canon Law and other prescriptions of the Church. Where this happens, it is most proper that the Bishops of the district should help one another in brotherly charity, should concentrate and unite their forces in a common seminary, fully worthy of its high purpose. The great advantages of such concentration amply repay the sacrifices entailed in obtaining it. It is indeed a sacrifice, grievous to the fatherly heart of a Bishop, to see his clerics, even for a time, taken away from their shepherd, who wishes himself to give his future co-workers his own apostolic spirit; and to see them taken away from the diocese which is to be the field of their ministry. But these sacrifices will all be repaid with interest when these clerics return as priests. They will be better formed, and more richly endowed with spiritual wealth, which they will spend with greater generosity and with greater profit to their diocese. Therefore, We have never let pass an opportunity to favor, and encourage and foster such efforts. Often, in fact, We have suggested and recommended them. On Our part, also, wherever We thought it necessary, We have Ourselves, as is well known, erected or improved or enlarged several such regional seminaries, not without heavy expense and trouble; and We will continue in the future, by the help of God, to apply Ourselves with all zeal to this work; for We hold it to be the most conducive to the good of the Church.

69. This achievement in the erection and management of Seminaries for the education of future priests deserves all praise. But it would be of little avail, were there any lack of care in the selecting and approving of candidates. In this selection and approval, all who are in charge of the clergy should have some part: superiors, spiritual directors and confessors, each in the manner and within the limits proper to his office. They must indeed foster and strengthen vocations with sedulous care; but with no less zeal they must discourage unsuitable candidates, and in good time send them away from a path not meant for them. Such are all youths who show a lack of necessary fitness, and who are, therefore, unlikely to persevere in the priestly ministry both worthily and becomingly. In these matters hesitation and delay is a serious mistake and may do serious harm. It is far better to dismiss an unfit student in the early stages; but if, for any reason, such dismissal has been delayed, the mistake should be corrected as soon as it is known. There should be no human consideration or false mercy. Such false mercy would be a real cruelty, not only towards the Church, to whom would be given an unfitted or unworthy minister, but also towards the youth himself; for, thus embarked upon a false course, he would find himself exposed to the risk of becoming a stumbling block to himself and to others with peril of eternal ruin.

70. The Head
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 03, 2014, 04:20:11 PM
The answer is in the encyclical, Cantarella.  BTW I'll ask you also, maybe you know, who trained your leader?   Come on now, who?  Who trained "Pope" Francis and his predecessors, was it the Masons?  Modernists, Communists, come on now, what is fair is fair.  Don't you even have a guess?

I wonder too, what was the name of the person who Baptised you.  If names are so important to you guys, what was the exact name of the person who Baptised you.  The point being is, the name is really not important, the important part is that it was done properly, right!  

So with Bishop Pivarunas training, the importance is that it was done properly.  So you two are making the fuss, read the encyclical first, then tell us right here what is it that Bishop is lacking as far as you two are seeing.   Put up or shut up!

Tell us all what is he lacking in, that you think he is not trained properly?  



Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 03, 2014, 04:54:40 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
I was hesitant to post this, I thought it much better for Stubborn to do his own reseach but it seems he is just too Stubborn.  I just hate long posts but since Stubborn in insists.  

Bishop Pivarunas was trained thusly and accordingly:

 

AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI..........


I said your answer should only be 4 or 5 words, not your reply should be 40,000 or 50,000 words and not be an answer.

So where was it that your leader received his Priestly Formation from?

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 03, 2014, 05:24:50 PM
If this does not satisfy you nothing will, I suggest you contact Our Bishop, it is strange that you are so concerned with Bishop Pivarunas instruction, but care nothing of your own leader's training.  

You didn't read the encyclical either, or perhaps you just skimmed through it.

Are you afraid, or scared you might learn something?

After reading the encyclical perhaps you and your lady friend can get your heads together and come up with something Bishop Pivarunas is lacking in.  BTW... you might be interested to know that he is now training others to become priests from men all over the world at Mater Dei Seminary.  



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/B8cBXYnlkTw[/youtube]

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 03, 2014, 07:40:26 PM
Myrna,

Why bother.  They are game players.  They are baiting you to do their research for them only so they can pick it apart.  

If they want to know so much about Bishop Pivarunas's seminary training that happened over 30 years ago, let them contact CMRI themselves.  

Anyone that knows Bp. Pivarunas and has been to masses can easily see that he conducts himself with dignity, he follows all the rubrics of the mass and sacraments, and there is no good reason for anyone to doubt his training.  

They don't care about his training, they are after CMRI because CMRI stands against their Feeneyism.  CMRI defends Catholic teaching against the heretics that deny Baptism of Desire.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 03, 2014, 07:43:42 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


The pope was trained in and excelled in a modernist university - as if you didn't know that. Which one? I don't know and I don't care. If you want to know, find out for yourself.

Now, why are you afraid to give an answer to the question?




Francis is your spiritual leader, so you should care.

I have answered your question, are you not able to read?

I am taking the claim of Bp. Pivaraunas on its face.  Why?  Because, I have met him, been to his mass, and have dealt with him, and in every instance he appeared to me to be well trained, knowledgable, and of good character.  

Now, you are the one with the problem who is doubting his word, so you do your own digging, I am not your servant.  



Your leader received his Priestly Formation from his face value? Where is that?

Another moronic  non-answer.


You really need to take a remedial reading class.  I catch you lacking in comprehension constantly.  

Now, spend some time and look up the saying, "take at face value," and educate yourself.

After this, reread my answer for you:

Now, you are the one with the problem who is doubting his word, so you do your own digging, I am not your servant.  


Well I ask where your leader received his Priestly Formation from and you say you took him at face value.

If you consider that an answer then I am correct in saying you provided another moronic non-answer.

You are scared of something - must be the truth because what else is there to fear?


No, I believe him because I believe he is credible.  You apparently don't, so why not tell us what reasons you have for thinking that Bp. Pivarunas lacks credibility.  

You can stop your stupid games anytime and admit your real reasons for your inquiry.  Honesty is always the best policy.  Didn't your parents ever teach you this?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 03, 2014, 07:47:20 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


The pope was trained in and excelled in a modernist university - as if you didn't know that. Which one? I don't know and I don't care. If you want to know, find out for yourself.

Now, why are you afraid to give an answer to the question?



 :roll-laugh1:


What's funny is that I am not defending or in any was weaseling - you CMRIers on the other hand are too scared to admit that you don't care. And you won't even say what it is you are so scared of - it's obviously something you cannot defend.


Then they use the childish strategy to reverse the question or bash the SSPX in comparison, as if this thread was not about specifically the CMRI.  

Quote

By the way, why do you keep evading Myrna's question to you about your spiritual leader, Francis.  What training does he have?


Typical sede counter-argument when there is nothing left for them to say. Very juvenile. Their whole argument has been long lost at the exact time of their first ad hominem.  


Yes,
I hope to keep this thread going for as long as they keep trying to avoid this whole issue - which is obviously an extremely important issue to them based on their constancy in avoiding providing an answer, any answer at all.

I think it should be common knowledge that nothing would stop an honest person from answering the question or saying they do not know the answer - only dishonest people who are either afraid of what the answer means or are too prideful to admit they do not know the answer carry on the way these people do.

As I said, hopefully any honest fence sitters out there who are lurking this thread are seeing what these self proclaimed remnant CMRIers are doing, hence, what they are all about.  

 


We keep answering you, you just don't like the answer.  Your not getting the ammo you want to attack CMRI, and are annoyed with our "lack of charity" for not helping you with your own private research that you plan on using against CMRI.



If THAT'S what you're scared of, me using your information against CMRI, then CMRI must be a giant spineless weakling if the members such as yourself are afraid of me LOL! LOL! That is the funniest thing you have posted yet - I gave you a thumbs up for that one!
    :roll-laugh1:


Scared, LOL.  Wouldn't you like to think that?   The only reason I am wasting my time with you is so you don't confuse others.  

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 03, 2014, 10:15:57 PM
You are so right Ambrose, you are the second person to tell me to stop wasting time with these types.  

As if soon after the apostasy, when Catholics who were trying to keep the Faith, were lucky to find each other could possible attend some renowned Traditional Catholic Seminary that would satisfy scoffers.  Scoffers who as you say, only look for "Catholics" that suit their erroneous beliefs and deny what was taught all along in Catholics schools.

God bless all of you this Holy Souls Day!    
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 04, 2014, 04:25:20 AM
Quote from: Ambrose
Myrna,

Why bother.  They are game players.  They are baiting you to do their research for them only so they can pick it apart.  

If they want to know so much about Bishop Pivarunas's seminary training that happened over 30 years ago, let them contact CMRI themselves.  

Anyone that knows Bp. Pivarunas and has been to masses can easily see that he conducts himself with dignity, he follows all the rubrics of the mass and sacraments, and there is no good reason for anyone to doubt his training.  

They don't care about his training, they are after CMRI because CMRI stands against their Feeneyism.  CMRI defends Catholic teaching against the heretics that deny Baptism of Desire.  


Seeing as how not one of you CMRI members cannot answer the simple question, you are the ones who don't care about his training - that much is painfully obvious.

The only thing you have demonstrated thus far is that smells and bells are what you actually care about - but not surprising, you won't admit that either.

Perhaps it's time to discuss why is it that you are afraid of answering the question of where your superior general received his seminary training. Why you keep dodging the question, why you keep trying to change the subject, why the constant showering of that wonderful CMRI Christian charity.

Let's start with a simple question where the answer is a "yes or no" answer.

Do you know where your leader received his seminary training?



Quote from: Ambrose

Scared, LOL.  Wouldn't you like to think that?  The only reason I am wasting my time with you is so you don't confuse others.  


Yet another futile attempt at evading the subject.

As if asking a simple question causes confusion to others.  :facepalm:



 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 04, 2014, 04:49:53 AM
Quote from: MyrnaM
You are so right Ambrose, you are the second person to tell me to stop wasting time with these types.  

As if soon after the apostasy, when Catholics who were trying to keep the Faith, were lucky to find each other could possible attend some renowned Traditional Catholic Seminary that would satisfy scoffers.  Scoffers who as you say, only look for "Catholics" that suit their erroneous beliefs and deny what was taught all along in Catholics schools.

God bless all of you this Holy Souls Day!    


Well according to CMRI website, your leader either found some "renowned Traditional Catholic Seminary" or CMRI has a different definition for "usual seminary training" - all I want to know is which is it, where did he get the usual seminary training from?

The web site says that "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training", I asked where did he get that? - 37 pages into the thread, and every zealous devotee of the CMRI in this thread have only and consistently offered a number of different excuses, ad hominems, subject changing replies, have offered what a great and dignified person the bishop is (but he is not Amrose's bishop, that bishop died a long time ago) and etc. and  absolutely nothing else.

As has been said already, the replies from CMRIers to this one question have one thing consistently in common, they have all generated numerous cult like pre-programmed responses, they've all demonstrated repeatedly that they offended by the question and cannot even get themselves to address the question. This is the typical behavior pattern found in cult members.

At this point, I am starting to wonder if they really need to be deprogrammed and that without deprogramming, no power on earth will get them to say where the bishop received his formal seminary training from.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Luker on November 04, 2014, 09:01:55 AM
I would love to stay and argue on this CMRI bashing thread but I just finished downloading the CMRI's 2014 Fatima conference from Traditional Catholic Sermons site and I am about to listen to it...

 :reporter:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 04, 2014, 10:09:06 AM
Quote from: Luker
I would love to stay and argue on this CMRI bashing thread but I just finished downloading the CMRI's 2014 Fatima conference from Traditional Catholic Sermons site and I am about to listen to it...

 :reporter:


Shoot, I missed that - I should have added that asking a question is akin to bashing the CMRI. I think it's probably already in there implicitly, at least that's certainly the way that the cult members take it.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 04, 2014, 10:17:21 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Luker
I would love to stay and argue on this CMRI bashing thread but I just finished downloading the CMRI's 2014 Fatima conference from Traditional Catholic Sermons site and I am about to listen to it...

 :reporter:


Shoot, I missed that - I should have added that asking a question is akin to bashing the CMRI. I think it's probably already in there implicitly, at least that's certainly the way that the cult members take it.


And we keep answering you.  Do your own research, we are not your servants.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 04, 2014, 11:10:27 AM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Luker
I would love to stay and argue on this CMRI bashing thread but I just finished downloading the CMRI's 2014 Fatima conference from Traditional Catholic Sermons site and I am about to listen to it...

 :reporter:


Shoot, I missed that - I should have added that asking a question is akin to bashing the CMRI. I think it's probably already in there implicitly, at least that's certainly the way that the cult members take it.


And we keep answering you.  Do your own research, we are not your servants.  


At least Luker's most edifying contribution to this thread is a perfect example on how the average CMRI operates. They really don't feel the need to know much, so why bother? As long as they have their smells and veils on Sundays, it is alright. They don't need to know further or care about "small details" such as Apostolicity.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 04, 2014, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Luker
I would love to stay and argue on this CMRI bashing thread but I just finished downloading the CMRI's 2014 Fatima conference from Traditional Catholic Sermons site and I am about to listen to it...

 :reporter:


Shoot, I missed that - I should have added that asking a question is akin to bashing the CMRI. I think it's probably already in there implicitly, at least that's certainly the way that the cult members take it.


And we keep answering you.  Do your own research, we are not your servants.  


LOL - you keep answering - LOL

That is another lie, because if it were true then why do you say for me to do my own research?



Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 04, 2014, 11:58:31 AM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Luker
I would love to stay and argue on this CMRI bashing thread but I just finished downloading the CMRI's 2014 Fatima conference from Traditional Catholic Sermons site and I am about to listen to it...

 :reporter:


Shoot, I missed that - I should have added that asking a question is akin to bashing the CMRI. I think it's probably already in there implicitly, at least that's certainly the way that the cult members take it.


And we keep answering you.  Do your own research, we are not your servants.  


At least Luker's most edifying contribution to this thread is a perfect example on how the average CMRI operates. They really don't feel the need to know much, so why bother? As long as they have their smells and veils on Sundays, it is alright. They don't need to know further or care about "small details" such as Apostolicity.


So far, they have all served as perfect examples of how these (all?) CMRI members operate.

The one and only thing they have to fear is the truth, which by now, they must realize is something which is against them. What they fail to realize is how obvious that fact is.

 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 04, 2014, 12:36:50 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Luker
I would love to stay and argue on this CMRI bashing thread but I just finished downloading the CMRI's 2014 Fatima conference from Traditional Catholic Sermons site and I am about to listen to it...

 :reporter:


Shoot, I missed that - I should have added that asking a question is akin to bashing the CMRI. I think it's probably already in there implicitly, at least that's certainly the way that the cult members take it.


And we keep answering you.  Do your own research, we are not your servants.  


LOL - you keep answering - LOL

That is another lie, because if it were true then why do you say for me to do my own research?





You really need to educate yourself on what constitutes a lie.  Your sloppiness in this area helps me see why you are unable to make distinctions on other subjects.

Yes, I keep answering you.  You are on a smear campaign against CMRI and Bp. Pivarunas, everyone sees this.  If you want your answers, go to CMRI and ask, I am not helping you.  I owe you nothing.

I will ask you a second time, tell me what grounds you have for doubting Bishop Pivarunas' credibility?  I don't want your non-answers, give me specific grounds.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 04, 2014, 12:38:21 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Luker
I would love to stay and argue on this CMRI bashing thread but I just finished downloading the CMRI's 2014 Fatima conference from Traditional Catholic Sermons site and I am about to listen to it...

 :reporter:


Shoot, I missed that - I should have added that asking a question is akin to bashing the CMRI. I think it's probably already in there implicitly, at least that's certainly the way that the cult members take it.


And we keep answering you.  Do your own research, we are not your servants.  


At least Luker's most edifying contribution to this thread is a perfect example on how the average CMRI operates. They really don't feel the need to know much, so why bother? As long as they have their smells and veils on Sundays, it is alright. They don't need to know further or care about "small details" such as Apostolicity.


So far, they have all served as perfect examples of how these (all?) CMRI members operate.

The one and only thing they have to fear is the truth, which by now, they must realize is something which is against them. What they fail to realize is how obvious that fact is.

 


None of us on this forum are members of CMRI, that's how little you know.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 04, 2014, 12:40:19 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Luker
I would love to stay and argue on this CMRI bashing thread but I just finished downloading the CMRI's 2014 Fatima conference from Traditional Catholic Sermons site and I am about to listen to it...

 :reporter:


Shoot, I missed that - I should have added that asking a question is akin to bashing the CMRI. I think it's probably already in there implicitly, at least that's certainly the way that the cult members take it.


And we keep answering you.  Do your own research, we are not your servants.  


At least Luker's most edifying contribution to this thread is a perfect example on how the average CMRI operates. They really don't feel the need to know much, so why bother? As long as they have their smells and veils on Sundays, it is alright. They don't need to know further or care about "small details" such as Apostolicity.


So now you pick on Luker, one of the nicest guys on this forum?  

Again, none of us are members of CMRI.  If you and your comrade want to smear CMRI, go do your own research, none of us are going to help you.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 04, 2014, 01:08:08 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Luker
I would love to stay and argue on this bashing thread but I just finished downloading the CMRI's 2014 Fatima conference from Traditional Catholic Sermons site and I am about to listen to it...

 :reporter:


Shoot, I missed that - I should have added that asking a question is akin to bashing the CMRI. I think it's probably already in there implicitly, at least that's certainly the way that the cult members take it.


And we keep answering you.  Do your own research, we are not your servants.  


At least Luker's most edifying contribution to this thread is a perfect example on how the average CMRI operates. They really don't feel the need to know much, so why bother? As long as they have their smells and veils on Sundays, it is alright. They don't need to know further or care about "small details" such as Apostolicity.


So now you pick on Luker, one of the nicest guys on this forum?  

Again, none of us are members of CMRI.  If you and your comrade want to smear CMRI, go do your own research, none of us are going to help you.


Niceness does not mean free from error. For the common good, error must be corrected regardless of how "a nice guy" a poster happens to be. It is nothing personal. There is no time or inclination to focus on individual posters. This is not what CI is for.

By the way, stop trying to deviate the attention to individual posters when the question about the validity of CMRI priesthood remains unanswered. This is what this thread is about.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 04, 2014, 01:17:44 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Luker
I would love to stay and argue on this bashing thread but I just finished downloading the CMRI's 2014 Fatima conference from Traditional Catholic Sermons site and I am about to listen to it...

 :reporter:


Shoot, I missed that - I should have added that asking a question is akin to bashing the CMRI. I think it's probably already in there implicitly, at least that's certainly the way that the cult members take it.


And we keep answering you.  Do your own research, we are not your servants.  


At least Luker's most edifying contribution to this thread is a perfect example on how the average CMRI operates. They really don't feel the need to know much, so why bother? As long as they have their smells and veils on Sundays, it is alright. They don't need to know further or care about "small details" such as Apostolicity.


So now you pick on Luker, one of the nicest guys on this forum?  

Again, none of us are members of CMRI.  If you and your comrade want to smear CMRI, go do your own research, none of us are going to help you.


Niceness does not mean free from error. For the common good, error must be corrected regardless of how "a nice guy" a poster happens to be. It is nothing personal. There is no time or inclination to focus on individual posters. This is not what CI is for.

By the way, stop trying to deviate the attention to individual posters when the question about the validity of CMRI priesthood remains unanswered.


What error is that?  Not wanting to be your and Stubborns servants?  

Thank Stubborn for derailing this thread.  I am not going to let him twist things against CMRI or pretend that we owe him anything.  

The validity of the holy orders of CMRI is well docuмented in numerous sources, and easily obtainable for free on the Internet.  

You can start with Mario Dekson's site, www.thucbishops.com. All of the docuмentation is available for you there.  


Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 04, 2014, 01:29:55 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Luker
I would love to stay and argue on this CMRI bashing thread but I just finished downloading the CMRI's 2014 Fatima conference from Traditional Catholic Sermons site and I am about to listen to it...

 :reporter:


Shoot, I missed that - I should have added that asking a question is akin to bashing the CMRI. I think it's probably already in there implicitly, at least that's certainly the way that the cult members take it.


And we keep answering you.  Do your own research, we are not your servants.  


At least Luker's most edifying contribution to this thread is a perfect example on how the average CMRI operates. They really don't feel the need to know much, so why bother? As long as they have their smells and veils on Sundays, it is alright. They don't need to know further or care about "small details" such as Apostolicity.


So now you pick on Luker, one of the nicest guys on this forum?  

Again, none of us are members of CMRI.  If you and your comrade want to smear CMRI, go do your own research, none of us are going to help you.


