-
Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?
Just wonder what the Pros & Cons are with this sede group?
Are they adamant about enforcing their sede-vacantist viewpoints with their faithful?
Do they insist on accepting 3 ~ 4 Baptisms like the SSPX?
Historically, it looks like CMRI got off to a bad start.
But they had a major house cleaning and used Archbishop Thuc's line to validate their Orders.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
-
My understanding is that they are heavy 50’s Catholics. I have a chapel near me but never went. I have a friend who attends there, and loves it but he’s a 50’s Catholic too. They also are heavy on BoD. I hear Bp Pivarunas excommunicated someone for rejecting it? Could be wrong.
-
Their policy is Not to refuse the sacraments to traditional catholics. They make no apologies for being S.V.
OTOH, sadly . MHT priests are likely to refuse the sacrament if you are ambivalent about being Una cuм.
This is their policies, however your actual experience may vary.
I attend both readily, but I prefer the CMRI position.
-
My understanding is that they are heavy 50’s Catholics. I have a chapel near me but never went. I have a friend who attends there, and loves it but he’s a 50’s Catholic too. They also are heavy on BoD. I hear Bp Pivarunas excommunicated someone for rejecting it? Could be wrong.
Yes. You are wrong. If you want to find the truth, go to the nearby chapel and see. If you don't want to know the truth, at least stop spreading rumors.
-
Not sure why, but my experience with folks (several families) who attend CMRI chapels is that they're extremely worldly; their teenagers run around in public dressed very immodestly and they are all into pop culture. Anecdotal for sure, but this lines up with the previous statement that they're "50s" Catholics.
-
Do they insist on accepting 3 ~ 4 Baptisms like the SSPX?
Well, their publication TWICE published an article entitled "The Salvation of those outside the Church" ... a direct word-for-word contradiction of Catholic dogma.
-
Well, the Dimond Brothers think they are heretics, so there's that. ::)
-
Well, the Dimond Brothers think they are heretics, so there's that. ::)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qmvA_IF3X6E/hqdefault.jpg)
If Bro Peter says so, that does it for me! :jester:
-
Do they insist on accepting 3 ~ 4 Baptisms like the SSPX?
? I never heard of this. Could you explain?
-
There are many CMRI chapels in the Minnesota area and they very strongly preach 3 baptisms.
-
? I never heard of this. Could you explain?
Nevermind. I realize now what you are referring to.... ::)
-
Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?
Just wonder what the Pros & Cons are with this sede group?
Are they adamant about enforcing their sede-vacantist viewpoints with their faithful?
Do they insist on accepting 3 ~ 4 Baptisms like the SSPX?
Historically, it looks like CMRI got off to a bad start.
But they had a major house cleaning and used Archbishop Thuc's line to validate their Orders.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
They inherited this from the SSPX and the Archbishop. It is a very important hole in their theology. I get along with SSPX types by never discussing this with them. If your view of salvation is defective then everything else that you teach is suspect, but if you can get valid sacraments from them, then you should avail yourself while it is still possible, because you face the same problem with resistance priests. We do not live in times, where we have many good options.
-
Nevermind. I realize now what you are referring to.... ::)
I've read where they adamantly believe in Salvation Outside the Church.
So for the multitude of ways to accomplish this, they accept:
1. Baptism by water.
2. Baptism by desire, without the water.
3. Baptism by blood.
4. Implicit baptism (everyone is automatically baptized in our hearts) AKA Karl Rahnerism.
The SSPX believes in #4, but not sure if CMRI goes this far?
-
I've read where they adamantly believe in Salvation Outside the Church.
So for the multitude of ways to accomplish this, they accept:
1. Baptism by water.
2. Baptism by desire, without the water.
3. Baptism by blood.
4. Implicit baptism (everyone is automatically baptized in our hearts) AKA Karl Rahnerism.
The SSPX believes in #4, but not sure if CMRI goes this far?
I believe it was Fr D Radecki who stated a Jєω who rejects Christ can still be saved.
"All infidels are damned" - Pius X
They are by far the most liberal trad group I have ever encountered. Out of the ICKSP, SSPX, Resistance, Dolan/Sanborn/Cekada group, sspv, they are the most liberal in all aspects of the faith and morality. The overall intelligence of the priests and parishioners seems to be lacking. A typical cmri church is less modest in dress than a typical Indult group for instance. They push a heretical BoD and Novus Ordo NFP heavily. They hold an utterly simplistic view of the crises in the church. Sermons are lacking in philosophy and real substance. Many members are completely a part of the world; tv, sports, drinking.
