Author Topic: Who ordains CMRI priests? (Read 49782 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #255 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.

Mabel · « **Reply #256 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #257 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #258 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.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #259 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.

Cantarella · « **Reply #260 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #261 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #262 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.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #263 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.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #264 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #265 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?

Cantarella · « **Reply #266 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.

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.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #267 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.

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:

Cantarella · « **Reply #268 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #269 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?