I'm still waiting for their thread against the SSPX or the SBC, wherein they can treat them the same way they treat the CMRI.

I'm not a CMRI as I am only one person and not an entire congregation. Again, I know that distinctions are not a strong point among our friends here on this thread, but it is important to remember.

Just to remind you, you can always look up the contact information for Mater Dei online, call or write a letter with your questions directly addressed to the person with whom you desire to interact. Unless you are someone who likes to go on third party information and rumors, you should go directly to the source.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 04, 2014, 01:31:36 PM
The question is not who ordained your bishop, the question is where did he receive his Priestly Formation. Remember?

Where was his formal seminary training.

Throughout CI, you are so educated on all things CMRI and always posting about them and their ways - except when it comes to this singular question, you are afraid to answer. Rather you suddenly think yourself a slave, and worried about something that imo you SHOULD have nothing to worry about.




Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 04, 2014, 01:42:12 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
The question is not who ordained your bishop, the question is where did he receive his Priestly Formation. Remember?

Where was his formal seminary training.

Throughout CI, you are so educated on all things CMRI and always posting about them and their ways - except when it comes to this singular question, you are afraid to answer. Rather you suddenly think yourself a slave, and worried about something that imo you SHOULD have nothing to worry about.



We keep answering you.  You just hate the answer so you keep going.  Read the CMRI website, it describes Bp. Pivarunas training.  If you want more information write CMRI and ask them.

His training is certainly much better than your spiritual leader.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 04, 2014, 02:00:24 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
The question is not who ordained your bishop, the question is where did he receive his Priestly Formation. Remember?

Where was his formal seminary training.

Throughout CI, you are so educated on all things CMRI and always posting about them and their ways - except when it comes to this singular question, you are afraid to answer. Rather you suddenly think yourself a slave, and worried about something that imo you SHOULD have nothing to worry about.



We keep answering you.  You just hate the answer so you keep going.  Read the CMRI website, it describes Bp. Pivarunas training.  If you want more information write CMRI and ask them.

His training is certainly much better than your spiritual leader.  



I already posted what their web states - no one liked what their web site implies, here, I will post it again and see if you also don't like it:

According to the CMRI website, Pivarunas entered CMRI in 1974 and was ordained a priest in 1985. That's all they say about that.

On the CMRI website, they call the seminary training of Bishop Pivarunas "usual"........."Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training, displaying proficiency in philosophy and in dogmatic and moral theology. Having received the commendation of his superiors for his progress in both virtue and learning, he was ordained to the priesthood on June 27, 1985, by the Most Reverend George Musey."

That is all it says on their website. That is the extent of what they say about it. The eleven years prior to his ordination is completely blank, they left that part  out. Why do you suppose that is? Because it's not important? Since you know so much about CMRI, wh don't you just open up and spill the beans already and tell us where the bishop had his formal seminary training?

Now do you see what I did for you? I posted what it actually says on their website for you a second time - but don't think for one second that because I did that for you that now I'm your slave!

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Luker on November 04, 2014, 03:00:55 PM
In case anyone is reading this thread and wondering, for the record, I have never attended a CMRI chapel or received sacraments from them. I assist exclusively at a SSPX chapel. I have read about the CMRI quite a bit online and listened extensively to their sermons and Fatima conferences posted online. I like the CMRI, I have learned a lot about our holy Catholic faith from the resources they have provided online. In the future, if I was given the opportunity, I would never hesitate about receiving the sacraments or instruction from the clergy of the CMRI.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 04, 2014, 04:04:12 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
The question is not who ordained your bishop, the question is where did he receive his Priestly Formation. Remember?

Where was his formal seminary training.

Throughout CI, you are so educated on all things CMRI and always posting about them and their ways - except when it comes to this singular question, you are afraid to answer. Rather you suddenly think yourself a slave, and worried about something that imo you SHOULD have nothing to worry about.



We keep answering you.  You just hate the answer so you keep going.  Read the CMRI website, it describes Bp. Pivarunas training.  If you want more information write CMRI and ask them.

His training is certainly much better than your spiritual leader.  



I already posted what their web states - no one liked what their web site implies, here, I will post it again and see if you also don't like it:

According to the CMRI website, Pivarunas entered CMRI in 1974 and was ordained a priest in 1985. That's all they say about that.

On the CMRI website, they call the seminary training of Bishop Pivarunas "usual"........."Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training, displaying proficiency in philosophy and in dogmatic and moral theology. Having received the commendation of his superiors for his progress in both virtue and learning, he was ordained to the priesthood on June 27, 1985, by the Most Reverend George Musey."

That is all it says on their website. That is the extent of what they say about it. The eleven years prior to his ordination is completely blank, they left that part  out. Why do you suppose that is? Because it's not important? Since you know so much about CMRI, wh don't you just open up and spill the beans already and tell us where the bishop had his formal seminary training?

Now do you see what I did for you? I posted what it actually says on their website for you a second time - but don't think for one second that because I did that for you that now I'm your slave!



Do you ask these detailed questions about all traditional priests?  Have you asked any of your priests how many classes in Philosophy, dogmatic theology, Canon Law, rubrics, liturgy, etc., that they have taken?  Have you asked them to name those specific classes, who the professors were, and what their grades were for each class?

Let me know, so we can see if your a hypocrite or not for putting Bishop Pivarunas through such a rigorous standard.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 04, 2014, 05:02:48 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
The question is not who ordained your bishop, the question is where did he receive his Priestly Formation. Remember?

Where was his formal seminary training.

Throughout CI, you are so educated on all things CMRI and always posting about them and their ways - except when it comes to this singular question, you are afraid to answer. Rather you suddenly think yourself a slave, and worried about something that imo you SHOULD have nothing to worry about.



We keep answering you.  You just hate the answer so you keep going.  Read the CMRI website, it describes Bp. Pivarunas training.  If you want more information write CMRI and ask them.

His training is certainly much better than your spiritual leader.  



I already posted what their web states - no one liked what their web site implies, here, I will post it again and see if you also don't like it:

According to the CMRI website, Pivarunas entered CMRI in 1974 and was ordained a priest in 1985. That's all they say about that.

On the CMRI website, they call the seminary training of Bishop Pivarunas "usual"........."Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training, displaying proficiency in philosophy and in dogmatic and moral theology. Having received the commendation of his superiors for his progress in both virtue and learning, he was ordained to the priesthood on June 27, 1985, by the Most Reverend George Musey."

That is all it says on their website. That is the extent of what they say about it. The eleven years prior to his ordination is completely blank, they left that part  out. Why do you suppose that is? Because it's not important? Since you know so much about CMRI, wh don't you just open up and spill the beans already and tell us where the bishop had his formal seminary training?

Now do you see what I did for you? I posted what it actually says on their website for you a second time - but don't think for one second that because I did that for you that now I'm your slave!



Do you ask these detailed questions about all traditional priests?  Have you asked any of your priests how many classes in Philosophy, dogmatic theology, Canon Law, rubrics, liturgy, etc., that they have taken?  Have you asked them to name those specific classes, who the professors were, and what their grades were for each class?

Let me know, so we can see if your a hypocrite or not for putting Bishop Pivarunas through such a rigorous standard.


I only asked where he received his seminary training from, "not how many classes in Philosophy, dogmatic theology, Canon Law, rubrics, liturgy, etc., that he has taken" or the rest of the crap you included in your over dramatic reply.

Are you really that confounded by this simple question?

And yes, in this day and age, I always like to know where the clergy I trust went for their seminary training, I've never had a priest yet not jump at the chance to broadcast it -  just because you don't understand why shouldn't stop you from answering a simple question and being scared of it.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 04, 2014, 05:09:22 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
The question is not who ordained your bishop, the question is where did he receive his Priestly Formation. Remember?

Where was his formal seminary training.

Throughout CI, you are so educated on all things CMRI and always posting about them and their ways - except when it comes to this singular question, you are afraid to answer. Rather you suddenly think yourself a slave, and worried about something that imo you SHOULD have nothing to worry about.



We keep answering you.  You just hate the answer so you keep going.  Read the CMRI website, it describes Bp. Pivarunas training.  If you want more information write CMRI and ask them.

His training is certainly much better than your spiritual leader.  



I already posted what their web states - no one liked what their web site implies, here, I will post it again and see if you also don't like it:

According to the CMRI website, Pivarunas entered CMRI in 1974 and was ordained a priest in 1985. That's all they say about that.

On the CMRI website, they call the seminary training of Bishop Pivarunas "usual"........."Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training, displaying proficiency in philosophy and in dogmatic and moral theology. Having received the commendation of his superiors for his progress in both virtue and learning, he was ordained to the priesthood on June 27, 1985, by the Most Reverend George Musey."

That is all it says on their website. That is the extent of what they say about it. The eleven years prior to his ordination is completely blank, they left that part  out. Why do you suppose that is? Because it's not important? Since you know so much about CMRI, wh don't you just open up and spill the beans already and tell us where the bishop had his formal seminary training?

Now do you see what I did for you? I posted what it actually says on their website for you a second time - but don't think for one second that because I did that for you that now I'm your slave!



Do you ask these detailed questions about all traditional priests?  Have you asked any of your priests how many classes in Philosophy, dogmatic theology, Canon Law, rubrics, liturgy, etc., that they have taken?  Have you asked them to name those specific classes, who the professors were, and what their grades were for each class?

Let me know, so we can see if your a hypocrite or not for putting Bishop Pivarunas through such a rigorous standard.


I only asked where he received his seminary training from, "not how many classes in Philosophy, dogmatic theology, Canon Law, rubrics, liturgy, etc., that he has taken" or the rest of the crap you included in your over dramatic reply.

Are you really that confounded by this simple question?

And yes, in this day and age, I always like to know where the clergy I trust went for their seminary, just because you don't understand why shouldn't stop you from answering a simple question and being scared of it.



No, I am not confounded by your question.  As it have said, I have met Bp. Pivarunas, assisted at his mass, spoken with him at length on a variety of subjects.and I am satisfied that he is competent to act as a priest.  I have not witnessed anything which merits any action from myself to begin to question or doubt his training.

I noticed that you have not yet answered my question about what evidence you have that merits doubting his credibility.  You just ignore what you want and keep trucking along.

I have also told you over and over that since you doubt his statement on the CMRI website affirming his over 30 year old training, why don't you write them and ask?  Are you afraid?

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 04, 2014, 05:16:07 PM
Quote from: Ambrose


Do you ask these detailed questions about all traditional priests?  Have you asked any of your priests how many classes in Philosophy, dogmatic theology, Canon Law, rubrics, liturgy, etc., that they have taken?  Have you asked them to name those specific classes, who the professors were, and what their grades were for each class?

Let me know, so we can see if your a hypocrite or not for putting Bishop Pivarunas through such a rigorous standard.



Let me try to clarify.
First, I asked one question, not one questions.
Second, it is about a simple a question as asking the time of day. It is not in the least bit "detailed".

Maybe now that it's been thoroughly explained to you, you can better understand the question now.  

The question is: Where did the bishop receive his formal seminary training from?


If you still have a mental block trying to interpret the question, you are reading something into it that's not there - try to read it as it is written  v e r y, v e r y, s l o w l y and see if that helps you understand it any better.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 04, 2014, 05:22:11 PM
Quote from: Ambrose


No, I am not confounded by your question.  As it have said, I have met Bp. Pivarunas, assisted at his mass, spoken with him at length on a variety of subjects.and I am satisfied that he is competent to act as a priest.  I have not witnessed anything which merits any action from myself to begin to question or doubt his training.


Your posts say you are completely confounded by that question.


Quote from: Ambrose

I noticed that you have not yet answered my question about what evidence you have that merits doubting his credibility.  You just ignore what you want and keep trucking along.


You keep trying to side track the question with another question - but it won't work.


Quote from: Ambrose

I have also told you over and over that since you doubt his statement on the CMRI website affirming his over 30 year old training, why don't you write them and ask?  Are you afraid?


Afraid of what? You are the one who feels threatened by that question - I simply want to know where he received the usual seminary training from.

If you don't know, why not already come out and admit that you do not know and don't care.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 04, 2014, 05:42:49 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose


No, I am not confounded by your question.  As it have said, I have met Bp. Pivarunas, assisted at his mass, spoken with him at length on a variety of subjects.and I am satisfied that he is competent to act as a priest.  I have not witnessed anything which merits any action from myself to begin to question or doubt his training.


Your posts say you are completely confounded by that question.


Quote from: Ambrose

I noticed that you have not yet answered my question about what evidence you have that merits doubting his credibility.  You just ignore what you want and keep trucking along.


You keep trying to side track the question with another question - but it won't work.


Quote from: Ambrose

I have also told you over and over that since you doubt his statement on the CMRI website affirming his over 30 year old training, why don't you write them and ask?  Are you afraid?


Afraid of what? You are the one who feels threatened by that question - I simply want to know where he received the usual seminary training from.

If you don't know, why not already come out and admit that you do not know and don't care.



The question I put to you is relevant.  I think the readers of this forum should know why you are all of a sudden so concerned about training that Bp. Pivarunas received in the 1970's and early 80's.

I also noticed that you fail to answer question, but get very flustered when you don't get your questions answered the way you want them answered.  

The double standard is obvious.

I have not asked Bp. Pivarunas about his training for the priesthood.  I already told you that, so why the need for this dance?  I told you that I am taking him as his word that he received appropriate training, and also implicitly the word of Bp. Musey who ordained him.  

The reason that I am not doubting him is because I have never, not even once, witnessed or heard from others any indication that he was deficient in his competence as a priest.  

I have told you over and over again, that if you need this question answered write to CMRI.  This forum is not run by CMRI, so go to the source for your answers.  Are you afraid to write them?


Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 04, 2014, 06:00:16 PM

Just more side skirting the question on your part. Keep on posting anything unrelated to an answer is all you're doing.

 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 04, 2014, 06:04:17 PM
Quote from: Stubborn

Just more side skirting the question on your part. Keep on posting anything unrelated to an answer is all you're doing.

 


Learn to read.  I amswered you.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 04, 2014, 06:35:52 PM
Has he answered to what benefit it will be for him to have us answer this information?

Is he asking because he wants to recieve confirmation?
Maybe he wants to go to mass at Mater Dei or at a location in Colorado?
Perhaps he is going to send his children to board, or maybe his son to seminary?
Could it be possible that Stubborn has issues for which he would like to consult a knowledgeable traditional priest?
Maybe he is looking to make an apology for any wrongs he has done towards the CMRI?

If not, what is the point?

Maybe he is asking four our benefit, but we have all explained to him that we trust that Bishop Pivarunas' training was acceptable and that not one of has has any qualms. If Mr. Obstinate wants names and specifics there is only one person who can answer that. It is just easier to argue on a forum than to do a Google search, get a phone number, pick up a phone, dial, and speak to the person in question. Stubborn refuses to ask the question of the one person who will be able to give him accurate specific details.

It is amazing that an individual who cannot properly research a small matter spends so much time spreading his knowledge and attempting to teach others online.

When I travel and I'm planning on going to mass at SSPX, Eastern Rite, or an independent chapel, I always call and ask questions if I have any uncertainties. All of my questions are answered satisfactorily.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: andysloan on November 04, 2014, 09:09:37 PM
St Alphonsus:

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 05, 2014, 03:59:05 AM
Quote from: Mabel
Has he answered to what benefit it will be for him to have us answer this information?

Is he asking because he wants to recieve confirmation?
Maybe he wants to go to mass at Mater Dei or at a location in Colorado?
Perhaps he is going to send his children to board, or maybe his son to seminary?
Could it be possible that Stubborn has issues for which he would like to consult a knowledgeable traditional priest?
Maybe he is looking to make an apology for any wrongs he has done towards the CMRI?

If not, what is the point?

Maybe he is asking four our benefit, but we have all explained to him that we trust that Bishop Pivarunas' training was acceptable and that not one of has has any qualms. If Mr. Obstinate wants names and specifics there is only one person who can answer that. It is just easier to argue on a forum than to do a Google search, get a phone number, pick up a phone, dial, and speak to the person in question. Stubborn refuses to ask the question of the one person who will be able to give him accurate specific details.

It is amazing that an individual who cannot properly research a small matter spends so much time spreading his knowledge and attempting to teach others online.

When I travel and I'm planning on going to mass at SSPX, Eastern Rite, or an independent chapel, I always call and ask questions if I have any uncertainties. All of my questions are answered satisfactorily.



More side skirting.

I ask where the bishop received his Priestly Formation from and you answer -  why do you want to know?

You are all satisfied that there was such a thing as "the usual seminary training" in 1974 through 1985 when, with possibly a few exceptions, there was no such a thing anywhere in the world, if there was, I would like to know where such a place was. You can yell at me all you want for wanting to know but I will still want to know.

As it sits at the moment, I searched and can't find out where this supposed "usual seminary" was, and asking those who support the CMRI here on CI has turned into an exercise in absolute absurdity.

I find it odd because a normally important part of his "priestly resume" is missing. It becomes suspicious when those who support him react to the question the way every single one of you in harmony reacted - and continue to react - in harmony.

Why would you leave where you received your "usual seminary training" off your resume if you were him?

When you all immediately go on the offensive and go out of your way to consistently offer nothing but side tracking, ad hominems, argumentative replies and play the "answer a question with a question" game, that speaks for itself that something is wrong, there is some reason that question is offensive to you or there would be no reason not to reply with some answer to the question.

Honestly, is it actually and in reality so much to ask from those who support CMRI to provide a clear answer to the clear question? Honestly, is it?  

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 05, 2014, 09:08:15 AM
Stubborn  I will ask again a question of you, that will no doubt go unanswered, since this is your Modus operandi.  Do you believe that with the onset of Vatican II, say in 1969 the apostasy officially began with the beginning of the novus ordo mass, and the ending of the True Mass?  We are no longer living in normal times.

Do you believe that the early Christians suffered persecution also, except bloody.  Vatican II is persecution from within, agreed!

During the time period of the early persecution when priests and
Bishops were found and put to death, the Bishop would often choose a young man and quickly ordain him, without "seminary training". (imagine that) That is how the Church survived in those days.  Whether you like it or not.

So early in our time of persecution, when Bishop was called to become a priest, what Modernist ESTABLISHED Seminary would you have liked to see him attend during the time you mentioned above?  NAME ONE.  Even the Internet was not yet available for information as it is today during the time you mentioned.  It was in the infant stages of development.  So again, what Catholic University would you have been satisfied with seeing a Traditional Catholic young man receive his seminary training?  When Bishop mentions he received the usual seminary training he is speaking about his KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT GOD DEMANDED HE KNOWS, from others who God provided him to learn from.  Listen to the Youtube again, he names them.  

Instead he studied privately but had the usual seminary training just as he told on the Youtube I posted.  This is proven by his knowledge of the Catholic Faith.  

So again, the question is, WHERE IS HE LACKING?  If you can't answer where he is lacking in his knowledge, then you really are as you so named yourself, STUBBORN.  

You would rather see  this branch (CMRI) of the remnant Church fail, this is what you want.  You think you really have something on those of us who recognize CMRI but you have NOTHING.  If you continue with this "so-called" smear of the Catholic Church which only wants to save souls, as the mission of the Church calls for then you are nothing but an enemy of God, and if you die in that state, may God have mercy on your soul.   I pray you will not die an enemy of God.

If you do not tell us where Bishop Pivarunas is lacking in his knowledge you have no right to criticize.  Maybe you are just jealous of our success, and why should you be surprised, it is written that God will prevail.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: ThomisticPhilosopher on November 05, 2014, 10:26:51 AM
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. At any rate, reading this article might be of interest in this thread:

The Truth About Bishop Francis Schuckardt  (http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/Godasmywitness.html)
- written by Bishop Joseph Marie, who was himself consecrated a bishop by Bishop Francis Schuckardt.


Quote
In the 29 years that I personally knew Bishop Schuckardt, I’ve heard and read many things about him, very little of which was true. Some fabricate allegations against him and some canonize him; they both violate the truth. As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. 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.



The final paragraph of the article states:

Quote

To the new CMRI: Your organization was founded upon ecclesiastical crimes and consequently cannot possibly be part of the Catholic Church: “He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.” You too, like Bishop Schuckardt and Fr. Chicoine, will die, and you have not yet even begun to make restitution for your crimes. While you have time, put things in order. You still have an opportunity to change evil into good – don’t let that opportunity pass you by.




Just have to say a few things about this Bishop Joseph other articles. This just tells you what sort of logical leaps of thinking and suspicious pseudo theology (Lienart issue) that comes out of that mind of his (Bishop Joseph). Now once again, these other idea's have nothing directly to bear with the article he wrote.