On the other hand many priests seem to be trying very hard in getting the sacraments to as many people as possible, and try to be as holy as they know how. Many parishioners are truly holy too...but very far and few between.
This is my opinion, and not a jab or ridicule, but a strong critique of their organization.
-
Well, the Dimond Brothers think they are heretics, so there's that. ::)
And the late Rama Coomaraswamy told me that the CMRI is the best Trad group around! Next please! BTW I really like the Dimond Brothers, but old Rama was a very good pen friend of mine. I liked him too.
-
Not sure why, but my experience with folks (several families) who attend CMRI chapels is that they're extremely worldly; their teenagers run around in public dressed very immodestly and they are all into pop culture. Anecdotal for sure, but this lines up with the previous statement that they're "50s" Catholics.
Interesting. My experience with anyone who attends or is affiliated with the CMRI has been just the opposite.
-
Quote from: Mega-fin on Yesterday at 07:17:46 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/is-a-cmri-chapel-a-reasonable-substitute-for-a-resistance-mass/msg618959/#msg618959)
My understanding is that they are heavy 50’s Catholics. I have a chapel near me but never went. I have a friend who attends there, and loves it but he’s a 50’s Catholic too. They also are heavy on BoD. I hear Bp Pivarunas excommunicated someone for rejecting it? Could be wrong.
Yes. You are wrong. If you want to find the truth, go to the nearby chapel and see. If you don't want to know the truth, at least stop spreading rumors.
.
I don't know about "excommunication" but I do know from personal experience that anyone who does not agree with their teaching that BoD and BoB are quote, "Defined Dogmas of the Faith" are not welcome to attend their chapels.
.
When asked for a date of the definition or any source, they'll hand you a 1" stack of collected Xeroxes of screeds reprinted from The Remnant of one Fr. Martin Stepanich, who thus publicly excoriated the great Fr. Leonard Feeney during the last year of his life, in 1974. By any ordinary description that qualifies as the sin of detraction, or worse. But CMRI likes to keep spreading it around like confetti. But not a word is to be found of any dogmatic definition as requested in any of the copies.
.
I have never heard them mention extra ecclesiam nulla salus either from the pulpit or in conversations. They act as if it's Kryptonite to Superman.
.
But whenever the topic of the salvation of non-Catholics or of enemies of the Church comes up, they have no problem with presuming that such persons without doubt can be saved, even without Baptism of water.
.
The words of the Nicene Creed, "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" to them means that the 3 baptisms are one, and their reference is a Scripture that has nothing to do with baptism, 1 John 5: 7-8. The "water" and "blood" there are the water and blood that issued from the side of Christ on the cross, not water of baptism or "baptism of blood." It's a theological topic regarding the unity of Christians in the Faith of Catholics in the Church, not outside the Church.
.
There are others who make this confusion too, and I've never heard a specific reference for this curiously odd exegesis. I haven't seen it in any commentary. Perhaps something by Carl Rahner or Yves Congar?
-
Wouldn't it be accurate to say that nearly all traditional groups believe in BOB/BOD? If so, I'm not sure why it would be necessary to discuss it here as if the CMRI were the only ones.
If it is necessary to focus on BOB/BOD, then perhaps this thread belongs in the sub-forum set aside for such a discussion.
-
It really is the elephant in the room with all of these groups and a serious problem. If there are these various forms of salvation, why is the Church needed?, because its the better way? Hogwash!
The whole of the Faith and Scripture is interpreted through this Dogma, it is truly foundational. They tell you that it is not so, but in their theology, ignorance saves you.
-
Wouldn't it be accurate to say that nearly all traditional groups believe in BOB/BOD? If so, I'm not sure why it would be necessary to discuss it here as if the CMRI were the only ones.
If it is necessary to focus on BOB/BOD, then perhaps this thread belongs in the sub-forum set aside for such a discussion.
As I said, they are the same as SSPX, and the resistance, so called, so if it does not bother you about one group, why should it matter about CMRI?
-
Wouldn't it be accurate to say that nearly all traditional groups believe in BOB/BOD?
.
