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.

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.

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:
 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.