He seems to be of the idea and school of thought that +Thuc and +Lefebvre lines (the whole fabled Lienart issue) are illegitimate. Now as to the truthfulness of his claims, I haven't honestly finished reading the article completely (as it quite long). Schuckardt was bad news, period. No one disputes this from any side, and it just comes to show that traditional Catholics who have a solid doctrinal foundation are able to come out of this (just proves to their credit, that true doctrine always leads you out of perversity/lies), Schuckardt who was slowly using cult like techniques over many years. I was just trying to point out who he is, because you had asked. I have not read the entire thread either, so I don't know if anybody else has already mentioned this.

Just look at how strong they came out of that situation, my only beef with the CMRI. Is in their unwise decision to have retained the original name that their founder gave them. Kind of like the whole Legionnaire's of Christ problem. Now this is strictly my own opinion, but to outsider's (not to someone like myself an insider) it helps to completely change the name to show that they are over that incident completely.

To any objective good willed observer, the CMRI has more then paid their dues in penance, and restitution. From the conferences I have heard, talks they have given and just in general the herculean efforts these men have done. I have to say, that they are probably the shiniest example of what good SV clergy are like. If anything the Schuckardt issue made them really get rid of a lot of the issue's that is rampant among traditionalists today. They stick to the theology, and not particular people. This is the only sane position to take...

Feeneyites obsession with BOD/BOB and Fr. Feeney as some sort of super prophet in the last days. Then there are of course the Wathenites, which are even worse then the former. For he held the absurd idea, once a Catholic always a Catholic. He wrote some great things, but it really is sad that he just was so stubborn on this particular issue.

The SSPX and their insistence of +Lefebvre as the last line of theological argumentation. No one doubts the Holiness or sincerity of the good Bishop, but you can't simply quote him and expect for the matter to be settled. To most SSPX folks, he is the guide to the faithful remnant in this modernist crisis. Not St. Thomas Aquinas or anyone else, but solely his opinions that is all that really matters. +Lefebvre is generally safe to follow, but only in the issues he did not vacillate (such as the New Sacraments problem) much on. In those things, his opinion was not as certain and therefore he is not to be given the same level of certainty as some of his other moral advice/guidance he gave to the faithful. This is contrary to Pascendi, and the papal advice given to us. If you have a theological issue/problem, then use the Thomistic method to arrive to truth. When you are assaulted by liberalism/modernism, stick to the safe, tried and true opinions. Instead of the finer points of speculative theology, and to anyone who say's that SV'ism is just speculative this is absurd. To say that all the early Father's thought it speculative that heresy separates you from the Church, is madness very clearly they defended the true doctrine that heretics ipso facto self condemn themselves. I have already gone over this issue many times in other thread's and I don't have the time to go over it in more detail.

Conclavist are ipso facto a cult, by default. Even if they are solid on so many other points, to their credit at the least they are not blind to what the effects of heresy are. Conclavist are to be separated in two categories.
1) Those who were elected by some sort of process. These are not that nutty, and dangerous.
2) Mystically elected Conclavist, self appointed by "God" or the "Virgin." These are not just cultish, but Jim Jones type of textbook cult. Literally, I would not drink any cool aid they offer you...

Among SV there are also many notable examples, such as the sacrament deniers among the SSPV. With the SSPV/Thuc issue, and in general the SSG type it is nothing doctrinal, but rather petty things.

Radical Schismatics, are usually over the top nutty on most issues. Even if I agree with them largely, but to them everything is literally a conspiracy. Sometimes a simpler explanation can be an alternative, just maybe. The problem with these SV's is that they won't go with ANY priest in the world to confession and therefore they make themselves the ultimate spiritual authorities over these matters. So their problem is not that they are cultish to any individual, it is just that they are lead by their own spirit. This St. Thomas condemns in his sermon, Attendite, on false shepherds and wolves.

MHFM SV'ist, well they are the only Catholics left in the world what else is there to say. If you disagree with them on anything, you are anathema. That much is clear, they don't even wait 2 minutes before calling you a heretic. A bit excessive, no sort of discernment... They also had a cult like leader, who had many signs and wonders, preaching the end of the world. This is something that you can see is a topic they have made in their most recent videos.

The Indult is also cult'ish, don't think that they are the only ones who are free from this sort of thing. Anyone who stubbornly remains in an institution riddled with outright gnosticism, and believes that it is perfectly okay to be under heretics. Definitely, is in a worse position THEN all the previous trad's mentioned. For they follow not just a mini cult leader, but an anti-Christ cult leader. Nay, the worst one in the history of the Church. Jim Jones has nothing on, the cult of anti-JP II or anti-John XXIII. Or any of the Conciliar "popes", this is the worst position, because over time all of those die hard trad's become as meek as lambs. After a while in the indult, they will tell you that Vatican II is "Catholic", the "New Mass" is valid, and that you must obey apostates. I would say the indult lead to the worst of cult'ish behavior with none of the benefits of other trads. At least in the other places you benefit from having the true sacraments, in here you confess to other laymen for the most part, and get a bunch of simulated masses. This cult is not even pretend Catholic anymore, it is outright Protestant bat crazy. At least the other resistance trad's, its hard to be able to detect these subtle cult like behaviors. They are not explicit, its more implicit strong convictions that these Catholics hold of their spiritual founder/father in the faith.

I think I wrote enough. Hope that helped a bit.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: ThomisticPhilosopher on November 05, 2014, 10:42:40 AM
Yes, those people who flaunt where are your credential's are being dishonest. Bishop Pivaruna's has had an excellent formation, he has been such an honest, hard studying, hard working priest/Bishop. There are so few individuals that have been able to turn around the situation he was given, and to make it fruitful... That really comes to show the true fruits of doctrine, and how his principles are in the right place. This will insure in the near future that the faithful under the care of the CMRI will not deceived by any false prophets/teachers. The faithful have been trained properly and will know better. They know what signs to look for, and this is precisely something that has been solved by them.

Similar to Mr. Hesse who got his Licentiate from modernist Rome, and Canon Law degree. Now I am not saying they are completely useless, as that just means that the person involved generally had several extra years of study in religion. However, you talk to any of them, and they tell you that all the things they learned was pure trash. Just like some other conservative N.O. "clergy", they got their licentiate from Rome and during all of their degree. Not once was Hell ever mentioned, not even once!

So indeed, during our times we are mostly going to have to recourse to lots of self-study guided of course by proper principles.

At some point you are going to have to come to grasp with the issue, that we are indeed living during the pre-cursor times to the Great Apostasy, or the more likely scenario that this is the Great Apostasy. So yes, things are going to definitely get worse before they get any better, IF indeed they ever do get better. For I have to say that we have had it generally nice, in the near future we won't even be able to debate against each other, because quite frankly you won't be able to.

To finish this off, I think what you have to recognize is that if and where to get your formation, there really is few places in the world. If anything it is miraculous that there are any, to be honest.

Once the Supreme Shepherd has been struck, the sheep will be scattered. This is simply more proof, that indeed we have been in a state of sedevacante for quite a while. For it is impossible that having the principle chief of unity in the Church, could we be so divided on so many fundamental issues.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 05, 2014, 12:18:32 PM
Thomistic Philosopher,
Excellent, well-thought post, as usual.

Unfortunately, I am starting to believe that a picture book may be a suitable for this crowd. They are unwilling to read anything.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Elizabeth on November 05, 2014, 12:24:11 PM
Quote from: Mabel
Thomistic Philosopher,
Excellent, well-thought post, as usual.

Unfortunately, I am starting to believe that a picture book may be a suitable for this crowd. They are unwilling to read anything.


LOL, your post made me read Thomist carefully.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 05, 2014, 01:23:39 PM
Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher
Yes, those people who flaunt where are your credential's are being dishonest. Bishop Pivaruna's has had an excellent formation, he has been such an honest, hard studying, hard working priest/Bishop. and etc. and etc.


So where did he receive this excellent formation?

According to their website, they only say he had the usual seminary training - but not where he had this training. Do you know where he received his Priestly Formation?
 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 05, 2014, 02:52:25 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Stubborn  I will ask again a question of you, that will no doubt go unanswered, since this is your Modus operandi.  Do you believe that with the onset of Vatican II, say in 1969 the apostasy officially began with the beginning of the novus ordo mass, and the ending of the True Mass?  We are no longer living in normal times.

Yes

Do you believe that the early Christians suffered persecution also, except bloody.  Vatican II is persecution from within, agreed!

Yes

During the time period of the early persecution when priests and
Bishops were found and put to death, the Bishop would often choose a young man and quickly ordain him, without "seminary training". (imagine that) That is how the Church survived in those days.  Whether you like it or not.

Even if that were true, in this revolution, there was no danger of death to anyone, there were no martyrs in this revolution and under those circuмstances, there most assuredly was never any threat of martyrdom to any bishop or anyone for that matter, there never was the danger of imminent or even possible death.

From day one, this revolution always persecuted via slander from the media and slander from within, it has worked that way since at least 35 years before the revolution took over the Church, there were never threats of death, not ever. As such, even in those days there was no perceived justification for ordinations done hastily.


So early in our time of persecution, when Bishop was called to become a priest, what Modernist ESTABLISHED Seminary would you have liked to see him attend during the time you mentioned above?  NAME ONE.  Even the Internet was not yet available for information as it is today during the time you mentioned.  It was in the infant stages of development.  So again, what Catholic University would you have been satisfied with seeing a Traditional Catholic young man receive his seminary training?  When Bishop mentions he received the usual seminary training he is speaking about his KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT GOD DEMANDED HE KNOWS, from others who God provided him to learn from.  Listen to the Youtube again, he names them.  

I am not saying I wanted him or anyone (including me at the time) to go to a modernist seminary.
I am saying that the CMRI states the bishop "had the usual seminary training", when there was no place offering such a thing - and you just said so yourself above.

When bishop mentions the usual seminary training, he does not mean "that he is speaking about what knowledge God demanded he know" - if he did, then that is what he would have said. He meant the usual seminary training because that is what he said - that is plain enough. What you are trying to say is something of your own invention.


Instead he studied privately but had the usual seminary training just as he told on the Youtube I posted.  This is proven by his knowledge of the Catholic Faith.  

So again, the question is, WHERE IS HE LACKING?  If you can't answer where he is lacking in his knowledge, then you really are as you so named yourself, STUBBORN.  

The description you just gave is not a definition of "the usual seminary training". I won't listen to him because I want one of the CMRIers to simply answer the question. Far as I'm concerned, the bishop is a heretic, how about I provide you with a few videos of Fr. Wathen to watch, then ask you WHERE IS HE LACKING?

So no, *that* is not the question.  


You would rather see  this branch (CMRI) of the remnant Church fail, this is what you want.  You think you really have something on those of us who recognize CMRI but you have NOTHING.  If you continue with this "so-called" smear of the Catholic Church which only wants to save souls, as the mission of the Church calls for then you are nothing but an enemy of God, and if you die in that state, may God have mercy on your soul.   I pray you will not die an enemy of God.



Again, I ask a question and you make the ridiculous accusation that I am smearing the Catholic Church and an enemy of God. Who taught you that when someone questions the CMRI that they are smearing the Church and an enemy of God?
Why not simply provide the answer? Do you think the bishop is the Catholic Church or what?

If you do not tell us where Bishop Pivarunas is lacking in his knowledge you have no right to criticize.  Maybe you are just jealous of our success, and why should you be surprised, it is written that God will prevail.  


You have some reason to fear the question which is why you won't answer the question.

Truth needs no lie to support truth. Telling only half the truth is worse than an outright lie. To say he had seminary training may or may not be the truth. To say he had "the usual seminary training" is at best, a half truth because, as you said, there was no such thing.

I've been asking where he received his usual seminary training from and by now, I am certain none of the CMRI supporters who've been active in this thread will provide that answer - for reasons, which by now, must be presumed to be dubious or at least one of them would have answered by now - and with their zeal postured toward the support of the bishop, I would have thought that all the CMRI supporters would have chimed in with an answer a long time ago.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Xystus on November 07, 2014, 03:33:04 AM
Stubborn, can you state your case in a nutshell for us?  Tell us why you think Bp. Pivarunas, for example, does not have the minimum essential priestly training, and what you consider a necessary minimum is during this unprecedented crisis in the Church.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 07, 2014, 06:40:47 AM
Quote from: Xystus
Stubborn, can you state your case in a nutshell for us?  Tell us why you think Bp. Pivarunas, for example, does not have the minimum essential priestly training, and what you consider a necessary minimum is during this unprecedented crisis in the Church.


The minimum training or the maximum training is not the issue, the issue is that the CMRI website states the bishop had "the usual seminary training" when there was no such thing in those days.

 



 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Xystus on November 07, 2014, 08:56:51 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Xystus
Stubborn, can you state your case in a nutshell for us?  Tell us why you think Bp. Pivarunas, for example, does not have the minimum essential priestly training, and what you consider a necessary minimum is during this unprecedented crisis in the Church.


The minimum training or the maximum training is not the issue, the issue is that the CMRI website states the bishop had "the usual seminary training" when there was no such thing in those days.
 


That's your objection? You don't like how the word "usual" is being used?

Let's say that "usual" merely refers to the usual training the CMRI were capable of providing. Now what would be your objection?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 07, 2014, 10:13:24 AM
Quote from: Xystus
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Xystus
Stubborn, can you state your case in a nutshell for us?  Tell us why you think Bp. Pivarunas, for example, does not have the minimum essential priestly training, and what you consider a necessary minimum is during this unprecedented crisis in the Church.


The minimum training or the maximum training is not the issue, the issue is that the CMRI website states the bishop had "the usual seminary training" when there was no such thing in those days.
 


That's your objection? You don't like how the word "usual" is being used?

Let's say that "usual" merely refers to the usual training the CMRI were capable of providing. Now what would be your objection?


I think we all would agree that "the usual seminary training" means that he either had his seminary prior to V2, which we know he didn't, or he received his training from Econe or some other seminary that provided seminary training according to pre-V2 norms.

I want to know where this seminary was.

I find it odd that CMRI uses that wording at all - and they offer no further information anywhere. But what makes it even more odd is that 100% of the replies in this thread to that question are cult like replies - even from those who say they do not go to the CMRI.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Dana on November 07, 2014, 10:54:55 AM
Maybe, some of us choose to put our efforts into thanksgiving to God instead of debate.

He, in His Goodness, continues to provide for the sheep.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Xystus on November 07, 2014, 11:48:55 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Xystus
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Xystus
Stubborn, can you state your case in a nutshell for us?  Tell us why you think Bp. Pivarunas, for example, does not have the minimum essential priestly training, and what you consider a necessary minimum is during this unprecedented crisis in the Church.


The minimum training or the maximum training is not the issue, the issue is that the CMRI website states the bishop had "the usual seminary training" when there was no such thing in those days.
 


That's your objection? You don't like how the word "usual" is being used?

Let's say that "usual" merely refers to the usual training the CMRI were capable of providing. Now what would be your objection?


I think we all would agree that "the usual seminary training" means that he either had his seminary prior to V2, which we know he didn't, or he received his training from Econe or some other seminary that provided seminary training according to pre-V2 norms.

I want to know where this seminary was.

I find it odd that CMRI uses that wording at all - and they offer no further information anywhere. But what makes it even more odd is that 100% of the replies in this thread to that question are cult like replies - even from those who say they do not go to the CMRI.



I guarantee you the "usual" referred to is - training patterned on the 2 years of philosophy/4 years of theology. The books and schedules used are no secret in Catholicism. What is your beef? That is not difficult to figure out. You, rather, went for suspecting a lie, rashly.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 07, 2014, 12:36:43 PM
 :applause:

After twenty-something* pages, someone was able to get him to state his problem.

Nice!

*the new issue started after his old issues were debunked around 20 pages and he moved on to the next one in the queue.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 07, 2014, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: Mabel
:applause:

After twenty-something* pages, someone was able to get him to state his problem.

Nice!

*the new issue started after his old issues were debunked around 20 pages and he moved on to the next one in the queue.



All you cult members did was answer a question with a question - keep clapping for yourself.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 07, 2014, 02:01:30 PM
Quote from: Xystus
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Xystus
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Xystus
Stubborn, can you state your case in a nutshell for us?  Tell us why you think Bp. Pivarunas, for example, does not have the minimum essential priestly training, and what you consider a necessary minimum is during this unprecedented crisis in the Church.


The minimum training or the maximum training is not the issue, the issue is that the CMRI website states the bishop had "the usual seminary training" when there was no such thing in those days.
 


That's your objection? You don't like how the word "usual" is being used?

Let's say that "usual" merely refers to the usual training the CMRI were capable of providing. Now what would be your objection?


I think we all would agree that "the usual seminary training" means that he either had his seminary prior to V2, which we know he didn't, or he received his training from Econe or some other seminary that provided seminary training according to pre-V2 norms.

I want to know where this seminary was.

I find it odd that CMRI uses that wording at all - and they offer no further information anywhere. But what makes it even more odd is that 100% of the replies in this thread to that question are cult like replies - even from those who say they do not go to the CMRI.



I guarantee you the "usual" referred to is - training patterned on the 2 years of philosophy/4 years of theology. The books and schedules used are no secret in Catholicism. What is your beef? That is not difficult to figure out. You, rather, went for suspecting a lie, rashly.


You can guarantee whatever you want - but what you, like the rest of the CMRIers cannot seem to get yourself to do, is answer the question.

For the umpteenth time.............
Where did "he receive the usual seminary training"?

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Xystus on November 07, 2014, 02:50:13 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Xystus
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Xystus
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Xystus
Stubborn, can you state your case in a nutshell for us?  Tell us why you think Bp. Pivarunas, for example, does not have the minimum essential priestly training, and what you consider a necessary minimum is during this unprecedented crisis in the Church.


The minimum training or the maximum training is not the issue, the issue is that the CMRI website states the bishop had "the usual seminary training" when there was no such thing in those days.
 


That's your objection? You don't like how the word "usual" is being used?

Let's say that "usual" merely refers to the usual training the CMRI were capable of providing. Now what would be your objection?


I think we all would agree that "the usual seminary training" means that he either had his seminary prior to V2, which we know he didn't, or he received his training from Econe or some other seminary that provided seminary training according to pre-V2 norms.

I want to know where this seminary was.

I find it odd that CMRI uses that wording at all - and they offer no further information anywhere. But what makes it even more odd is that 100% of the replies in this thread to that question are cult like replies - even from those who say they do not go to the CMRI.



I guarantee you the "usual" referred to is - training patterned on the 2 years of philosophy/4 years of theology. The books and schedules used are no secret in Catholicism. What is your beef? That is not difficult to figure out. You, rather, went for suspecting a lie, rashly.


You can guarantee whatever you want - but what you, like the rest of the CMRIers cannot seem to get yourself to do, is answer the question.

For the umpteenth time.............
Where did "he receive the usual seminary training"?



Where? I have already answered that when I said, "the usual training the CMRI were capable of providing". This was at their own locations in the northwest.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Capt McQuigg on November 07, 2014, 05:18:03 PM
Since the beginning of this thread on 28 October until now, someone would have enough time to name each CMRI priest and the date of his ordination and who ordained him.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Xystus on November 07, 2014, 05:23:39 PM
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Since the beginning of this thread on 28 October until now, someone would have enough time to name each CMRI priest and the date of his ordination and who ordained him.


Was it ever asked? And how does that have to do with the discussion thread at the moment?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 08, 2014, 05:59:46 AM
Quote from: Xystus


Where? I have already answered that when I said, "the usual training the CMRI were capable of providing". This was at their own locations in the northwest.


FYI, "the usual seminary training" is always understood to mean the seminary training according to the norms established by Trent, not whatever training the CMRI was capable of providing.

 





 

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: TKGS on November 08, 2014, 03:35:00 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
FYI, "the usual seminary training" is always understood to mean the seminary training according to the norms established by Trent, not whatever training the CMRI was capable of providing.


He received his seminary training in Idaho at the area they call, "The City of Mary" since that is where the Congregation was at when he was ordained.  They did not obtain the Mount St. Michael's property until later.  The training he received, as he as said in at least one of the Fatima Conferences, was according to the usual training that had been the norm prior to the Council of 1962-1965.  He was taught by priests who had left the Conciliar sect due to the various "changes" (and not all these were sedevacantists) using seminary textbooks that had been in widespread use prior to that Council.

So now that the physical location of his "usual seminary training" has been identified, please stop with your idiotic comments.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 08, 2014, 05:36:22 PM
Since Bishop Pivarunas was ordained a priest in 1985 and made a bishop in 1991, I don't see how he could have received the usual seminary training at a Minor Seminary at all, let alone one that was not founded yet.