The point is, CMRI demands that the Faithful believe it is a DOGMA of the Faith -- effectively demoting the principle of dogma.
In other words, they demand that the Faithful do not recognize what dogma is, why it's important, or who should care about it.
.
If so, I'm not sure why it would be necessary to discuss it here as if the CMRI were the only ones.
If it is necessary to focus on BOB/BOD, then perhaps this thread belongs in the sub-forum set aside for such a discussion.
.
If it were over there in the ghetto, nobody would read it!
-
.
The point is, CMRI demands that the Faithful believe it is a DOGMA of the Faith -- effectively demoting the principle of dogma.
In other words, they demand that the Faithful do not recognize what dogma is, why it's important, or who should care about it.
..
If it were over there in the ghetto, nobody would read it!
Demand others to believe it is "dogma"? Is there actual proof that the CMRI teaches this as an organization as a whole (vs. a particular priest at a specific chapel)?
-
It really is the elephant in the room with all of these groups and a serious problem. If there are these various forms of salvation, why is the Church needed?, because its the better way?
And that's Vatican II in a nutshell.
-
It really is the elephant in the room with all of these groups and a serious problem. If there are these various forms of salvation, why is the Church needed?, because its the better way? Hogwash!
The whole of the Faith and Scripture is interpreted through this Dogma, it is truly foundational.
They tell you that it is not so, but in their theology, ignorance saves you.
.
It would seem that according to their way of thinking, there is only one dogma -- invincible ignorance!
.
Is it any wonder the missions are dead in the water?
Is it any wonder nobody has any reason to convert?
Catholicism is HARD. So why bother?
-
Demand others to believe it is "dogma"? Is there actual proof that the CMRI teaches this as an organization as a whole (vs. a particular priest at a specific chapel)?
.
Did you see that I said this is my own personal experience? I saw it happen with my own eyes. Are you accusing me of lying to you?
.
You might have a good point, that someone could make a project out of demanding that they make their doctrine public.
But there is no question that this is what they teach. You can go ask them yourself if you don't believe me.
.
Another post in this very thread refers to articles where they deny EENS, a thrice-defined dogma ex cathedra.
But that they're willing to contradict, and instead, claim the defined dogma worth defending under THREATS is BoD and BoB.
As if that's going to accomplish something more than insignificance.
-
.
Did you see that I said this is my own personal experience? I saw it happen with my own eyes. Are you accusing me of lying to you?
A bit defensive Neil, no?
Yes I did see that you said this is your own personal experience. I'm not saying that didn't happen to you. What I am asking for is the official stance of CMRI. When I look at their website, I see no where where they call it "dogma". Here is the page they devote to BOD/BOB:
http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_quotes.shtml
And with that, I'll leave this discussion to others. I make it a habit to stay out of this topic (i.e. I stay out of the ghetto).
-
And that's Vatican II in a nutshell.
.
You would think that someone so up-in-arms against Vat.II would have a better notion of what the Church is all about.
.
Emily Radecki (RIP), the mother of Fr. Dominic and Fr. Francisco (both CMRI), even though Polish, had an intense disregard for JPII (who was also Polish) and everything he represented. I found that amazing. She had a cheerful disposition that could go on for days at a time, but it instantly disappeared at the very mention of his name!
-
A bit defensive Neil, no?
Yes I did see that you said this is your own personal experience. I'm not saying that didn't happen to you. What I am asking for is the official stance of CMRI. When I look at their website, I see no where where they call it "dogma". Here is the page they devote to BOD/BOB:
http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_quotes.shtml
And with that, I'll leave this discussion to others. I make it a habit to stay out of this topic (i.e. I stay out of the ghetto).
.
That's fine. I'm not blaming you for not wanting to talk about it.
It's only relevant here to lend emphasis to the "elephant in the room" as JPaul aptly put it.
Have you been able to find a nice page summarizing the history of EENS on the CMRI site?
.
Or, if you think that's too much to ask (some think so) then how about a page on THE NECESSITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?
.
Go ahead, take a few days, or weeks, if you need it.
.
The real topic of concern is EENS, a thrice-defined* ex cathedra dogma of the Faith -- which means,
.
If you reject EENS you're not Catholic.
.
See the difference?
.
.
*Can you find any other dogma of the Faith that has been defined ex cathedra three times?
-
.