Quote

Consequently, we are pleased to announce the establishment of a Minor Seminary, which opened in the fall of 1999. The seminary is open to boys of high school age who have completed their grade school educations and believe that they may be called by God to the priesthood. . . . . . What is a minor seminary? The minor seminary is similar to other Catholic boarding schools for boys. Source (http://www.cmri.org/cmri-minor-seminary.shtml)


Also see:

Quote

Rev. Father Benedict Hughes, CMRI: Over the years as a priest and religious, Father Benedict has spent his life in various works in the service of our Blessed Mother, particularly in the field of education. Father founded St. Joseph Seminary in 1999 and is also pastor of our oldest parish, Mary Immaculate Queen Church in northern Idaho. He is also the editor of The Reign of Mary magazine and a regular speaker at our annual Fatima Conference. -Source (http://www.cmri.org/fatima-conference.shtml)



IIRC, the seminary I think you may be referring to was destroyed by fire in the mid 1970s. I thought it was a church, not a seminary - but I could be wrong about that - either way, he could not have gone there for the usual seminary training as I'm pretty sure that place was gone either just before or just after he joined in 1974.

So try to provide some type of proof, other than your idiotic comments.



Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: TKGS on November 09, 2014, 05:23:57 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
IIRC...


After looking up "IIRC", I found that it is text message shorthand for "if I read correctly".

No.  You do not read correctly.  You have not read anything correctly on this entire topic because, it appears, your hatred for the CMRI clouds your ability to think clearly.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 09, 2014, 09:54:37 AM
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Stubborn
IIRC...


After looking up "IIRC", I found that it is text message shorthand for "if I read correctly".

No.  You do not read correctly.  You have not read anything correctly on this entire topic because, it appears, your hatred for the CMRI clouds your ability to think clearly.


Just because *you* have zero knowledge of the early days of CMRI and apparently do not want to know, does not mean everyone else does.

Here (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1338&dat=19780303&id=Z1ZOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_fgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6525,739933) is a link, written March 3, 1978 saying the place burned down "months ago".

Quote

The seminary at Rathdrum burned down months ago and the young men who were studying there are the ones now living at Mount St. Michael's.


So I didn't recall everything correctly - it was a Schuckardt seminary, not a church and it appears it burned down in 1977 or so.

I can find no information saying that it was rebuilt - only what I posted in the reply to your previous post stating it was founded in 1999, some 14 years after his ordination.

As for you, I would think that because of the corrupt foundation and first 20 or so years of that organization that of all people here, that you would be most earnest in finding out the whole story from outside the CMRI stories since I remember reading that one of your daughters(?) is going there to be a nun.


And further more, I do not hate you or anyone or - in particular, the CMRI. You find the question itself offensive - as if questioning the leader of "the remnant" is a crime against Almighty God or His Church or something.

You all sound like members of a cult with the same cult like responses to a simple question which you find offensive.

A Google of Cult Characteristics finds this:

1) The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

These characteristics are found in every single CMRIer reply in this thread. That in and of itself should tell you something.


Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 09, 2014, 12:54:05 PM
Quote from: Stubborn


So I didn't recall everything correctly - it was a Schuckardt seminary, not a church and it appears it burned down in 1977 or so.

I can find no information saying that it was rebuilt - only what I posted in the reply to your previous post stating it was founded in 1999, some 14 years after his ordination.

You all sound like members of a cult with the same cult like responses to a simple question which you find offensive.

A Google of Cult Characteristics finds this:

1) The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. Are you speaking about Schuckardt as a leader, if so... you are sadly mistaken...again

2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. Schuckardt was outsted by the community remember...again you are mistaken.

These characteristics are found in every single CMRIer reply in this thread. That in and of itself should tell you something. It tells me that even Jesus Christ picked a Judas.




Reading your objectives about CMRI it seems to me you are concerned not WHAT Bishop Pivarunas has studied/learned, but where he studied/learned it.  Is that correct?

Also exactly what do you mean when you say : "As for you, I would think that because of the corrupt foundation and first 20 or so years of that organization that of all people here, that you would be most earnest in finding out the whole story"

The YouTube I posted pages back Bishop Pivarunas explained the crimes against Schuckardt that happened over 32 years ago, not 20 years.  Why do you pretend we are hiding something?  CMRI is an open book.  
 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 09, 2014, 04:44:29 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn


So I didn't recall everything correctly - it was a Schuckardt seminary, not a church and it appears it burned down in 1977 or so.

I can find no information saying that it was rebuilt - only what I posted in the reply to your previous post stating it was founded in 1999, some 14 years after his ordination.

You all sound like members of a cult with the same cult like responses to a simple question which you find offensive.

A Google of Cult Characteristics finds this:

1) The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. Are you speaking about Schuckardt as a leader, if so... you are sadly mistaken...again

2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. Schuckardt was outsted by the community remember...again you are mistaken.

These characteristics are found in every single CMRIer reply in this thread. That in and of itself should tell you something. It tells me that even Jesus Christ picked a Judas.




Reading your objectives about CMRI it seems to me you are concerned not WHAT Bishop Pivarunas has studied/learned, but where he studied/learned it.  Is that correct?

Also exactly what do you mean when you say : "As for you, I would think that because of the corrupt foundation and first 20 or so years of that organization that of all people here, that you would be most earnest in finding out the whole story"

The YouTube I posted pages back Bishop Pivarunas explained the crimes against Schuckardt that happened over 32 years ago, not 20 years.  Why do you pretend we are hiding something?  CMRI is an open book.  
 


I can't even fathom what must be going through Stubborn's mind. He just won't be satisfied and admit his ignorance and biases.

I have interviewed five CMRI nuns extensively on the topic of their history. I also know the history of their families and much, much more information about Shuckhardt. I have spoken to the priests in the same topics. I also thoroughly researched the history and background of the group before I contacted them. So, who earnestly got the whole story? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Stubborn.

Would anyone who has ever been "punished" for asking Bp. Pivarunas a question please chime in on this board? Let's help Stubborn become an honest man. Let them name their name, infraction, and subsequent punishment.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 09, 2014, 05:56:35 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn


So I didn't recall everything correctly - it was a Schuckardt seminary, not a church and it appears it burned down in 1977 or so.

I can find no information saying that it was rebuilt - only what I posted in the reply to your previous post stating it was founded in 1999, some 14 years after his ordination.

You all sound like members of a cult with the same cult like responses to a simple question which you find offensive.

A Google of Cult Characteristics finds this:

1) The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. Are you speaking about Schuckardt as a leader, if so... you are sadly mistaken...again

2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. Schuckardt was outsted by the community remember...again you are mistaken.

These characteristics are found in every single CMRIer reply in this thread. That in and of itself should tell you something. It tells me that even Jesus Christ picked a Judas.




Reading your objectives about CMRI it seems to me you are concerned not WHAT Bishop Pivarunas has studied/learned, but where he studied/learned it.  Is that correct?

Also exactly what do you mean when you say : "As for you, I would think that because of the corrupt foundation and first 20 or so years of that organization that of all people here, that you would be most earnest in finding out the whole story"

The YouTube I posted pages back Bishop Pivarunas explained the crimes against Schuckardt that happened over 32 years ago, not 20 years.  Why do you pretend we are hiding something?  CMRI is an open book.  
 


Well let's see, I only asked a few dozen times: "Where did he receive the usual seminary training from?" so if that isn't clear enough for you, then yes, that is correct.

From the time Schuckardt founded the CMRI until he was ousted was about 20 years. Those first twenty or so years of corruption are the years I was referring to.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 09, 2014, 06:28:17 PM
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn
And further more, I do not hate you or anyone or - in particular, the CMRI. You find the question itself offensive - as if questioning the leader of "the remnant" is a crime against Almighty God or His Church or something.


I am not a member of any chapel of the CMRI. It is pretty clear to see you have some axe to grind, Stubborn. (The choice of your name says much. Catholics aren't supposed to be stubborn, but you have some delight in labeling yourself with that.)


First off, you can enlighten all the martyrs and saints in heaven by telling them that being stubborn is not Catholic when you meet them. Second, it takes two to be stubborn, at least my screen name let's you know I'm honest about it - and when I am wrong, I will readily admit it asap. But how can I be wrong by asking for some answer to a clear question?

If you don't like the question then move along, why did you sign up? - just to add your own set of ad hominems to an already long list?

Quote from: Nado

You read some statement on a web site that claims the "usual" seminary training and it seems to cause a personal crisis for you. Perhaps the statement does need clarification, but why ask everyone else for clarification when you can easily contact the CMRI for it? You would rather launch in with innuendos that the statement is a lie, rather than simply be poorly stated. That shows a lack of charity, and some stubborn agenda in mind. If you care for truth, go write for a clarification.


The CMRIers here have offered nothing but cult like replies i.e. accusations of being anti Catholic, CMRI hater, Catholic attacker, an unjust man and ad hominems etc. ad nausem. All this does is detour the subject away from the original question and demonstrates for all to see that they really HATE that question for some reason. Perhaps it's the same reason CMRI website tells only half the truth - there's no way to tell for sure unless one of them figures it out and replies with some type of actual answer.

What is so dreadful about answering a simple question?

My agenda is to get someone to actually answer the question. These people, including you, who are all so reassuring that all is bliss with the the bishop are also the same people who have dodged the question numerous times.

Look at Mabel's post above - did I ask anything about nuns? Did I ask anything about Schuckardt? Did I ask anything about their priests? All I ask is where did he receive the usual seminary training. The longer these CMRI supporters continue to dodge the question using ad hominems, the more obvious it is they are afraid of the question.

Yet for asking about something she is obviously completely and totally ignorant of, I am the one who is ignorant with biases. And obstinate. And a feeneyite. And whatever other as hominem she added to the list of ad hominems in this thread - demonstrating more of that good old CMRI "wonderful Christian charity".

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 09, 2014, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: Stubborn




Yet for asking about something she is obviously completely and totally ignorant of, I am the one who is ignorant with biases. And obstinate. And a feeneyite. And whatever other as hominem she added to the list of ad hominems in this thread - demonstrating more of that good old CMRI "wonderful Christian charity".



Stubborn, since it is my note here you are quoting, I can only assume I am the SHE mentioned above.  

You are mistaken as usual, I just went over my approx. 30 notes on this thread and found nothing of an ad hominems addressed to you, with one exception, the note of Nov. 5 at 7:08 a.m. where I said you were Stubborn.   I wonder where I got that idea?

You owe me an apology, but you owe CMRI one FIRST.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 09, 2014, 08:54:18 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn
And further more, I do not hate you or anyone or - in particular, the CMRI. You find the question itself offensive - as if questioning the leader of "the remnant" is a crime against Almighty God or His Church or something.


I am not a member of any chapel of the CMRI. It is pretty clear to see you have some axe to grind, Stubborn. (The choice of your name says much. Catholics aren't supposed to be stubborn, but you have some delight in labeling yourself with that.)


First off, you can enlighten all the martyrs and saints in heaven by telling them that being stubborn is not Catholic when you meet them. Second, it takes two to be stubborn, at least my screen name let's you know I'm honest about it - and when I am wrong, I will readily admit it asap. But how can I be wrong by asking for some answer to a clear question?

If you don't like the question then move along, why did you sign up? - just to add your own set of ad hominems to an already long list?

Quote from: Nado

You read some statement on a web site that claims the "usual" seminary training and it seems to cause a personal crisis for you. Perhaps the statement does need clarification, but why ask everyone else for clarification when you can easily contact the CMRI for it? You would rather launch in with innuendos that the statement is a lie, rather than simply be poorly stated. That shows a lack of charity, and some stubborn agenda in mind. If you care for truth, go write for a clarification.


The CMRIers here have offered nothing but cult like replies i.e. accusations of being anti Catholic, CMRI hater, Catholic attacker, an unjust man and ad hominems etc. ad nausem. All this does is detour the subject away from the original question and demonstrates for all to see that they really HATE that question for some reason. Perhaps it's the same reason CMRI website tells only half the truth - there's no way to tell for sure unless one of them figures it out and replies with some type of actual answer.

What is so dreadful about answering a simple question?

My agenda is to get someone to actually answer the question. These people, including you, who are all so reassuring that all is bliss with the the bishop are also the same people who have dodged the question numerous times.

Look at Mabel's post above - did I ask anything about nuns? Did I ask anything about Schuckardt? Did I ask anything about their priests? All I ask is where did he receive the usual seminary training. The longer these CMRI supporters continue to dodge the question using ad hominems, the more obvious it is they are afraid of the question.

Yet for asking about something she is obviously completely and totally ignorant of, I am the one who is ignorant with biases. And obstinate. And a feeneyite. And whatever other as hominem she added to the list of ad hominems in this thread - demonstrating more of that good old CMRI "wonderful Christian charity".



It isn't an ad hominem. No one is familiar with the names of the individuals who trained Bp. Pivarunas. You have been told that many times. You have been told that if you want certain pieces of exact information that you will need to contact him, yourself.

You are the one who accused others of not researching the organization. I merely explained to you that I have gone straight to them and questioned them without any sort of consequence. You did state that questioning them results in punishment. I was responding to your outrageous charge. Maybe you are just stupid because if not, it makes you a liar. Bottom line, you don't like that I took you to task. I asked for proof, so let's wait and see those punished souls line up.

And for the last time, I'm am not part of the CMRI organization. You are making foolish generalizations in an attempt to destroy my credibility. What's the Latin term for that again?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Pete Vere on November 09, 2014, 10:05:34 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM


The YouTube I posted pages back Bishop Pivarunas explained the crimes against Schuckardt that happened over 32 years ago, not 20 years.  Why do you pretend we are hiding something?  CMRI is an open book.


Well let's see, I only asked a few dozen times: "Where did he receive the usual seminary training from?" so if that isn't clear enough for you, then yes, that is correct.



Well I am not sede. Heck, I am not even R&R. Nevertheless, my experience is the same as Myrna's here. That is, the CMRI tend to be very candid and forthcoming about their past when someone brings up the topic.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 10, 2014, 03:17:32 AM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn




Yet for asking about something she is obviously completely and totally ignorant of, I am the one who is ignorant with biases. And obstinate. And a feeneyite. And whatever other as hominem she added to the list of ad hominems in this thread - demonstrating more of that good old CMRI "wonderful Christian charity".



Stubborn, since it is my note here you are quoting, I can only assume I am the SHE mentioned above.  

You are mistaken as usual, I just went over my approx. 30 notes on this thread and found nothing of an ad hominems addressed to you, with one exception, the note of Nov. 5 at 7:08 a.m. where I said you were Stubborn.   I wonder where I got that idea?

You owe me an apology, but you owe CMRI one FIRST.  


I said: Look at Mabel's post above...."

Quote from: Mabel
I can't even fathom what must be going through Stubborn's mind. He just won't be satisfied and admit his ignorance and biases.


And again, it takes two to be stubborn.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 10, 2014, 03:30:44 AM
Quote from: Mabel

It isn't an ad hominem. No one is familiar with the names of the individuals who trained Bp. Pivarunas. You have been told that many times. You have been told that if you want certain pieces of exact information that you will need to contact him, yourself.


Did I ask who the individuals were? No, I asked where he received "the usual seminary training".


Quote from: Mabel

You are the one who accused others of not researching the organization. I merely explained to you that I have gone straight to them and questioned them without any sort of consequence. You did state that questioning them results in punishment. I was responding to your outrageous charge. Maybe you are just stupid because if not, it makes you a liar. Bottom line, you don't like that I took you to task. I asked for proof, so let's wait and see those punished souls line up.


I said "If you don't know [where he received the usual seminary training,] why not already come out and admit that you do not know and don't care." and let someone who does know reply with an answer?

If that is an accusation, it is founded on the fact that every single reply keeps dodging the question - except for TKGS who replied with an answer, which,  because the seminary burned to the ground, was proven wrong.


Quote from: Mabel

And for the last time, I'm am not part of the CMRI organization. You are making foolish generalizations in an attempt to destroy my credibility. What's the Latin term for that again?


If you are not part of CMRI and don't know the answer, why don't you just say that you don't know where he received any seminary training at all, let alone where he received "the usual seminary training"?

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 10, 2014, 12:10:46 PM
Quote from: Nado


Nothing wrong with the question, but when you don't accept the answer, then there is something wrong with you.

It has been answered. They followed the norms of what the Church desires for seminary formation. That is the answer, and you don't accept it for some very strange reason.


How dense are you?

I ask where did he receive the usual seminary training and you say the answer is........ready......the answer is: "They followed the norms of what the Church desires for seminary formation."

Can you point that address out on the map please?


Quote from: Nado

Clergy who have been through pre-Vatican II training approved, including Fr. Clement Kubish, Bp. George Musey and Bp. Robert McKenna.

You argued with the word "usual" as if that was really an argument at all. All you did was suggest the words needed clarification because you felt they weren't detailed enough. You have your answer. Now say why you reject it.


What I think you are describing is in no way shape or form "the usual seminary training" except perhaps by CMRI standards or standards of those who have zero clue what "the usual seminary training" consists of.



Quote from: Nado

Incidentally, perhaps you can argue with the clarity of a word from Holy Scripture, too (2 Tim 3:1-5):

"Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid."


Oh brother!  :facepalm:

Just what this thread needs - more of that good old CMRI "wonderful Christian charity" using scripture for your ad hominems, well, that fits - you just added those to the list, congrats!. . . . . . . yet still no answer to the question, just one more demonstration of dodging a simple question.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 10, 2014, 12:28:40 PM
You know Stubborn you should go back and re-read your notes here if you want to see some of that "wonderful Christian charity", you won't have to dig that deep either.

Quote from: Stubborn
How dense are you?


You have called us schismatics, cult members  and more ad hominem, why not begin to practice what you are so good at pointing fingers.  Why not start answering questions. Why is it that you do not care where your leaders received their training from?

You have never answered questions asked of you.  What in your opinion is lacking of Bishop Pivarunas in his training?  You have never answered.   :popcorn:

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 10, 2014, 12:34:59 PM
Quote from: Nado


Dense? You have been told in this thread that it was originally in the northeast. Idaho and Washington. Later, Nebraska.


Oh is that so - link a map to the location.


Quote from: Nado


Okay, so we see you don't care about what traditional Catholics prelates (not part of the CMRI) have approved of. You know better.

Now you say they have zero clue. That means you have in mind particular things they have done wrong that you claim are essential. What are they?



If they are calling living under the guidance of Schuckardt and receiving  Priestly Formation under him "the usual seminary training" - which is what it appears they are doing, then they can call it "the usual seminary training directly from heaven" if they want - but what they have not said - and what you have not said is WHERE he received this "usual seminary training".

 
Quote from: Nado

That's not an ad hominem. Dense?  You are the one who labelled yourself with it in the first place. I am showing you that you should not be doing so. That you are wrong. Liberals claim people who prove them wrong are insulting them.


You can keep attempting to side track the issue all you want - but what you cannot do is give a clear answer to the clear question. - What are you afraid of?

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 10, 2014, 12:48:49 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
You know Stubborn you should go back and re-read your notes here if you want to see some of that "wonderful Christian charity", you won't have to dig that deep either.

Quote from: Stubborn
How dense are you?


You have called us schismatics, cult members  and more ad hominem, why not begin to practice what you are so good at pointing fingers.  Why not start answering questions. Why is it that you do not care where your leaders received their training from?

You have never answered questions asked of you.  What in your opinion is lacking of Bishop Pivarunas in his training?  You have never answered.   :popcorn:



Yes, I am guilty of saying CMRI cult members and you all reply like cult members - -after all the replies came through with the same ad hominems - but the question was never answered. All the replies actually come across as cult members would reply.

I won't deny it - why do you?

I do not care how nice of a man or priest or bishop Pivarunas is - what I want to know is where on God's green earth he received his priestly formation.

You are satisfied with him being a nice man, a holy man, a great leader and bishop never caring where he was trained for the priesthood  - you may not even care if he was trained and indoctrinated for 12 years by Schuckardt - I don't know what it is you people care about - but as for me, I care and want to know where he went - because in those days, I could not find even one single seminary anywhere within the US that offered "the usual seminary training" - I am not saying there were no such places, but simply that I searched high and low and could not find any within the US.

I knew of Schuckardt's place back then and I assure you that CMRI is more screwed up than I ever imagined if THAT is what they are calling "the usual seminary training."
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 10, 2014, 01:09:52 PM
Mabel wrote:

Quote
You did state that questioning them results in punishment. I was responding to your outrageous charge. Maybe you are just stupid because if not, it makes you a liar. Bottom line, you don't like that I took you to task. I asked for proof, so let's wait and see those punished souls line up.