I found one page with two oblique mentions of the necessity of the Church for salvation, but nothing clearly developing the theme:
.
http://www.cmri.org/001-conciliar-church-says-Jєωs-need-not-convert.shtml
.
Modernist Church: Conversion of the Jєωs Not Necessary
.
This startling heresy has come more sharply into focus in the last twenty-five years or so. Although not explicitly contained in Nostra Aetate of Vatican II, it was there implicitly (after all, in the spirit of false ecuмenism, we can’t be teaching the necessity of salvation in the one true Church founded by Christ).
...
Could it be any clearer, then, that the Gospel is for all, and necessary for all, that they may be saved? “There is neither Jєω nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus“ (Galatians 3:28 ).
.
.
Notice, the first is in the form of what we supposedly CAN'T do according to the unclean spirit of Vatican II, "...we can’t be teaching the necessity of salvation in the one true Church founded by Christ." The second is in the form of a question, not an authoritative teaching (which is the nature of any dogma): "Could it be any clearer, then, that the Gospel is for all, and necessary for all, that they may be saved?"
.
Is that how the Church teaches its infallible dogmas, with hypothetical negatives and rhetorical questions?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, no such equivocation is allowed for the most important thing, which 2Vermont doesn't want to hear.
-
.
Here is a page containing an article written by Bishop Pivarunas that comes close to mentioning EENS but never quite gets there:
.
http://www.cmri.org/02-doctrinal-errors-v2.html
.
It has a number of useful references on several aspects of doctrinal errors of Vat.II, but never quite hits the nail on the head.
In fact, the twin priests Radecki have been talking about their new book that was going to come out a year ago, for twice that long, and its topic is the doctrinal errors of Vatican II. I wonder if they'll have a page or two on EENS? Or ........... not?
For example, the piece never quite gets around to mentioning the one place in Vat.II where EENS has been directly attacked, LG 8.
.
(Lumen Gentium paragraph 8 -- I checked with a search and found no "LG," no "lume" and no "subs" are on this CMRI page, so I'm not making a mistake. It's NOT THERE. The text in question says, after mentioning "the Church of Christ," then says, "this Church, constituted and organized as a society in this present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although (licet) many elements of sanctification and truth can be found outside her structure; such elements, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic unity". This most usually gets shortened to, "The Church of Christ ... subsists in the Catholic Church." It's such a sore subject that EWTN -- posting an article by one Fr. Fernando Ocáriz -- devotes about 3,000 words to defending Vat.II in this regard, here (https://www.ewtn.com/library/doctrine/subsistit.htm), where it tries to deliver the message, by repetition, that many misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the shortened version are in circulation. So, effectively, Vat.II has been MISUNDERSTOOD by so many people for what, 53 years now, that no Pope has intervened to settle the confusion with a definitive clarification -- (?) -- uuhh -- wait........)
From the linked page:
.
Ever convinced of her divine origin, the Catholic Church has always condemned the erroneous belief that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy and that it doesn’t matter to what church one belongs for men can find salvation in any church. This is the false doctrine of religious indifferentism which has been frequently condemned by the Catholic Church.
.
So far, so good. But can anyone explain why Bp. Mark Pivarunas fails to mention any one of the THREE ex cathedra definitions of EENS, nor does he manage to pronounce the sentence, "Outside the Church there is No Salvation?"
.
Notice the form his most closely approximating sentence takes:
A statement beginning with the longstanding condemnation against an erroneous belief of one form of contradiction of the apparently-unmentionable thing (whatever-it-is). He then follows that up with an example of a denial of the thing, whatever it is.
.
He does not state what EENS is, but ever-so-cautiously approaches its left flank by FOUR LEVELS of abstraction:
-- Longstanding condemnation
-- Erroneous belief
-- One form of contradiction
-- False doctrine of Indifferentism
.
Now, don't get me wrong, these are all good points. But why does he conspicuously avoid the elephant in the room?
.
P.S. I have a theory.
.
-
.
If anyone wants a hint, it has to do directly with the unmentionable thing that 2Vermont is tired of hearing about (and I don't blame her!)
-
.
If anyone wants a hint, it has to do directly with the unmentionable thing that 2Vermont is tired of hearing about (and I don't blame her!)
There is no 'unmentionable thing" Neil, so quit trying to read my mind. I am just tired of the constant battles on the BOD topic here, so I prefer to avoid them like the plague.
However, given you are looking for the CMRI to recognize the teaching "Outside the Church there is No Salvation". I will offer you this link from the CMRI website (although I am sure it's still not good enough for you):
http://www.cmri.org/02-v2_non-christian.shtml
The attitude of the Catholic Church towards pagans, Mohammedans and Jєωs has always been clear — there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Even supposing a person were invincibly ignorant of the true Church, he must still follow the natural law to be saved (implicit baptism of desire). It is evident, according to Catholic theology, that these false and immoral religions are opposed to the natural law. The Fathers of the Church, as well as many true Popes, have been quite strong in their condemnation of these religions, and especially of Mohammedanism and Judaism, which have persistently attacked the Catholic Church throughout history.
-
There is no "unmentionable thing" Neil, so quit trying to read my mind. I am just tired of the constant battles on the BOD topic here, so I prefer to avoid them like the plague.
However, given you are looking for the CMRI to recognize the teaching "Outside the Church there is No Salvation". I will offer you this link from the CMRI website (although I am sure it's still not good enough for you):
http://www.cmri.org/02-v2_non-christian.shtml
The attitude of the Catholic Church towards pagans, Mohammedans and Jєωs has always been clear — there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Even supposing a person were invincibly ignorant of the true Church, he must still follow the natural law to be saved (implicit baptism of desire). It is evident, according to Catholic theology, that these false and immoral religions are opposed to the natural law. The Fathers of the Church, as well as many true Popes, have been quite strong in their condemnation of these religions, and especially of Mohammedanism and Judaism, which have persistently attacked the Catholic Church throughout history.
.
You're correct on both counts, 2Vermont.
.
-- The quote you proffer does literally say, "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church." And,
-- No, it's not quite enough for me.
.
Why not? Here's why:
They couch the Church's infallible dogma as "the attitude of the Catholic Church towards..."
Do you know why equating a dogma with an attitude is a problem?
Would they say that the real presence in the eucharist, body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord is "the attitude" of the Church?
Would they say that our sins being forgiven by the priest in Confession with the words "Ego te absolvo" is "the attitude" of the Church?
.
Furthermore, no sooner do they mention the infallible dogma (albeit already demoted as an "attitude") they further trounce on its relevance and authority by equivocation, pressing hard with their "invincible ignorance" in order to be saved, topping it off with the constant battle topic of which you're so tired you'd like to avoid it like the plague (but not quite so tired that you'd refuse to bring it up again -- but it's not your fault because even a fisherman who draws in the net sometimes gets a lousy boot or trash bag in the net along with the fish he was hoping to catch). Don't worry, I'm not going to say it, even if I can't read your mind and it's not unmentionable.
.
Is that any way to treat a sacred dogma of the Faith?
Does that teach reverence, respect, awe, devotion, love and honor for a dogma?
It couldn't possibly be a "mistake." I'm sure it wasn't easy for you to find this. (Or perhaps it was!)
If it were a mistake they would be making that kind of mistake a lot more, but they don't.
They don't make mistakes like that, it's much too well thought out and manifestly deliberate.
Overall, and pertinent to this discussion, there must be a REASON they're so wishy-washy about this sacred dogma.
This definitive dogma, that defines what it means to be Catholic.
.
Like I said, "I have a theory."
-
.
And I have another hint if anyone is interested.
-
.
The link 2Vermont so graciously provided has the following on the right half of the page while Vat.II is on the left half:
.
.
Past Infallible Church Teaching on Non-Christian Religions
.
Hinduism, Buddhism and many other Eastern religions are pantheistic by nature. In opposition to the praises accorded to these religions by the Vatican II decree are these Canons of the First Vatican Council in the First Chapter of its Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith:
.
“1. If anyone denies that there is one true God, Creator and Lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
.
“2. If anyone dares to assert that nothing exists except matter: let him be anathema.
.
“3. If anyone says that God and all things possess one and the same substance and essence: let him be anathema.
.
“4. If anyone says that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the Divine Essence becomes all things by a manifestation or evolution of itself; or, finally, that God is a universal and indefinite being, which by determining itself makes up the universe which is diversified into genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.”
.