I did notice that he dodged this one too.  He calumniates the CMRI and is challenged to provide proof, and  all we hear is crickets.

This man must have no fear of God.  If only he read the Baltimore Catechism, instead of attacking it, he might have learned something.

If you disagree, Stubborn, provide your evidence, or have the honesty (and get to confession as soon as possible) to admit your calumny.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 10, 2014, 01:40:09 PM
Stubborn wrote about CMRI:

Quote
2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.


Let the record show that Stubborn has not as of yet offered one shred of proof to support this false accusation.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 10, 2014, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado


Dense? You have been told in this thread that it was originally in the northeast. Idaho and Washington. Later, Nebraska.


Oh is that so - link a map to the location.


Okay, I went and grabbed these in less than a minute:

Mount St. Michael
8500 N. St. Michael’s Rd.
Spokane, WA 99217

Mater Dei Seminary
7745 Military Avenue
Omaha, NE 68134

They also had some location in Idaho, but I don't know what it was.

Now let us in on your concern. What does the building have to do with anything essential?


I don't know how long you've understood about the crisis, but in 1974, the only thing going at Mt St Michaels was Schuckardt's "seminary" - if you think anyone could get "the usual seminary training" from that place, then you go there.

Mater Dei opened some 14 years after the the bishop was ordained a priest - thanks for your help.  :facepalm:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 10, 2014, 02:08:01 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Stubborn wrote about CMRI:

Quote
2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.


Let the record show that Stubborn has not as of yet offered one shred of proof to support this false accusation.  



Go back and read your own replies - like it or not, they are cult like.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 10, 2014, 02:31:34 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Stubborn
IIRC...


After looking up "IIRC", I found that it is text message shorthand for "if I read correctly".

No.  You do not read correctly.  You have not read anything correctly on this entire topic because, it appears, your hatred for the CMRI clouds your ability to think clearly.


Just because *you* have zero knowledge of the early days of CMRI and apparently do not want to know, does not mean everyone else does.

Here (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1338&dat=19780303&id=Z1ZOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_fgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6525,739933) is a link, written March 3, 1978 saying the place burned down "months ago".

Quote

The seminary at Rathdrum burned down months ago and the young men who were studying there are the ones now living at Mount St. Michael's.


So I didn't recall everything correctly - it was a Schuckardt seminary, not a church and it appears it burned down in 1977 or so.

I can find no information saying that it was rebuilt - only what I posted in the reply to your previous post stating it was founded in 1999, some 14 years after his ordination.

As for you, I would think that because of the corrupt foundation and first 20 or so years of that organization that of all people here, that you would be most earnest in finding out the whole story from outside the CMRI stories since I remember reading that one of your daughters(?) is going there to be a nun.


And further more, I do not hate you or anyone or - in particular, the CMRI. You find the question itself offensive - as if questioning the leader of "the remnant" is a crime against Almighty God or His Church or something.

You all sound like members of a cult with the same cult like responses to a simple question which you find offensive.

A Google of Cult Characteristics finds this:

1) The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

These characteristics are found in every single CMRIer reply in this thread. That in and of itself should tell you something.



Hey CMRI Expert, wasn't it you who didn't know the name of the CMRI bishop at the beginning of this thread? The only information that you knew about them before you asked your research partner, Google, was that they reject Feeneyism. If they didn't, you wouldn't care about them one bit.


I'm also still waiting to find out who has been punished and how by this alleged cult. What happened to you when you asked a question about CMRI? Tell of your suffering. I've also invited your fellow sufferers to chime in and say how they have been punished by CMRI attendees and clergy.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 10, 2014, 02:48:00 PM
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado


Dense? You have been told in this thread that it was originally in the northeast. Idaho and Washington. Later, Nebraska.


Oh is that so - link a map to the location.


Okay, I went and grabbed these in less than a minute:

Mount St. Michael
8500 N. St. Michael’s Rd.
Spokane, WA 99217

Mater Dei Seminary
7745 Military Avenue
Omaha, NE 68134

They also had some location in Idaho, but I don't know what it was.

Now let us in on your concern. What does the building have to do with anything essential?


I don't know how long you've understood about the crisis, but in 1974, the only thing going at Mt St Michaels was Schuckardt's "seminary" - if you think anyone could get "the usual seminary training" from that place, then you go there.

Mater Dei opened some 14 years after the the bishop was ordained a priest - thanks for your help.  :facepalm:


Okay, so what it boils down to is that you could have simply come into this thread and stated that because Schuckardt was involved in the training of some of their first priests, THEREFORE they could not possibly have sufficient training, regardless of their current practical record, and regardless of who has approved of them outside of their organization. It really never pertains to WHERE but WHO.


Ok so what it boils down to is that you could have simply answered the question - or not.

My reason for asking the question honestly should have no bearing on whether you can actually reply with an answer or not. Can we at least agree on that?

Why not spend another whole minute and see if you can actually reply with an answer next time - or is that also asking for too much?

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 10, 2014, 02:50:22 PM
Quote from: Mabel

Hey CMRI Expert, wasn't it you who didn't know the name of the CMRI bishop at the beginning of this thread? The only information that you knew about them before you asked your research partner, Google, was that they reject Feeneyism. If they didn't, you wouldn't care about them one bit.


I'm also still waiting to find out who has been punished and how by this alleged cult. What happened to you when you asked a question about CMRI? Tell of your suffering. I've also invited your fellow sufferers to chime in and say how they have been punished by CMRI attendees and clergy.


Thank you so much for your contribution to this thread - I'm wondering if you will ever reply with an answer or if you will post nothing but your side tracking replies for how ever many more posts you make.

 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 10, 2014, 02:59:24 PM
Quote from: Nado


It's been answered now, more than once. Your real objection is that it involved Schuckardt. Isn't that so?


You consider your answers as answers even after you've been instructed that your answers are obviously wrong.

I already told you that if YOU think Schuckardt's seminary training is "the usual seminary training" that the CMRI is speaking of that the bishop received, then you can feel free to go there.

It is quite obvious that you have zero clue what "the usual seminary training" actually means, so why do you keep clogging up this already clogged thread with your off track remarks?

I never thought the question would go unanswered for more than a page or so - -but here we are, 52 pages into this thread and there is absolutely no sign of anyone of the CMRI supporters offering any answer.

Just more sidetracking remarks to get off the subject.

Go ahead and spend another whole minute and see what you can find.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 10, 2014, 03:09:29 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Yes, I am guilty of saying CMRI cult members and you all reply like cult members - -after all the replies came through with the same ad hominems - but the question was never answered. All the replies actually come across as cult members would reply.

I won't deny it - why do you?


Example please of our cult reply, or apologize.

Quote from: Stubbon
You are satisfied with him being a nice man, a holy man, a great leader and bishop never caring where he was trained for the priesthood  - you may not even care if he was trained and indoctrinated for 12 years by Schuckardt - I don't know what it is you people care about - but as for me, I care and want to know where he went - because in those days, I could not find even one single seminary anywhere within the US that offered "the usual seminary training" - I am not saying there were no such places, but simply that I searched high and low and could not find any within the US.

I knew of Schuckardt's place back then and I assure you that CMRI is more screwed up than I ever imagined if THAT is what they are calling "the usual seminary training."


You don't seem at all to care where your leader was trained and how "screwed up" he is, this is why your replies are such a joke.

Yes, not only am I satisfied with Bishop Pivarunas as being inspired by the Holy Ghost but I thank God for showing me CMRI.  I truly do not know if Schuckardt taught Bishop Pivarunas anything of the Faith or not, all I know is today Bishop Pivarunas is well trained Catholic Bishop.
 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 10, 2014, 03:42:39 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Mabel

Hey CMRI Expert, wasn't it you who didn't know the name of the CMRI bishop at the beginning of this thread? The only information that you knew about them before you asked your research partner, Google, was that they reject Feeneyism. If they didn't, you wouldn't care about them one bit.


I'm also still waiting to find out who has been punished and how by this alleged cult. What happened to you when you asked a question about CMRI? Tell of your suffering. I've also invited your fellow sufferers to chime in and say how they have been punished by CMRI attendees and clergy.


Thank you so much for your contribution to this thread - I'm wondering if you will ever reply with an answer or if you will post nothing but your side tracking replies for how ever many more posts you make.

 


I have no need to answer you but I have. I already told you that I do not know the names of the individuals who trained him. I told you where to get that information.

Why don't you answer for your calumny?

How have you been punished by those you allege to be members of a cult?
Give an example.

How have others who have dealt with CMRI been punished for asking questions?

Here is what we know:
Bishop Pivarunas was trained by pre-Vatican II ordained priests and studied outside of a seminary, as there were no Catholic seminaries in late 70s, early 80s.

However, he was trained to be a priest according to the usual course of studies, using the same books and course of study, though he did not go to a formal seminary.

We do not know to what degree Shuckhardt was involved in his training and studies but Shuckhardt was in charge of CMRI at least during part of that time.

We know that Stubborn is a Feeneyite and an admirer of Fr. Wathen. We know that Stubborn only cares about CMRI because they are opposed to heretical teaching on BOD. We know that Stubborn employs a double standard, as the SSPX also believes the same as CMRI regarding such controversial issues. Stubborn believes CMRI to be a cult and outside the Church, nothing will convince him otherwise. Stubborn has never met a CMRI priest nor been to their mass location. Stubborn refuses to call the CMRI in order to gain the unknown information and would rather heap calumny upon others than to clarify the matter for himself.

The only conclusion that anyone can possibly come to by read this thread is that Stubborn is being unjust, obstinate, and bad-willed. Why else would he devote this amount of time to such a fruitless, useless pursuit?

How many people now have told him just to contact CMRI and ask, rather than post endlessly? I've counted five or six without going through this thread again. If anyone else would like to encourage him to pick up the phone and make the call, please do.  :jester:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 10, 2014, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn
Yes, I am guilty of saying CMRI cult members and you all reply like cult members - -after all the replies came through with the same ad hominems - but the question was never answered. All the replies actually come across as cult members would reply.

I won't deny it - why do you?


Example please of our cult reply, or apologize.


Go back and look, you will find that I am one of the "CMRI haters", one of the "CMRI detractors", "Baptism of Desire deniers",  I "attack all of us Catholics who keep the Fath whole and entire", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", a "feeneyite", "a misguided person who goes by Protestant ideas", an "unjust man", a "feeneyite", a heretic, a "non-Catholic", and etc.

One thing no one, except TKGS, even attempted to do, is answer the question because for 50 pages they are all too busy commenting on what their opinion of my faults are all about.

So no, I won't apologize because the replies were cult like replies.
Everyone some how seems to think that whether they answer the question or not is dependent upon my reason for asking the question - how dare I question anything about the CMRI! - THAT is a characteristic of cult like replies.
 

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Stubbon
You are satisfied with him being a nice man, a holy man, a great leader and bishop never caring where he was trained for the priesthood  - you may not even care if he was trained and indoctrinated for 12 years by Schuckardt - I don't know what it is you people care about - but as for me, I care and want to know where he went - because in those days, I could not find even one single seminary anywhere within the US that offered "the usual seminary training" - I am not saying there were no such places, but simply that I searched high and low and could not find any within the US.

I knew of Schuckardt's place back then and I assure you that CMRI is more screwed up than I ever imagined if THAT is what they are calling "the usual seminary training."


You don't seem at all to care where your leader was trained and how "screwed up" he is, this is why your replies are such a joke.

Yes, not only am I satisfied with Bishop Pivarunas as being inspired by the Holy Ghost but I thank God for showing me CMRI.  I truly do not know if Schuckardt taught Bishop Pivarunas anything of the Faith or not, all I know is today Bishop Pivarunas is well trained Catholic Bishop.
 


Well that's all fine and good - you don't care and you have your reasons for not caring - as I have said, I don't care what your reasons are for not caring.

I care and have my reasons why I care - as I already explained.

But that is not good enough for the CMRI supporters - and I don't care that my reasons for caring do not meet with the CMRI supporter's approval or that my reasons are cause for CMRI supporters to think whatever they want to think of me or that my reasons are the cause for them to dance around the question, side tracking with ad hominems with almost each post they make  - and all the rest of the nonsense they've been posting to get away from the question.

I still would like to know where this "usual seminary training" was in the mid 70s. Why I would like to know should have zero impact on anyone to prohibit answering the question one iota - unless, far as I can tell, they have something to fear.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 10, 2014, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado


It's been answered now, more than once. Your real objection is that it involved Schuckardt. Isn't that so?


You consider your answers as answers even after you've been instructed that your answers are obviously wrong.

I already told you that if YOU think Schuckardt's seminary training is "the usual seminary training" that the CMRI is speaking of that the bishop received, then you can feel free to go there.

It is quite obvious that you have zero clue what "the usual seminary training" actually means, so why do you keep clogging up this already clogged thread with your off track remarks?

I never thought the question would go unanswered for more than a page or so - -but here we are, 52 pages into this thread and there is absolutely no sign of anyone of the CMRI supporters offering any answer.

Just more sidetracking remarks to get off the subject.

Go ahead and spend another whole minute and see what you can find.


You asked me to give you addresses, and I gave them to you. I wasn't wrong about the addresses.


Good for you - you gave the wrong answers but the addresses are correct.

Stand proud.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 10, 2014, 04:32:16 PM
Mabel got it correct, the only reason you are so against CMRI is because they recognize EENS AND BAPTISM OF DESIRE as properly taught by the Church.  

SSPX also believes the same as above, however, they have the same leader you do, his picture hangs in their vestibule, therefore you give them a pass.

Maybe SSPX will tell you where your leader received his training.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 10, 2014, 06:20:32 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Mabel got it correct, the only reason you are so against CMRI is because they recognize EENS AND BAPTISM OF DESIRE as properly taught by the Church.  



There is an error in this statement. CMRI does not recognize EENS and Baptism of Desire as taught by the Church, but as taught as the Modernist progressives of XX century since they share the same liberal interpretation of it.  In doing this, they enlist in the ranks of the enemies of the Church, to the same level of the conciliar Popes which ironically CMRI pretends to "reject" while they draw people outside the Church.

CMRI fervently adheres to the Suprema Haec Sacra Letter which teaches salvation for non-Catholics via “implicit” baptism of desire, and invincible ignorance, which is a heretical rejection of Catholic dogma. This is indeed of most importance and even if this was the "only issue "of CMRI (which is not, for a serious Catholic), it must be resisted because the whole Church crisis resides precisely upon this issue.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 11, 2014, 04:11:14 AM
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado


It's been answered now, more than once. Your real objection is that it involved Schuckardt. Isn't that so?


You consider your answers as answers even after you've been instructed that your answers are obviously wrong.

I already told you that if YOU think Schuckardt's seminary training is "the usual seminary training" that the CMRI is speaking of that the bishop received, then you can feel free to go there.

It is quite obvious that you have zero clue what "the usual seminary training" actually means, so why do you keep clogging up this already clogged thread with your off track remarks?

I never thought the question would go unanswered for more than a page or so - -but here we are, 52 pages into this thread and there is absolutely no sign of anyone of the CMRI supporters offering any answer.

Just more sidetracking remarks to get off the subject.

Go ahead and spend another whole minute and see what you can find.


You asked me to give you addresses, and I gave them to you. I wasn't wrong about the addresses.


Good for you - you gave the wrong answers but the addresses are correct.

Stand proud.


Now you are being ambiguous like a modernist. You asked for addresses, and you say I am correct with the addresses I gave you. Now what is wrong?


I already wrote it out for you, not sure how to say it any clearer than the addresses you gave were correct addresses  - but those seminaries were not the ones the Pivarunas received his Priestly Formation from.  

You post just like another poster here -  doesn't know what she is saying, but follows the crowd pretty well.
 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 11, 2014, 05:24:59 AM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Mabel got it correct, the only reason you are so against CMRI is because they recognize EENS AND BAPTISM OF DESIRE as properly taught by the Church.  

SSPX also believes the same as above, however, they have the same leader you do, his picture hangs in their vestibule, therefore you give them a pass.

Maybe SSPX will tell you where your leader received his training.


You are correct that I am against  CMRI's prot version of a BOD and their "dogma" of “The Salvation of Those Outside the Church” - as CMRI puts it.

I don't know what you were doing from 1967 through the mid 80s, but while you were doing whatever it was you were doing, I was being raised a trad and heard quite a bit about the "Schuckardt group" - all bad, very bad, off and on pretty much up to the mid 80s. Only a few months ago I found out that the CMRI traces its foundation back to the "Schuckardt group", even if you and the others don't. I don't know for sure why you don't, but I have learned not to question your inconsistencies, I just attempt to point them out for your benefit.  

Any way, putting the bits and pieces together that the CMRI website offers, IF one is honest, one is forced to conclude that CMRI is claiming that Schuckardt's seminary training of Pivarunas is the norm, or as they put it, "the usual seminary training". - Do you agree with them that the seminary training from Schuckardt is the norm?

BTW, Bishop Fellay received his Priestly Formation at the SSPX Seminary in Econe, Switzerland.  - as if you answering my question was dependent upon me answering where bishop Fellay received his seminary training.  

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 11, 2014, 09:32:27 AM
Quote from: Stubborn


You are correct that I am against  CMRI's prot version of a BOD and their "dogma" of “The Salvation of Those Outside the Church” - as CMRI puts it.


Don't forget ... so does Bishop Fellay believe the same.


I do not know exactly what little Schuckardt directly taught Bishop Pivarunas, all I know is today he is an excellent Bishop.  Excellent Bishop, of course that doesn't matter to you does it?  As far as Schuckardt is concerned he has been judged already and just think he might have even saved his soul, when you consider how many people he saved from the novus ordo.  

Are you telling us now, you don't believe in the forgiveness of his PERSONAL SINS.  Is that it Stubborn???   You deny an article of Faith, the Creed?  



Quote from: Stubborn
 BTW, Bishop Fellay received his Priestly Formation at the SSPX Seminary in Econe, Switzerland.  - as if you answering my question was dependent upon me answering where bishop Fellay received his seminary training.


Moving here all along, the leader of Bishop Fellay is YOUR POPE FRANCIS, and all his ilk,  so I wonder now how much MODERNISM rubbed off on Fellay.  Seems quite hypocritical to me, that you accuse Bishop Pivarunas of something he had no control over, but your LEADER has full control of his actions and still wants to unite with the MODERNIST.  Take your energy to remove the speck in your eye.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 11, 2014, 11:05:52 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
A Google of Cult Characteristics finds this:

1) The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
 
2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished


Stubborn  on thinking about these Cult Characteristics you posted, they are most fitting for you.
Think about it!  Number 1)  Here you confess your leader to be Bishop Fellay and you show unquestioning commitment to him even overlooking the fact that he believes as CMRI in regard to EENS and Baptism of Desire, you just look the other way.  Now  Bishop Fellay  recognizes YOUR POPE as YOU do, and here again you overlook the fact the Francis and all his predecessors openly deny EENS, yet your excessively committed to them how astonishing is that.  You even refer to them as the Vicar of Christ. Imagine that commitment for excessive  zealous devotion.  Here on one hand you hint he is a Modernist, depending on who you are addressing at the time, but you like Bishop Fellay have a shrine in honor of Francis, in the vestibule of your place of worship.  My, my how hypocritical and cultish.  Even those predecessors of the conciliar that are dead are now considered SAINTED  but you are so devoted,  you honor their belief system by your silence, another very cultish characteristic you possess.
Number 2)  Your unfounded fear for excommunication (punishment) from a group that has no authority, is very cultish indeed!  
Bottom line, you are most definitely a cult member, you must be one because you fit so perfectly in the description you presented us with.
Now in defense of SSPX, they do have a valid Mass, I know because Bishop Pivarunas says so.  However since you have no respect for Bishop Pivarunas and don’t believe a word he says, you are now doubting the Mass of which you attend.  That is what happens when you are a cult member , no peace of soul.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 11, 2014, 02:48:33 PM
Quote from: Nado


Your concern about what physical building was used is plainly silly.

Bp. Pivarunas was 16 years old in 1974 and entered religious life. They purchased the Mount about 2 years later. He was finally ordained in 1985 at age 27, by Bp. George Musey.

In 1984 he helped oust Schuckardt. Cults don't oust their leaders.

You made a statement in this thread that the training cannot have been sufficient because Schuckardt was involved. Can you give us some detail on why you think that?


I asked the same question to Myrna which went unanswered, *surprise*.

Do you agree with CMRI that the seminary training from Schuckardt is the usual seminary training that all seminarians receive?



Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 11, 2014, 02:50:06 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM

Now in defense of SSPX, they do have a valid Mass, I know because Bishop Pivarunas says so.


 :facepalm:

There is no much need to support the claims of CMRI being a schismatic cult, is there?. Statements such as the one above reveals it.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 11, 2014, 02:52:55 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: MyrnaM

Now in defense of SSPX, they do have a valid Mass, I know because Bishop Pivarunas says so.


 :facepalm:

There is no much need to support the claims of CMRI being a schismatic cult, is there?. Statements such as the one above reveals it.


:stare:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 11, 2014, 02:57:46 PM
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: MyrnaM
Mabel got it correct, the only reason you are so against CMRI is because they recognize EENS AND BAPTISM OF DESIRE as properly taught by the Church.  



There is an error in this statement. CMRI does not recognize EENS and Baptism of Desire as taught by the Church, but as taught as the Modernist progressives of XX century since they share the same liberal interpretation of it.  In doing this, they enlist in the ranks of the enemies of the Church, to the same level of the conciliar Popes which ironically CMRI pretends to "reject" while they draw people outside the Church.

CMRI fervently adheres to the Suprema Haec Sacra Letter which teaches salvation for non-Catholics via “implicit” baptism of desire, and invincible ignorance, which is a heretical rejection of Catholic dogma. This is indeed of most importance and even if this was the "only issue "of CMRI (which is not, for a serious Catholic), it must be resisted because the whole Church crisis resides precisely upon this issue.


Uh uh. The CMRI believes exactly along with what St. Alphonsus and Pius IX wrote even well before the XX century. Nobody in the WHOLE Church saw them as saying anything heretical....but you are smarter now, Can'tarella, right?


No. The reason why CMRI adheres so fervently to the heretical Suprema Haec Letter against Fr. Feeney is because this happened in times of Pope Pius XII, who they believe is the one last true Pope and who they greatly idealize, so everything that he did (or allowed to do) as Pontiff MUST have been right. In doing this, CMRI overlooks the liberal errors going on in that time and even before. The CMRI naively assumes that the Church suddenly disappeared and the entire world collapsed overnight in 1962, when in fact, Vatican II was the victory of the rampant Modernism already present in the Church at that time.

By the time Pius XII was elected Pope in 1939, Modernism or Progressivism had already begun to re-establish itself in the Church with the rise of the "New Theology". But of course, CMRI will no tell people this since they need to sell the propaganda that everything just collapsed after Vatican II and there are no more true popes, bla bla bla...to justify their schism.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 11, 2014, 03:38:05 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn
A Google of Cult Characteristics finds this:

1) The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
 
2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished


Stubborn  on thinking about these Cult Characteristics you posted, they are most fitting for you.
Think about it!  Number 1)  Here you confess your leader to be Bishop Fellay and you show unquestioning commitment to him even overlooking the fact that he believes as CMRI in regard to EENS and Baptism of Desire, you just look the other way...........  


I told you before that this was not about the prot version of BOD that CMRI exports. If you want to go over all that again there's a hundred different threads about it over in the new sub forum Matthew made for that subject.

It is about the CMRI saying the seminary training Pivarunas received is "the usual seminary training" - even though it was given by a man with no seminary training at all and who opened a seminary after being ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop by a married schismatic Old Catholic Bishop.

Would you even consider saying that training is the usual seminary training for seminarians? - yes or no?

 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 11, 2014, 04:53:17 PM
Quote
Would you even consider saying that training is the usual seminary training for seminarians? - yes or no?


I already told you there is nothing wrong with the training that Bishop Pivarunas received, he excels in Catholic Principles.  The proof is in the taste of the pudding.  He is truly blessed by God.  Too bad you won't give him a chance you are really missing out.  

Too bad we can't say the same about your pope, who doesn't even believe in EENS, yet you dare call him the Vicar of Christ.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 11, 2014, 05:01:04 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote
Would you even consider saying that training is the usual seminary training for seminarians? - yes or no?


I already told you there is nothing wrong with the training that Bishop Pivarunas received, he excels in Catholic Principles.  


Catholic principles such as Pivarunas' argument that Natural Family Planning must be permissible because certain people before Vatican II allegedly approved of it. Another instance of how the CMRI idealizes anything that happened before / during Pope Pius XII, including liberal errors.  

CMRI is stuck in Fiftiesism. It condemns the alleged heresies of the conciliar popes, and then go and adhere to the same heresies anyway, therefore being part of the same unclean and progressive spirit from Vatican II.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 11, 2014, 05:11:32 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote
Would you even consider saying that training is the usual seminary training for seminarians? - yes or no?


I already told you there is nothing wrong with the training that Bishop Pivarunas received, he excels in Catholic Principles.  The proof is in the taste of the pudding.  He is truly blessed by God.  Too bad you won't give him a chance you are really missing out.  


Ok, good to know that you agree with CMRI that Schuckardt's seminary training is the usual seminary training for seminarians - and "that there was nothing wrong with that training" - and you even have proof. Unreal.

Quote from: MyrnaM

Too bad we can't say the same about your pope, who doesn't even believe in EENS, yet you dare call him the Vicar of Christ.  


Yes, you and he have that in common. You both believe in "The salvation for those outside of the Church".

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 11, 2014, 05:20:02 PM
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado


Your concern about what physical building was used is plainly silly.

Bp. Pivarunas was 16 years old in 1974 and entered religious life. They purchased the Mount about 2 years later. He was finally ordained in 1985 at age 27, by Bp. George Musey.

In 1984 he helped oust Schuckardt. Cults don't oust their leaders.

You made a statement in this thread that the training cannot have been sufficient because Schuckardt was involved. Can you give us some detail on why you think that?


I asked the same question to Myrna which went unanswered, *surprise*.

Do you agree with CMRI that the seminary training from Schuckardt is the usual seminary training that all seminarians receive?


I asked you the question first. If you have a reason to say that priestly training, with Schuckardt as head of the organization, positively did not suffice for essential training to the priesthood, then give your reasons.


You obviously have no idea what is going on - rather than repost everything you have not bothered to read, here (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10176935/) is about an 9 minute news video from 2003(?) showing only a teeny tiny bit of what Schuckardt was about.

Now, if you can stomach watching the whole thing to the end, answer if you agree with CMRI that Schuckardt offered the usual seminary training. Would you send your son to his seminary? - honestly?

   
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: En medio stat virtus on November 11, 2014, 06:58:07 PM
It's curious for any of us who are looking for truth to not realize that there were several Thuc line Bishops who were kicked out by CMRI. One of those being Bishop George Musey. Who they slandered verbally after his attempt to reform them. He did conditionally ordain them, but did not realize the true nature of the problems there. He simply called it spiritual incest. His words. They are basically self taught then and now. Sorry if this offends anyone, but it is the truth. And yes there are good people there who have suffered a lot during the Schukardt era, but it does not make it Catholic now.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 11, 2014, 08:30:17 PM
Stubborn et al,  I came into CMRI in 1982 and remember much of what was going on.  I found this and after reading it, it is very much as I remembered seeing and hearing of the goings on.  

Hope this will satisfy you Stubborn, if not its because you do not want to see or understand, but I think this is pretty honest about what happened.  

As I said before, a lot of history with CMRI decades ago, but today we flourish.  No one is hiding anything, CMRI as the Catholic Church has always had its ups and downs.  

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=26&catname=14
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 11, 2014, 09:02:49 PM
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: En medio stat virtus
It's curious for any of us who are looking for truth to not realize that there were several Thuc line Bishops who were kicked out by CMRI. One of those being Bishop George Musey. Who they slandered verbally after his attempt to reform them. He did conditionally ordain them, but did not realize the true nature of the problems there. He simply called it spiritual incest. His words. They are basically self taught then and now. Sorry if this offends anyone, but it is the truth. And yes there are good people there who have suffered a lot during the Schukardt era, but it does not make it Catholic now.


I sympathize with wanting to get everything straight as soon as possible, but Bp. Musey pushed them too fast, which is not the mind of the Church. One thing that apparently made Bp. Musey impatient to correct everything was that he believed he had ordinary jurisdiction over the CMRI, and he did not. That was a perfectly good reason to cease working with him. Your usage of "kicked out" shows a bias. No Thuc line bishop has lived with them.


There are two sides to every story. Both make up the history. I will say this, CMRI has fairly represented the side of their critics when I have questioned them. How do I know that? I dealt directly with those critics and the story was the same. I have also spoken to objective third parties who have explained different situations. Overall, CMRI under Bp. Pivarunas has proved itself a worthy organization.

We could sit here for weeks on end and drag the name of just about every single traditional priest through the mud. We could talk about the mistakes of men, now dead and judged, who are unable to defend themselves. If Stubborn or his lady friend think that their favorites are immune, it is because they are completely blind to their own faults and shortcomings. Bp. Pivarunas' list of alleged mistakes or infractions are much shorter than most. I am not advocating doing that to anyone, but what good would it serve? What good has Stubborn achieved by his tirade?

Also, I'm still waiting...Stubborn how have you or anyone else been punished by questioning CMRI, or others that you allege to be cult members? I want names, specific punishments, and the question that caused the punishment.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 12, 2014, 03:08:04 AM
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado


Your concern about what physical building was used is plainly silly.

Bp. Pivarunas was 16 years old in 1974 and entered religious life. They purchased the Mount about 2 years later. He was finally ordained in 1985 at age 27, by Bp. George Musey.

In 1984 he helped oust Schuckardt. Cults don't oust their leaders.

You made a statement in this thread that the training cannot have been sufficient because Schuckardt was involved. Can you give us some detail on why you think that?


I asked the same question to Myrna which went unanswered, *surprise*.

Do you agree with CMRI that the seminary training from Schuckardt is the usual seminary training that all seminarians receive?


I asked you the question first. If you have a reason to say that priestly training, with Schuckardt as head of the organization, positively did not suffice for essential training to the priesthood, then give your reasons.


You obviously have no idea what is going on - rather than repost everything you have not bothered to read, here is about an 9 minute news video from 2003(?) showing only a teeny tiny bit of what Schuckardt was about.

Now, if you can stomach watching the whole thing to the end, answer if you agree with CMRI that Schuckardt offered the usual seminary training. Would you send your son to his seminary? - honestly?

   


Yes, I am perfectly aware of the CMRI past. However, since you gave the link as your response, and it was only 9 minutes, I watched it.

Now, I have to honestly say, nothing that video showed argues against a sufficient priestly training. You are attempting to make a personal conclusion that is not rational. There is no logical connection. It is all emotion. It's the like the emotional Prots who broke away from the Church because they took scandal by the scandals of selling indulgences, or other moral scandals in the hierarchy. It is a sin to take scandal, but dumping the Church is not rational.


So would your answer be yes or no? - does that mean that you would have no issues sending your son to him for his seminary training?

And of course I make a personal conclusion - everyone does. You say there is no logical connection yet the CMRI disagrees with you. They are the ones who disagree with your personal conclusion. They are the ones who tell us on their website that their foundation started with Schuckardt in 1967. Why do you say there is no connection when they say there is?



Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 12, 2014, 03:29:07 AM
Quote from: Mabel
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: En medio stat virtus
It's curious for any of us who are looking for truth to not realize that there were several Thuc line Bishops who were kicked out by CMRI. One of those being Bishop George Musey. Who they slandered verbally after his attempt to reform them. He did conditionally ordain them, but did not realize the true nature of the problems there. He simply called it spiritual incest. His words. They are basically self taught then and now. Sorry if this offends anyone, but it is the truth. And yes there are good people there who have suffered a lot during the Schukardt era, but it does not make it Catholic now.


I sympathize with wanting to get everything straight as soon as possible, but Bp. Musey pushed them too fast, which is not the mind of the Church. One thing that apparently made Bp. Musey impatient to correct everything was that he believed he had ordinary jurisdiction over the CMRI, and he did not. That was a perfectly good reason to cease working with him. Your usage of "kicked out" shows a bias. No Thuc line bishop has lived with them.


There are two sides to every story. Both make up the history. I will say this, CMRI has fairly represented the side of their critics when I have questioned them. How do I know that? I dealt directly with those critics and the story was the same. I have also spoken to objective third parties who have explained different situations. Overall, CMRI under Bp. Pivarunas has proved itself a worthy organization.

We could sit here for weeks on end and drag the name of just about every single traditional priest through the mud. We could talk about the mistakes of men, now dead and judged, who are unable to defend themselves. If Stubborn or his lady friend think that their favorites are immune, it is because they are completely blind to their own faults and shortcomings. Bp. Pivarunas' list of alleged mistakes or infractions are much shorter than most. I am not advocating doing that to anyone, but what good would it serve? What good has Stubborn achieved by his tirade?

Also, I'm still waiting...Stubborn how have you or anyone else been punished by questioning CMRI, or others that you allege to be cult members? I want names, specific punishments, and the question that caused the punishment.




As usual, you dodge the issue.

This is about the fact that you all say there is no connection with Schuckardt, yet the CMRI website more than once says that there is, though they say it in a way that does not mention his name.

Personally, I have no desire to be connected in anyway to a man who started his own church and called it Catholic, but that's just me, and presumably others out there who are not as indifferent to the situation there as you.

I said your replies are cult like. That you all demonstrate cult like characteristics with your replies. I also already said why - I'm not going back to quote myself, if you would have read what I wrote perhaps you would understand why you all act that way.

 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 12, 2014, 03:43:43 AM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Stubborn et al,  I came into CMRI in 1982 and remember much of what was going on.  I found this and after reading it, it is very much as I remembered seeing and hearing of the goings on.  

Hope this will satisfy you Stubborn, if not its because you do not want to see or understand, but I think this is pretty honest about what happened.  

As I said before, a lot of history with CMRI decades ago, but today we flourish.  No one is hiding anything, CMRI as the Catholic Church has always had its ups and downs.  

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=26&catname=14


Here Myrna, he wrote this 10 years after he wrote your link - and this link is more about the subject at hand. Untrained and Un-Tridentine: Holy Orders and the Canonically Unfit (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=64&catname=11)

Although he does not mention the CMRI directly, indirectly he references them throughout.

This part helps sum up what it's all about. Emphasis mine.
Quote from: Fr. Cekada


Those of us old enough to remember how the Tridentine system worked and what standards it set find the notion of an untrained priest not only bizarre, but also positively horrifying. .......

   The laity sometimes tolerate the untrained and un-Tridentine “traditionalist” priest because they do not understand the exacting requirements for priestly ordination. In other cases, laymen may feel that “valid sacraments” are all that count, and that the rest is legalistic window dressing — so why be fussy?

      Experience, though, teaches that an unschooled, unformed priest is a time-bomb waiting to go off. When the explosion comes, scandal follows and souls are driven away from the traditional Mass.

      And when such a priest or bishop emerges from an ecclesiastical underworld where no one had proper training, is it really safe to assume that his ordination or consecration was valid anyway?

      But in any case, valid or not, such a person’s presence at the altar and in the confessional degrades the priesthood and endangers souls.




Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 12, 2014, 10:53:57 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Mabel
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: En medio stat virtus
It's curious for any of us who are looking for truth to not realize that there were several Thuc line Bishops who were kicked out by CMRI. One of those being Bishop George Musey. Who they slandered verbally after his attempt to reform them. He did conditionally ordain them, but did not realize the true nature of the problems there. He simply called it spiritual incest. His words. They are basically self taught then and now. Sorry if this offends anyone, but it is the truth. And yes there are good people there who have suffered a lot during the Schukardt era, but it does not make it Catholic now.


I sympathize with wanting to get everything straight as soon as possible, but Bp. Musey pushed them too fast, which is not the mind of the Church. One thing that apparently made Bp. Musey impatient to correct everything was that he believed he had ordinary jurisdiction over the CMRI, and he did not. That was a perfectly good reason to cease working with him. Your usage of "kicked out" shows a bias. No Thuc line bishop has lived with them.


There are two sides to every story. Both make up the history. I will say this, CMRI has fairly represented the side of their critics when I have questioned them. How do I know that? I dealt directly with those critics and the story was the same. I have also spoken to objective third parties who have explained different situations. Overall, CMRI under Bp. Pivarunas has proved itself a worthy organization.

We could sit here for weeks on end and drag the name of just about every single traditional priest through the mud. We could talk about the mistakes of men, now dead and judged, who are unable to defend themselves. If Stubborn or his lady friend think that their favorites are immune, it is because they are completely blind to their own faults and shortcomings. Bp. Pivarunas' list of alleged mistakes or infractions are much shorter than most. I am not advocating doing that to anyone, but what good would it serve? What good has Stubborn achieved by his tirade?

Also, I'm still waiting...Stubborn how have you or anyone else been punished by questioning CMRI, or others that you allege to be cult members? I want names, specific punishments, and the question that caused the punishment.




As usual, you dodge the issue.

This is about the fact that you all say there is no connection with Schuckardt, yet the CMRI website more than once says that there is, though they say it in a way that does not mention his name.

Personally, I have no desire to be connected in anyway to a man who started his own church and called it Catholic, but that's just me, and presumably others out there who are not as indifferent to the situation there as you.

I said your replies are cult like. That you all demonstrate cult like characteristics with your replies. I also already said why - I'm not going back to quote myself, if you would have read what I wrote perhaps you would understand why you all act that way.

 


Actually, I laid out everything that was known and a summary of my entire knowledge and method of research in one post in particular.

You just won't be happy unless someone says "Oh, wow, Stubborn, thanks for saving me from those awful people. Please, take me to your leader so I can be a real Catholic."

In your pride, you don't realize that you are making a case for the CMRI and one against yourself.

So, tell me again, since you highlighted the fact that these alleged cult like members punish questioners dissenters: How were you, or any person punished? Give names, the dissent or question asked, and their subsequent punishment.

You highlighted that point buddy, not me. Now, I want to know the detail about these people who were punished so that I can admonish those who have sought to punish others.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 12, 2014, 11:54:51 AM
(http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj108/Myrnanne/ArticleFrCekada.jpg) (http://[URL=http://s270.photobucket.com/user/Myrnanne/media/ArticleFrCekada.jpg.html)]article[/url]


Quote from: Stubborn

Although he does not mention the CMRI directly, indirectly he references them throughout.


You're right he does not even mention CMRI in your article, but makes a general statement, no doubt according to his newest chart and approved list he might have been speaking about the StPeter Frat. and novus ordo training.  YOUR ILK.

http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/11/sgg-young-persons-field-guide-to-potential-trad-spouses/
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 12, 2014, 01:46:46 PM
According to the chart above, then the only groups that can have the Blood and Body of Jesus Christ are the sedevacantists and a few SSPX due to the "valid" ordinations. Forget about the Universalism of the Church, for example the Eastern Rites. Hopefully the honest truth - seeking soul who is behind the fence can see the evidence of the schismatic condition of CMRI and other sedevacantist groups. This chart reveals that CMRI REFUSES COMMUNION WITH OTHER CATHOLICS WHICH IS THE SECOND CONDITION FOR SCHISM.    

Quote

Schism:

 "It is therefore true that there may be some theological discussion of whether or not Sedevacantism is schismatic.  The answer to this depends on the degree of Sedevacantism.  A radical Sedevacantism heretics who calls us to be in communion with a heretic (Wojtyla), they say.  This is certainly schismatic, because they clearly reject communion with true Catholics, who are not modernists.  Making your Sedevacantism a quasi-article of faith, they certainly fall into the second category of people that canon 1325 §2 declares as schismatics' are schismatics who refuse communion with the members of the Church subject to him (ie, the Sovereign Pontiff) '.  Consequently, its rejection is to be part of the Church, and indeed making a 'church' as they see it only consists Sedevacantism and certainly schismatic. "[29]

 This is exactly the case of CMRI (Mount St. Michael, Spokane), which states:

 "Are traditional Catholics subject to the local hierarchy and ultimately to Rome? ... They (the Sedevacantism) acknowledge that they are not really subject to John Paul II and obey Him." [30]

http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2014/11/esta-vacante-la-sede-por-el-rp.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FEtYHoF+%28Non+Possumus%29

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 12, 2014, 02:07:00 PM
Cantarella,  I know for a fact they refuse only to KNOWN non-Catholics, and any women immodestly dressed, where the priest and altar boys are above her and see more than they care to see.  

UNLIKE Cantarella's Pope who offers "Communion" to anyone even a known pagan.  

Cantarella, not sure if you are so mistaken or just a liar.  So I will be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt;  you are mistaken about CMRI policies.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 12, 2014, 02:15:25 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Cantarella,  I know for a fact they refuse only to KNOWN non-Catholics, and any women immodestly dressed, where the priest and altar boys are above her and see more than they care to see.  