It should be remarked that in no way can it be said that the followers of these religions make a “loving, trusting flight toward God;” the gods they worship are pantheistic deities — devils in reality — and, ultimately, themselves. What greater insult can there be offered to the true God than the worship of man, which is the ultimate purpose of the religious practices of Hinduism and many other Eastern religions?
.
The numerical references of the following refer to the Syllabus of Errors, by which Pope Pius IX condemned and proscribed the following errors:
.
“15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.
.
“16. Men can find the way of eternal salvation and reach eternal salvation in any form of religious worship.
.
“17. Good hopes, at least, must be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who in no way belong to the true Church of Christ.”
.
It should also be pointed out that the Moslems or Mohammedans, who, according to the Vatican II decree, “prize the moral life,” have been notorious for their habit of murdering Christians throughout history. The following quotations give the Church's teaching concerning the Jєωs:
.
“...the following propositions...are condemned and proscribed:
.
“Error #60. Christian doctrine was originally Judaic. Through successive evolutions it became first Pauline, then Joannine, finally Hellenic and universal” (Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane — Syllabus of Modernist Errors).
.
“When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through places without water, seeking rest and not finding he saith: I will return into my house whence I came out...The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas; and behold more than Jonas here’ (Luke 11:24,32). The Lord spoke to us this similitude that He might show us that the evil and adulterous generation of the Jєωs, because of their hard and unrepentant hearts, would be condemned, not alone by the Ninivites, but also and rightly by the other Gentiles. Since this impious generation knew not that it should repent, but daily grew more wicked, its last state was worse than its first. And this they themselves likewise implied when they said of our Savior: ‘His blood be upon us and upon our children’ (Matt. 27:35). So shall it be unto this most wicked generation as it was to this man who was possessed by an unclean spirit” (St. Bruno, Commentary on Luke 11).
.
.
All of which is nice, but they're missing the most definitive historical text that would perhaps displace all of these (not that they're no good, just inadequate). At least they didn't muck it up with the out-of-context paragraph from Pius IX with "invincible ignorance" in it like they usually do (q.v.).
.
Like I said, I have a theory.
-
.
The second hint has to do with the manifest MISSION of the CMRI.
-
Thank you for all the good inputs!
CMRI has a lot of issues, as I suspected.
(https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-it-is-as-if-from-some-mysterious-crack-no-it-is-not-mysterious-from-some-crack-the-smoke-of-pope-paul-vi-258480.jpg)
Traditional Catholic Chapels will be in disarray until Our Lord excoriates the Jєωs
and St. Michael seals Hell's crack that "Montini the Marrano" opened.
-
*Can you find any other dogma of the Faith that has been defined ex cathedra three times?
I'm guessing that it had to be defined so many times because it has so long been under attack from all quarters.
-
.
The second hint has to do with the manifest MISSION of the CMRI.
I'm not following you. They did twice publish an article entitled "The Salvation of those outside the Church" ... a word-for-word contradiction of Catholic dogma.
Whenever someone cites EENS, it's come to be synonymous with "Feeneyism". It's almost as if, in practice, they've turned this dogma into a heresy, that if anyone says this he's a heretic.
-
Thank you for all the good inputs!
CMRI has a lot of issues, as I suspected.
(https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-it-is-as-if-from-some-mysterious-crack-no-it-is-not-mysterious-from-some-crack-the-smoke-of-pope-paul-vi-258480.jpg)
Traditional Catholic Chapels will be in disarray until Our Lord excoriates the Jєωs
and St. Michael seals Hell's crack that "Montini the Marrano" opened.
.
What if you break your leg, or have a medical emergency, or lock your keys in the boot* or travel to a foreign country?
When you have a broken leg, do you refuse treatment by the only doctor in town because he's one who has performed an abortion?
If you hate Pfizer, Merck and Monsanto -- do you ask your doctor who made the drugs you're about to get on the way to the ER?
If you lock your keys in the trunk (*boot* for our GB fans like Greg Taylor), do you refuse the services of a locksmith just because he's a Freemason?
When you're in a foreign country do you stay out of Church because they're using the Melkite liturgy, and you're not Lebanese?
Are you better off to not know which doctors perform abortions, who made your drugs, the locksmith's Lodge number or if it's a Melkite chapel?
.
I don't say that the CMRI should be avoided like the plague (2Vermont, I'm sorry!) or question the validity of their sacraments, but Catholics going to their chapel ought to be apprised of the doctrinal irregularities, at least.