UNLIKE Cantarella's Pope who offers "Communion" to anyone even a known pagan.  

Cantarella, not sure if you are so mistaken or just a liar.  So I will be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt;  you are mistaken about CMRI policies.  


No, people in the pews just do not realize how evil this is. They are being naïve and deceived. They just don't know any better.

According to the chart you posted, the ONLY valid ordinations left on earth are Thuc / Lefebvre. is this correct?

Do you even understand what does this mean?

It means that people that have been baptized by priests ordained in the New Rite are not really baptized because the Sacraments are invalid. It means that people who attend a Mass like the Novus Ordo or Byzantine rites do not really get to have the True Blood and Body of Our Lord. Make the necessary connections.

You as well as most CMRI attendees just don't realize how cultish and schismatic the whole organization really is. They are just dazzled by the mask of "Tradition". Of course they are not going to refuse people from coming in, even the ones coming from the NO. They always need new people to support them. Of course they won't do that but once you are already in, they will inject their diabolical propaganda until you are actually outside the Church without even realizing it. I don't really think you have bad will Myrna, but you really need to educate yourself better because you just don't understand.




 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ladislaus on November 12, 2014, 02:22:54 PM
Being such a closed group, Father Cekada no doubt worries about inbreeding at the chapel.  Actually that's not an uncommon concern.  At the chapel I attend in Akron OH, about 80% of the attendees are from one of 4 families, and many of them have intermarried.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 12, 2014, 02:47:39 PM
 Firstly CMRI did not create the chart, Father Cekada did.  I posted it to refute what Stubborn believed about CMRI, Stubborn like you, only sees what he wants to see, and hides from the Truth because it does not fit your lifestyle.  

Although this has nothing to do with the thread, the Church teaches that anyone can baptize properly, as long as they do what the Church intended and properly.  

Novus ordo destroyed the Body and Blood of Christ when they destroyed the Mass, where have you been?

As I have proven pages ago, it is Stubborn and yourself who belong to a cult and have all the traits indicated according to Stubborn description of a cult.  

Quote from: Cantarella
I don't really think you have bad will Myrna, but you really need to educate yourself better because you just don't understand.


Thanks, maybe you could pray a novena for me.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Elizabeth on November 12, 2014, 03:06:50 PM
Quote from: Mabel

There are two sides to every story. Both make up the history. I will say this, CMRI has fairly represented the side of their critics when I have questioned them. How do I know that? I dealt directly with those critics and the story was the same. I have also spoken to objective third parties who have explained different situations. Overall, CMRI under Bp. Pivarunas has proved itself a worthy organization.




Yes.  I think this is an example of the old saying, "time will tell".  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Capt McQuigg on November 12, 2014, 03:14:57 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: MyrnaM
Cantarella,  I know for a fact they refuse only to KNOWN non-Catholics, and any women immodestly dressed, where the priest and altar boys are above her and see more than they care to see.  

UNLIKE Cantarella's Pope who offers "Communion" to anyone even a known pagan.  

Cantarella, not sure if you are so mistaken or just a liar.  So I will be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt;  you are mistaken about CMRI policies.  


No, people in the pews just do not realize how evil this is. They are being naïve and deceived. They just don't know any better.

According to the chart you posted, the ONLY valid ordinations left on earth are Thuc / Lefebvre. is this correct?

Do you even understand what does this mean?

It means that people that have been baptized by priests ordained in the New Rite are not really baptized because the Sacraments are invalid. It means that people who attend a Mass like the Novus Ordo or Byzantine rites do not really get to have the True Blood and Body of Our Lord. Make the necessary connections.

You as well as most CMRI attendees just don't realize how cultish and schismatic the whole organization really is. They are just dazzled by the mask of "Tradition". Of course they are not going to refuse people from coming in, even the ones coming from the NO. They always need new people to support them. Of course they won't do that but once you are already in, they will inject their diabolical propaganda until you are actually outside the Church without even realizing it. I don't really think you have bad will Myrna, but you really need to educate yourself better because you just don't understand.




 


Cantarella,

Any person can validly baptise someone, the margin of error is so great because of Our Lord's Love for us.  Even protestants have valid baptism.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Capt McQuigg on November 12, 2014, 03:20:21 PM
Quote from: Xystus
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Since the beginning of this thread on 28 October until now, someone would have enough time to name each CMRI priest and the date of his ordination and who ordained him.


Was it ever asked? And how does that have to do with the discussion thread at the moment?


The thread is entitled "Who ordains CMRI priests?" so my question is relevant.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 12, 2014, 03:23:12 PM
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nado


Your concern about what physical building was used is plainly silly.

Bp. Pivarunas was 16 years old in 1974 and entered religious life. They purchased the Mount about 2 years later. He was finally ordained in 1985 at age 27, by Bp. George Musey.

In 1984 he helped oust Schuckardt. Cults don't oust their leaders.

You made a statement in this thread that the training cannot have been sufficient because Schuckardt was involved. Can you give us some detail on why you think that?


I asked the same question to Myrna which went unanswered, *surprise*.

Do you agree with CMRI that the seminary training from Schuckardt is the usual seminary training that all seminarians receive?


I asked you the question first. If you have a reason to say that priestly training, with Schuckardt as head of the organization, positively did not suffice for essential training to the priesthood, then give your reasons.


You obviously have no idea what is going on - rather than repost everything you have not bothered to read, here is about an 9 minute news video from 2003(?) showing only a teeny tiny bit of what Schuckardt was about.

Now, if you can stomach watching the whole thing to the end, answer if you agree with CMRI that Schuckardt offered the usual seminary training. Would you send your son to his seminary? - honestly?

   


Yes, I am perfectly aware of the CMRI past. However, since you gave the link as your response, and it was only 9 minutes, I watched it.

Now, I have to honestly say, nothing that video showed argues against a sufficient priestly training. You are attempting to make a personal conclusion that is not rational. There is no logical connection. It is all emotion. It's the like the emotional Prots who broke away from the Church because they took scandal by the scandals of selling indulgences, or other moral scandals in the hierarchy. It is a sin to take scandal, but dumping the Church is not rational.


So would your answer be yes or no? - does that mean that you would have no issues sending your son to him for his seminary training?

And of course I make a personal conclusion - everyone does. You say there is no logical connection yet the CMRI disagrees with you. They are the ones who disagree with your personal conclusion. They are the ones who tell us on their website that their foundation started with Schuckardt in 1967. Why do you say there is no connection when they say there is?



I wasn't complaining about your making a personal conclusion, I was complaining that your personal conclusion was irrational.

I hope your brain doesn't work like that all the time, but you know what you also just did? You cut-off and trashed 2/3 of my message, and then took it in your own irrational direction! You cannot just turn the channel in life and pretend things don't exist. Take a look again at what you just cut-off. It is absolutely clear I was not talking about a social or historical connection to Schuckardt, but you went ahead with that anyway. I was clearly talking a logical connection; there is no logical connection between a moral scandal in a family, and the education or upbringing. But you fell into the logical fallacy of guilt by association.

Here is another example. Catholic parents may not be aware that the Church traditionally forbids putting children in public school. The parents do so unwittingly, but their Catholic sense and home life discipline naturally challenges the dangers in public school. Challenges, I say, doesn't necessarily prevent. So when little Tommy graduates, and he turns out to be a devout Catholic, some will try to argue that the Church was wrong about public schools!  No, the Church isn't wrong. Thanks to the ignorance, good-will, prayers and disciplines of the parents, as well as the personality and interests of Tommy, the dangers didn't corrupt Tommy. The Church says the dangers are there, but recognizes some can avoid being affected. The Church still forbids it because in the face of dangers, we must take the morally safer course. So, I can legitimately recognize that Tommy turned out well, while acknowledging the dangers he was exposed to, as well as the objective principle that Tommy shouldn't have gone there.



So would your answer be yes or no? - does that mean that you would have no issues sending your son to him for his seminary training?

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 12, 2014, 03:36:37 PM
Quote from: Mabel
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Mabel
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: En medio stat virtus
It's curious for any of us who are looking for truth to not realize that there were several Thuc line Bishops who were kicked out by CMRI. One of those being Bishop George Musey. Who they slandered verbally after his attempt to reform them. He did conditionally ordain them, but did not realize the true nature of the problems there. He simply called it spiritual incest. His words. They are basically self taught then and now. Sorry if this offends anyone, but it is the truth. And yes there are good people there who have suffered a lot during the Schukardt era, but it does not make it Catholic now.


I sympathize with wanting to get everything straight as soon as possible, but Bp. Musey pushed them too fast, which is not the mind of the Church. One thing that apparently made Bp. Musey impatient to correct everything was that he believed he had ordinary jurisdiction over the CMRI, and he did not. That was a perfectly good reason to cease working with him. Your usage of "kicked out" shows a bias. No Thuc line bishop has lived with them.


There are two sides to every story. Both make up the history. I will say this, CMRI has fairly represented the side of their critics when I have questioned them. How do I know that? I dealt directly with those critics and the story was the same. I have also spoken to objective third parties who have explained different situations. Overall, CMRI under Bp. Pivarunas has proved itself a worthy organization.

We could sit here for weeks on end and drag the name of just about every single traditional priest through the mud. We could talk about the mistakes of men, now dead and judged, who are unable to defend themselves. If Stubborn or his lady friend think that their favorites are immune, it is because they are completely blind to their own faults and shortcomings. Bp. Pivarunas' list of alleged mistakes or infractions are much shorter than most. I am not advocating doing that to anyone, but what good would it serve? What good has Stubborn achieved by his tirade?

Also, I'm still waiting...Stubborn how have you or anyone else been punished by questioning CMRI, or others that you allege to be cult members? I want names, specific punishments, and the question that caused the punishment.




As usual, you dodge the issue.

This is about the fact that you all say there is no connection with Schuckardt, yet the CMRI website more than once says that there is, though they say it in a way that does not mention his name.

Personally, I have no desire to be connected in anyway to a man who started his own church and called it Catholic, but that's just me, and presumably others out there who are not as indifferent to the situation there as you.

I said your replies are cult like. That you all demonstrate cult like characteristics with your replies. I also already said why - I'm not going back to quote myself, if you would have read what I wrote perhaps you would understand why you all act that way.

 


Actually, I laid out everything that was known and a summary of my entire knowledge and method of research in one post in particular.

You just won't be happy unless someone says "Oh, wow, Stubborn, thanks for saving me from those awful people. Please, take me to your leader so I can be a real Catholic."

In your pride, you don't realize that you are making a case for the CMRI and one against yourself.

So, tell me again, since you highlighted the fact that these alleged cult like members punish questioners dissenters: How were you, or any person punished? Give names, the dissent or question asked, and their subsequent punishment.

You highlighted that point buddy, not me. Now, I want to know the detail about these people who were punished so that I can admonish those who have sought to punish others.


Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. In this case, "punished" = attempted insults.

I will try to spell it out for you - best of luck with it because I won't spell it out anymore. I thought you had at least a little bit more understanding  - but I was wrong again.

Because I questioned the CMRI........... the cult like replies happened
 in harmony - you all answered with your CMRI inspired "wonderful Christian charity" replies. IOW,  - this charity consists of ad hominems.

Are ad hominems meant to reward their victim or a form of punishment?

 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 12, 2014, 03:39:45 PM
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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 12, 2014, 03:46:20 PM
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?

  :facepalm:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 12, 2014, 03:50:27 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Mabel
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Mabel
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: En medio stat virtus
It's curious for any of us who are looking for truth to not realize that there were several Thuc line Bishops who were kicked out by CMRI. One of those being Bishop George Musey. Who they slandered verbally after his attempt to reform them. He did conditionally ordain them, but did not realize the true nature of the problems there. He simply called it spiritual incest. His words. They are basically self taught then and now. Sorry if this offends anyone, but it is the truth. And yes there are good people there who have suffered a lot during the Schukardt era, but it does not make it Catholic now.


I sympathize with wanting to get everything straight as soon as possible, but Bp. Musey pushed them too fast, which is not the mind of the Church. One thing that apparently made Bp. Musey impatient to correct everything was that he believed he had ordinary jurisdiction over the CMRI, and he did not. That was a perfectly good reason to cease working with him. Your usage of "kicked out" shows a bias. No Thuc line bishop has lived with them.


There are two sides to every story. Both make up the history. I will say this, CMRI has fairly represented the side of their critics when I have questioned them. How do I know that? I dealt directly with those critics and the story was the same. I have also spoken to objective third parties who have explained different situations. Overall, CMRI under Bp. Pivarunas has proved itself a worthy organization.

We could sit here for weeks on end and drag the name of just about every single traditional priest through the mud. We could talk about the mistakes of men, now dead and judged, who are unable to defend themselves. If Stubborn or his lady friend think that their favorites are immune, it is because they are completely blind to their own faults and shortcomings. Bp. Pivarunas' list of alleged mistakes or infractions are much shorter than most. I am not advocating doing that to anyone, but what good would it serve? What good has Stubborn achieved by his tirade?

Also, I'm still waiting...Stubborn how have you or anyone else been punished by questioning CMRI, or others that you allege to be cult members? I want names, specific punishments, and the question that caused the punishment.




As usual, you dodge the issue.

This is about the fact that you all say there is no connection with Schuckardt, yet the CMRI website more than once says that there is, though they say it in a way that does not mention his name.

Personally, I have no desire to be connected in anyway to a man who started his own church and called it Catholic, but that's just me, and presumably others out there who are not as indifferent to the situation there as you.

I said your replies are cult like. That you all demonstrate cult like characteristics with your replies. I also already said why - I'm not going back to quote myself, if you would have read what I wrote perhaps you would understand why you all act that way.

 


Actually, I laid out everything that was known and a summary of my entire knowledge and method of research in one post in particular.

You just won't be happy unless someone says "Oh, wow, Stubborn, thanks for saving me from those awful people. Please, take me to your leader so I can be a real Catholic."

In your pride, you don't realize that you are making a case for the CMRI and one against yourself.

So, tell me again, since you highlighted the fact that these alleged cult like members punish questioners dissenters: How were you, or any person punished? Give names, the dissent or question asked, and their subsequent punishment.

You highlighted that point buddy, not me. Now, I want to know the detail about these people who were punished so that I can admonish those who have sought to punish others.


Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. In this case, "punished" = attempted insults.

I will try to spell it out for you - best of luck with it because I won't spell it out anymore. I thought you had at least a little bit more understanding  - but I was wrong again.

Because I questioned the CMRI........... the cult like replies happened
 in harmony - you all answered with your CMRI inspired "wonderful Christian charity" replies. IOW,  - this charity consists of ad hominems.

Are ad hominems meant to reward their victim or a form of punishment?

 

So if someone tries to clear up your lies and correct your facts, it is an ad hominem?

How did this punishment affect you? How is someone disagreeing with you a punishment? I disagree with you and find your conclusions biased and ill-informed. I also think you are a liar based on your own exposure of what you have said. I've said things about you that are true in order to point out where your conclusions are flawed and that you lack sufficient information.

You have been answered, the problem is that it isn't the answer that you want.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 12, 2014, 03:55:27 PM
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Xystus
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Since the beginning of this thread on 28 October until now, someone would have enough time to name each CMRI priest and the date of his ordination and who ordained him.


Was it ever asked? And how does that have to do with the discussion thread at the moment?


The thread is entitled "Who ordains CMRI priests?" so my question is relevant.  


That is entirely true. I think Stubborn should start a new thread called "My Pet Double Standard" wherein he can demonstrate all of his inconsistencies.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 12, 2014, 04:08:20 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Firstly CMRI did not create the chart, Father Cekada did.  I posted it to refute what Stubborn believed about CMRI, Stubborn like you, only sees what he wants to see, and hides from the Truth because it does not fit your lifestyle.  



Then, please explain what is the official position of CMRI respect to the New Rites of Episcopal Consecration and how does it differ from Fr. Cekada, who apparently thinks that the only Valid Ordinations left on earth are those coming from the Thuc lines. (& Lefevbre in limited circuмstances).
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 12, 2014, 04:23:18 PM
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?

  :facepalm:


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.

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.

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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 12, 2014, 04:24:44 PM
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Stubborn



So would your answer be yes or no? - does that mean that you would have no issues sending your son to him for his seminary training?



Do you really read all of what you respond to? Or is it your reading comprehension? My answer is clearly there at the end.


I clearly asked for a yes or no answer.

Is your answer yes or no?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 12, 2014, 04:50:05 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: MyrnaM
Firstly CMRI did not create the chart, Father Cekada did.  I posted it to refute what Stubborn believed about CMRI, Stubborn like you, only sees what he wants to see, and hides from the Truth because it does not fit your lifestyle.  



Then, please explain what is the official position of CMRI respect to the New Rites of Episcopal Consecration and how does it differ from Fr. Cekada, who apparently thinks that the only Valid Ordinations left on earth are those coming from the Thuc lines. (& Lefevbre in limited circuмstances).


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
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 12, 2014, 04:52:22 PM
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?

  :facepalm:


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.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 12, 2014, 05:00:40 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: MyrnaM
Firstly CMRI did not create the chart, Father Cekada did.  I posted it to refute what Stubborn believed about CMRI, Stubborn like you, only sees what he wants to see, and hides from the Truth because it does not fit your lifestyle.  



Then, please explain what is the official position of CMRI respect to the New Rites of Episcopal Consecration and how does it differ from Fr. Cekada, who apparently thinks that the only Valid Ordinations left on earth are those coming from the Thuc lines. (& Lefevbre in limited circuмstances).


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?

How does this position DIFFER from Fr. Cekada who arguments that the ONLY Valid Ordinations left on earth are those of Thuc's Line (meaning that even the Eastern Rites such as Byzantine lack of Sacraments)

 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 12, 2014, 05:30:46 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
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?

  :facepalm:


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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Matto on November 12, 2014, 05:37:14 PM
Banshees
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Elizabeth on November 12, 2014, 05:48:38 PM
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?

  :facepalm:


This is the standard SSPV cult response.   :sleep:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 12, 2014, 06:35:09 PM
Quote from: Stubborn

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.


They have Schuckardt in their history, that is why, they are honest that is why?  I can just imagine now what you would be posting about CMRI if they acted as you suggested, then you would be correct to say they lie, but you can't say that and you can't stand it.  

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 12, 2014, 06:50:36 PM
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!
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 14, 2014, 04:55:04 AM
Quote from: Nodo
Now my question (YES or NO) to you. Is it possible for those who came out of seminary training with the CMRI (while Schuckardt was a member) to have survived the dangers like Tommy survived the dangers of public school?



Anything is possible so in answer to your question, the answer is yes. Is it probable? - no of course not, that's why you avoid it in the first place.



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.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 14, 2014, 11:47:30 AM
Quote from: MyrnaM
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:

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).


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.

Quote from: The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders:

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.”
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 14, 2014, 03:04:14 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: MyrnaM
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:

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).


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.

Quote from: The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders:

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.”



I am going to read this site and watch the video, just to see what is being said about your question.  I hope you do the same.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/invalid-novusordo-bishops.htm
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 14, 2014, 03:16:40 PM
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.


 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 14, 2014, 03:46:27 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: MyrnaM
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:

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).


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.

Quote from: The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders:

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.”



I am going to read this site and watch the video, just to see what is being said about your question.  I hope you do the same.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/invalid-novusordo-bishops.htm


So the million of poor souls, for example, who got married in the last five decades by ANY PRIEST ordained in the New Rite (meaning 95% of the priests of the Catholic Church) are actually living in concubinage because their marriages are invalid with not even a possibility to confess their sins (given that the confessions are also not valid) unless they go to a Thuc priest?.

Are you aware of the extent of this non-sense?

That makes you a dogmatic sedevacantist, by the way.

Lunacy!
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 14, 2014, 04:27:24 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
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 (http://www.chantcd.com/oldcatholics.htm) 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.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 14, 2014, 05:07:57 PM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
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 (http://www.chantcd.com/oldcatholics.htm) 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.



What is done is done, the bottom line is,  today it is Bishop Pivarunas and he was not consecrated by Brown, nor Schuckardt.  I still do not understand why you don't put your priest; Bishop, whoever under a microscope, you may find something there too that was not absolutely perfect during the early days of the apostasy.  You don't have to look very far, regarding your pope, for sure.    
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 14, 2014, 09:13:45 PM
Myrna wrote:

Quote
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.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Matto on November 14, 2014, 09:42:42 PM
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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 14, 2014, 09:59:54 PM
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.


Did you miss how he said that CMRI and anyone associated with them was a cult and that they punish anyone who questions them?

He specifically highlighted that fact. Then, he stated when asked how he had suffered that he was being treated uncharitably and called names. That is very subjective. I could say that same about him, he has been saying lots of things about people and won't even bother to contact anyone for clarification.

So, you think it is true to say that CMRI is a cult that punishes people and the Stubborn has suffered at the hands of this alleged cult and its cult members?

I'm sorry but that sounds like a lie to me.

There were several other incidents in this thread. One thing is for certain, this man is not interested in truth.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 14, 2014, 10:02:22 PM
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.  

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Matto on November 14, 2014, 10:04:06 PM
Quote from: Mabel

Did you miss how he said that CMRI and anyone associated with them was a cult and that they punish anyone who questions them?
So, you think it is true to say that CMRI is a cult that punishes people and the Stubborn has suffered at the hands of this alleged cult and its cult members?

I'm sorry but that sounds like a lie to me.

There were several other incidents in this thread. One thing is for certain, this man is not interested in truth.


I think Stubborn believes those things about the CMRI. I don't agree, but I don't think he is lying. Kind of like how Laramie Hirsch would always say things against sedevacantists.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 14, 2014, 10:08:08 PM
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Mabel

Did you miss how he said that CMRI and anyone associated with them was a cult and that they punish anyone who questions them?
So, you think it is true to say that CMRI is a cult that punishes people and the Stubborn has suffered at the hands of this alleged cult and its cult members?

I'm sorry but that sounds like a lie to me.

There were several other incidents in this thread. One thing is for certain, this man is not interested in truth.


I think Stubborn believes those things about the CMRI. I don't agree, but I don't think he is lying. Kind of like how Laramie Hirsch would always say things against sedevacantists.


Opinions against the good name of others need to be formed according to Catholic moral principles and supported by evidence.  

Any other method leads to rash suspicions, rash judgment, amd calumny.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Nishant on November 14, 2014, 10:21:42 PM
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.


I did not want to comment on this thread, but one statement in particular made earlier compels me to, since it is an outright attack on the Papacy and the divine constitution the Church has received from Christ Her Lord. Before I go further, let me say, I do not doubt many CMRI laity, in good faith, are trying to do the best they can in a difficult situation in the Church today, may God bless and keep them, and help them to do His will. But I will not excuse the CMRI clergy, if they knowingly mislead their faithful on the reality, or write in such a way as to be so understood, as they have done more than once.

Quote from: Dom Gueranger
Today, let us consider the Apostolic See as the sole source of the legitimate power, whereby mankind is rule and governed in all that concerns eternal salvation.

St.Gregory of Nyssa: “It is through Peter that Christ gave to bishops the keys of their heavenly prerogative." By St. Leo the Great: “If our Lord willed that there should be something common to Peter and  the rest of the princes of His Church, it was only on this condition, that whatsoever He gave to the rest, He gave it to them through Peter.”

Yes, the episcopate is most sacred, for it comes from the hands of Jesus Christ through Peter and his successors. Such is the unanimous teaching of Catholic Tradition, which is in keeping with the language used by the Roman pontiffs, from the earliest ages, who have always spoken of the dignity of bishops as consisting in their being “called to a share of their own solicitude.”

All spiritual authority comes from Peter; all comes from the bishop of Rome, in whom  Peter will continue to govern the Church to the end of time. This fundamental principle, which St. Leo the Great has so ably and eloquently developed, this principle, which is taught us by universal Tradition, is laid down with all possible precision in the magnificent letters, still extant, of Pope St. Innocent I., who preceded St. Leo by several years.

Thus he writes to the Council of Carthage, that “the episcopate, with all its authority, emanates from the Apostolic See”; to the Council of Milevis, that “bishops must look upon Peter as the source whence both their name and their dignity are derived”; to St. Victricius, bishop of Rouen, that “the apostolate and the episcopate both owe their origin to Peter" ... the mission and the institution, which assign the pastor his flock, and the flock its pastor, these are given by Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost through the ministry of Peter and his successors.

Rome was, more evidently than ever,the sole source of pastoral power. We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys?

If they claim our obedience withouthaving been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate: it matters not; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors.

Thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain, gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her. But He was not satisfied with this. He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by her pastors should come from a visible source, so that the faithful might have a sure means of verifying the claims of those who were to guide themin His name.


If a bishop who did not receive it from Peter claims to have the power of the keys, he sets himself up as Pope and sins in doing so, all Catholics can and should know that, and have no part in it. Jurisdiction is sometimes supplied even to priests without a mission, as envisaged in some circuмstances by canon law, and this is not a habitual power, but is a transient delegation received by operation of the law itself only for the individual act requested by the faithful.

Quote from: Exposition of Christian doctrine
#165. Why does it not suffice to be bishop or priest in order to be a lawful pastor?

Because even if one be a bishop, he must besides be sent into a diocese by the Pope; if a priest, he must be sent into a parish by the bishop. In other words, besides the power of order, one must have also the power of jurisdiction ...

#167. What is meant by the power of jurisdiction?

The power of jurisdiction is the power conferred by a superior on a subject, to exercise lawfully a spiritual function ...

#175. When may one receive the sacraments administered by an intruded pastor?

Only in case of mortal illness, when one cannot have a worthy minister, is it permitted to receive absolution from an intruded pastor; and even then only when it causes no scandal to others


A priest or bishop who operates without a mission and without ordinary power of jurisdiction but merely foreseeing the supply of jurisdiction for the act requested should take care to say that plainly and should not make statements like this one below, which are misleading at best -

"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" and outright false at worst. This is not the only place they have done that either, they do the same with the passage in Vatican I, that there will be shepherds and teachers in the Church until the end of time, who are sent just as the Apostles were sent. This was traditionally understood to refer to bishops with a mission, as Dom Gueranger explains above, but the CMRI in explaining why they consecrated bishops amazingly do not hesitate to apply this passage of all things to themselves, thus allowing the uninformed reader who comes to them and trusts them to teach him or her to be left with the misleading impression that they have a mission from Peter and the power of the keys.

A person like Ambrose knows and believes the reality, that they do not, and has said it clearly on this thread and elsewhere. But if Myrna, for example, made a statement earlier like "Just because Bp. Pivarunas doesn't go around claiming jurisdiction doesn't mean he doesn't have it", it's because the CMRI has more than once made misleading statements like the above. And that is wrong, and an offense against the Papacy. No Christian can possibly be ignorant, that Christ gave the Keys to St. Peter, and only from thence did it devolve to the Apostles and bishops, as Sacred Scripture plainly says, and all Tradition teaches.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Mabel on November 14, 2014, 11:04:46 PM
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Mabel

Did you miss how he said that CMRI and anyone associated with them was a cult and that they punish anyone who questions them?
So, you think it is true to say that CMRI is a cult that punishes people and the Stubborn has suffered at the hands of this alleged cult and its cult members?

I'm sorry but that sounds like a lie to me.

There were several other incidents in this thread. One thing is for certain, this man is not interested in truth.


I think Stubborn believes those things about the CMRI. I don't agree, but I don't think he is lying. Kind of like how Laramie Hirsch would always say things against sedevacantists.


I know you don't agree, forgive me if I have written in such a way that has caused you to think so.

But it is really weird when you have every traditionalist tangled up in some kind of error or inconsistency to hyper focus on one group. I'm not talking about heresy or doctrinal error. I'm referring to the way those groups at run and actions that occurred in the past, many with people that are long dead.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 15, 2014, 01:29:36 AM
Edit
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose on November 15, 2014, 01:31:01 AM
Nishant wrote:
Quote
I did not want to comment on this thread, but one statement in particular made earlier compels me to, since it is an outright attack on the Papacy and the divine constitution the Church has received from Christ Her Lord. Before I go further, let me say, I do not doubt many CMRI laity, in good faith, are trying to do the best they can in a difficult situation in the Church today, may God bless and keep them, and help them to do His will. But I will not excuse the CMRI clergy, if they knowingly mislead their faithful on the reality, or write in such a way as to be so understood, as they have done more than once.


Nishant, you should know that there are no such thing as "CMRI laity," juse as there is no such thing as "SSPX laity."

Now, are you aware that your statement is not an accusation, so what is it?  You qualify your statement with "if," so do you think CMRI has "mislead their faithful on the reality, or write in such a way as to be so understood, as they have done more than once."  

Also, what is this way that CMRI has misled or written this way in the past?  You state this vague unsupported allegation, and do not specify.  If you are going to accuse, especially publicly, you owe the accused a specific supported allegation.

Nishant wrote:
Quote
A :soapbox: priest or bishop who operates without a mission and without ordinary power of jurisdiction but merely foreseeing the supply of jurisdiction for the act requested should take care to say that plainly and should not make statements like this one below, which are misleading at best -


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.  If you think otherwise, why not ask CMRI what they meant by the statement in question?

Nishant wrote:
Quote
"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" and outright false at worst. This is not the only place they have done that either, they do the same with the passage in Vatican I, that there will be shepherds and teachers in the Church until the end of time, who are sent just as the Apostles were sent. This was traditionally understood to refer to bishops with a mission, as Dom Gueranger explains above, but the CMRI in explaining why they consecrated bishops amazingly do not hesitate to apply this passage of all things to themselves, thus allowing the uninformed reader who comes to them and trusts them to teach him or her to be left with the misleading impression that they have a mission from Peter and the power of the keys.


All priests who lawfully say Mass, hear confessions, etc., are representatives of Christ.  Do you disagree with this?  Do you believe with the "home-aloners" that all sacraments of the traditional priests are illicit and must be avoided?  Either the sacraments of the traditional priests are legitimate through epikeia, supplied jurisdiction, and the relevant canons, or they are not.  If you don't believe that they are legitimate, then this topic goes far beyond CMRI, and pertains to all traditional priests.  

The statement you have quoted by CMRI above only refers to the sacramental power of the priesthood, not the mission, and certainly not the power to govern the flock.

Nishant wrote:
Quote
A person like Ambrose knows and believes the reality, that they do not, and has said it clearly on this thread and elsewhere. But if Myrna, for example, made a statement earlier like "Just because Bp. Pivarunas doesn't go around claiming jurisdiction doesn't mean he doesn't have it", it's because the CMRI has more than once made misleading statements like the above. And that is wrong, and an offense against the Papacy. No Christian can possibly be ignorant, that Christ gave the Keys to St. Peter, and only from thence did it devolve to the Apostles and bishops, as Sacred Scripture plainly says, and all Tradition teaches.


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.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 15, 2014, 03:57:08 AM
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.


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"?

I did not make anything up.

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.

What exactly is it that you are defending anyway?

As all can see, the CMRI supporters have no defense against historical facts which are recorded on the CMRI website and have been presented, so they continue to side track the issue by offering excuses against facts and attempt using ad hominems as a defense - nothing but side tracking.

 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn on November 15, 2014, 04:48:53 AM
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?




 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 15, 2014, 09:03:48 AM
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.   :facepalm:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: songbird on November 15, 2014, 12:18:10 PM
Question?  I see CMRI with epikia.  Now, with epikia, do I see it right, that they may continue the sacraments with validity?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Cantarella on November 15, 2014, 12:23:57 PM
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.”
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM on November 15, 2014, 01:12:53 PM
From CMRI web site:

Quote
By the Most Rev. Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI

Among the various issues raised today in traditional Catholic circles, jurisdiction is one topic that has been a subject of confusion, especially among some lay “theologians.” According to these mistaken souls, there are no longer any lawful bishops or priests available to offer Holy Mass or to administer the Sacraments. Some of these unfortunate and misguided “theologians” have gone on a “mission” to divert the faithful from the reception of the Sacraments administered by the traditional clergy. That there are mistaken and confused souls around should be no surprise to us, given the unique situation in the Catholic Church since Vatican Council II. With the extended interregnum following the death of Pope Pius XII, we see fulfilled the prophetic words of Pope Leo XIII in his prayer to St. Michael: “In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most Blessed Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered” (Leo XIII, Motu Proprio, September 25, 1888). Although our situation is unique, it is not entirely unprecedented. In the past history of the Church, there have been difficult times — not as difficult as today — which should guide us in our perseverance in the true Faith.

The first historical difficulty to consider is the extended interregnum between the death of Pope Clement IV (November 29, 1268) and the election of Pope Gregory X (September 1, 1271). Here was the case of vacancy of the Apostolic See for nearly three years. In addition, during this extended interregnum, vacancies also occurred in various dioceses throughout the world. In order to provide spiritual shepherds for the priests and faithful, bishops were consecrated to fill these vacant Sees. The most important aspect of this historical precedent is that Pope Gregory X affirmed the lawfulness of the consecrations which took place without the usual papal mandate. Furthermore, those bishops functioned and provided for the spiritual needs of the faithful.

Monsignor Charles Journet in his book, The Church of the Word Incarnate, states: “The power of naming or instituting bishops belongs to the Roman Pontiff. But, remarks Cajetan in his De Romani Pontificis Institutione, we have to distinguish between the power of the Sovereign Pontiff and the exercise of this power, which has varied in mode... The elections of bishops effected during the vacancy of the Holy See and regarded as valid, are thus to be explained.”

The second historical precedent occurred during the Great Western Schism (1378-1417). During this time, there were two, then three, claimants to the papal office (one in Rome, another in Avignon, and a third in Pisa). Special focus should be centered on the fact that there could not have been three popes ruling the Church at the same time and that at least two of them were not true popes. The particular point to be made, however, is that two of these false claimants had “mandated” the consecration of bishops and these bishops ordained priests and appointed them as pastors.

How did the Church resolve this ecclesiastical mess? At the Council of Constance, attended by some 18,000 clergy, with the resignation or abdication of the claimants, rules were established for the papal election. [“In case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power of applying the Papacy to such and such a person devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.” — Cardinal Cajetan as quoted by Monsignor Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate].

With the election of Pope Martin V, the Great Western Schism came to an end. A question may be raised, however, about the Sacraments administered by the bishops and priests who mistakenly followed the unlawful claimants to the Papacy. These anti-popes could not have given a canonical mission and ordinary jurisdiction to the bishops under them. Nor could these bishops grant faculties to the priests under them. Were the Sacraments administered by these bishops and priests during the Western Schism unlawful and in the case of Penance and Matrimony invalid (due to the lack of ordinary jurisdiction)? The answer to this question is found in De Ecclesia Christi by Fr. Timothy Zapelena, S.J.:

“The true pope was the Roman one, that is Urban VI and his successors. Therefore, he was able to give jurisdiction even to the other bishops of the other obediences (on account of common error of the faithful together with the colored title).”

Fr. Zapelena goes even further in his treatise and considers what would have been the situation if all three papal claimants were not truly pope. He answers: “For the rest, if you figure those three popes to be null, you ought to admit that jurisdiction is supplied (on the account of color of title) not indeed by the Church, which lacks the supreme power, but by Christ Himself, Who would have conferred jurisdiction on each of these anti-popes as much as was necessary.”

This concept of supplied jurisdiction is well established in Canon Law and there are numerous examples cited in moral and sacramental theology.

With the end of the Western Schism and the election of Pope Martin V, the Sacraments administered by the mistaken clergy who adhered to the wrong factions (who thus lacked a true canonical mission and ordinary jurisdiction) were never called into question. The Church supplied the jurisdiction to the bishops and priests.

Canon Law describes the three types of jurisdiction: ordinary, delegated, and supplied. The traditional clergy today receive supplied jurisdiction at the moment of their administration of the Sacraments. And this is provided by the Church for the spiritual benefit of the faithful. So generous and beneficent is our Holy Mother the Church that She even allows the faithful for their spiritual benefit to approach an excommunicated priest (toleratus: before sentence). According to Canon 2261: “The faithful can for any just cause ask for Sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them.”

A well-known principle of sacramental theology is: the Sacraments are for men (Sacramenta propter homines).

Part of the confusion on the part of some of these lay “theologians” is the issue of “canonical mission.” They erroneously hold that unless a bishop or a priest has a “canonical mission,” he cannot lawfully administer the Sacraments. Their problem is their lack of understanding of the distinction between orders and jurisdiction.

In The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo, S.T.L., J.C.D. and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D., we read:

“The hierarchy of orders is the power which of its nature directly promotes the sanctification and the salvation of the faithful through public worship, especially through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the administration of the sacraments.

“The hierarchy of jurisdiction is the power of governing the faithful in order that they may be brought to eternal life.

“Differences distinguish the two kinds of hierarchy. The power of orders is acquired through a sacred rite; the power of jurisdiction, except in the case of the Roman Pontiff, through canonical mission. The power of orders once acquired is never lost, and any exercise of that power thereafter is always valid, though it may be unlawful; the power of jurisdiction can be revoked and the exercise of it thereafter is ordinarily invalid. In the hierarchy of orders three degrees, at least, are of divine origin; in the hierarchy of jurisdiction, only two. It is possible that the jurisdiction usually associated with  a particular degree of the hierarchy of orders may be possessed by one not enjoying that degree, e.g., the jurisdiction over a diocese possessed by an administrator or a vicar general who is a priest. On the other hand, that jurisdiction may be wanting to one who possesses the degree of the hierarchy of orders with which it is ordinarily associated, e.g., to a titular bishop.”

The point to be made here is that even in ordinary times not all bishops possess ordinary jurisdiction and not all priests possess faculties for the administration of the Sacraments. Moral theologians treat of this subject when they consider whether a priest commits a sin by administering a Sacrament without the necessary jurisdiction. St. Alphonsus Liguori among others teaches that when there is a real necessity on the part of the faithful, a priest does not commit sin by invoking supplied jurisdiction in the administration of the Sacraments.

In an excellent article on this topic, Traditional Priests, Legitimate Sacraments, Fr. Anthony Cekada makes reference to moral theologians who teach that there is a moral obligation for priests without faculties to administer the Sacraments when the faithful are in serious need.

“When priests who have the cura animarum are lacking, other priests are bound out of charity to administer the sacraments... in serious need for a community, [such priests] are bound to administer the sacraments, even at the risk of their lives, as long as there is reasonable hope of assisting and there is no one else who will help” (Merkelbach 3:87).

“They are bound by a certain general obligation arising from the sacred order they received. For Christ the Lord made them priests to devote themselves to saving souls. Because of this purpose, their special duty is to administer the Sacraments. This is obvious from the ordination rite, which gives them the power to offer sacrifice and absolve from sins, and which specifies administering the other sacraments among their other duties... This obligation binds more gravely depending on the seriousness of the spiritual need of the faithful in the dioceses where [such a] priest is supposed to serve or in the place where he lives. When such a community is obviously in serious need — when, for instance, due to the small number of priests or confessors, people have no convenient way to assist at Mass on Sundays and feast days and receive the Eucharist, or where it is inconvenient for people to frequent the Sacrament of Penance, so that many remain in sin — a priest has a grave obligation to administer these sacraments and to prepare himself properly for the duty of confessor” (Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis 2:26).

Time and space do not allow us to review the other relevant issues to be raised against those lay “theologians” who are on their “mission” to persuade the Catholic faithful to stay home rather than receive the Sacraments from the traditional clergy. These matters have been treated frequently in the past, such as the intrinsic cessation of law, epikeia (the benign interpretation of law), and the very nature of law itself (the common good). The faithful need not be disturbed by these theological troublemakers. They come and they go. Their position is indeed sad and can be described in four words. Fr. Anthony Cekada once wrote an article entitled “Follow Me or Die” concerning those who demand complete submission to their positions. For those who promote this erroneous position to stay home, I would identify them with the title “Follow Me and Die.” Without the Mass and Sacraments, they deprive themselves and their children of so many graces! What a tragedy! Let us pray for these poor mistaken souls.

- See more at: http://www.cmri.org/02-question-of-jurisdiction.shtml#sthash.GUu4kfTb.dpuf
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn 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.


Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM 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.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose 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.   :facepalm:


Myrna,

I believe that you could teach me far more than I could teach you.  Your love for the Catholic faith is edifying.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose 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?

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose 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.   :facepalm:


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?

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose 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.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Ambrose 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn 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?
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn 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.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM 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.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn 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?
 
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM 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.  
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM 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???


(http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj108/Myrnanne/chart.gif) (http://[URL=http://s270.photobucket.com/user/Myrnanne/media/chart.gif.html)][/url]

If the print is too small for anyone just press the contrl key and the + key.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn 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."

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: MyrnaM 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:
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn 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."

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Moses 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Moses 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!
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn 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.

 :laugh1:

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.


Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Stubborn 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.

Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: songbird 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Moses on March 15, 2015, 08:16:25 PM
Thanks for your opinion, Stubborn :-)


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




Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: songbird 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.
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: Moses 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.”
Title: Who ordains CMRI priests?
Post by: songbird 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?