I would like to know if it was me going there!
.
Nobody explained these things to me and I had to find them out for myself, so I feel obliged to share with those who would like to know.
-
I would say that this is the most serious error of our time, and it is the one upon which all of the Vatican II church is built.
The weakness on this dogma is the reason why you have the SSPX "negotiating" with Rome. The dogma is absolute and without explanation clear and completely understandable by even the most unschooled person. The belief in some kind of salvation by ignorance is more or less a deceptive cover for unbelief in this dogma. Through this pilpul deception, there is almost no doctrine that you cannot find a way to negate or escape its implications.
-
I'm guessing that it had to be defined so many times because it has so long been under attack from all quarters.
.
That would seem to be the case.
Evidenced at least by the fact that each successive definition was more specific and more detailed.
Compare it to the 3 Creeds of the Church.
The Apostles' Creed seemed to be sufficient at the time.
But then came the heresies. In fact, I've seen the history of the major heresies arranged in chronological order next to the 12 Articles of the Creed and it is a dead ringer, almost as if the Creed was a prophesy of troubles to come.
Then there was the Athanasian Creed, addressing principally the Arian heresy and the denial of the nature of God.
Then came the Nicene Creed which incorporated an abbreviated form of the Athanasian as well as many other details in other topics.
.
It scares me to think how much LONGER a new Creed would have to be which puts Modernism into its place -- have a look at the Oath Against Modernism or the Catechism of Modernism by the great Fr. Lemius (no doubt a genius priest, if not "merely" a saint!).
.
In both cases, it wouldn't make sense historically for the third version (?) to have occurred first.
(We don't call subsequent dogmatic definitions "versions" of the first one.)
Then the Apostles, who were simple men, albeit personally infallible, would have had to come up with all the pithy nuances of the Nicene Creed, when it is said that the 12 Articles were each contributed by one each of the 12 Apostles. It would seem you'd need a few more Apostles for stuff like "...Who proceeds from the Father and the Son, and together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified." Would, "Who spoke to the prophets," have been another article? Or "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church..." They would have had to use their own title in "Apostolic" (but they were too humble for that!) -- did they even call each other "Apostles" or the Church "Catholic?" "Hey, Peter, have you seen Bartholomew the Apostle around here lately?"
TLDR...
-
Quote from: Neil Obstat on Today at 12:34:02 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/is-a-cmri-chapel-a-reasonable-substitute-for-a-resistance-mass/msg619120/#msg619120)
.
The second hint has to do with the manifest MISSION of the CMRI.
I'm not following you. They did twice publish an article entitled "The Salvation of those outside the Church" ... a word-for-word contradiction of Catholic dogma.
Whenever someone cites EENS, it's come to be synonymous with "Feeneyism". It's almost as if, in practice, they've turned this dogma into a heresy, that if anyone says this he's a heretic.
.
I must confess: I haven't read the article in question. Shame on me!
.
As for the latter, you might enjoy reading The Boston Heresy Case, and The Loyolas and the Cabots by Sr. Catherine Goddard Clark.
.
These two books shed an enormous amount of historical fact illumination on all these questions.
You're at a loss not knowing history, for then you're bound to repeat it.
If these two books alone were required reading at a CMRI seminary, we'd have a whole new congregation in 5 years.
Either that or some kind of upheaval.
You can't bury truth under a pile of rocks. It has a way of finding its way out eventually.
.
On their website, the closest thing I can find to a "Mission Statement" is the following:
.
http://www.cmri.org/introduction.shtml
.
As you review the various pages of this web site, you will see that the Priests, Brothers, and Sisters of this Religious Congregation are dedicated to the preservation of the Roman Catholic Faith, as it has been taught for 2,000 years, and to the spread of the message of Our Lady of Fatima.
.
.
That would seem to be distinguished, but not separated, from the stated Mission of the Church:
.
http://www.cmri.org/94prog6.htm
.
If Jesus Christ is acknowledged at least as a prophet by the Muslims, and prophets are truly inspired by God, how do the Muslims deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ Who solemnly and explicitly proclaimed Himself to be God — equal to the Father? Did the Catholic Church ever in its history look with esteem upon the religion of Islam? How can this be interpreted “in the light of tradition”?
.
Then comes the most preposterous statement of this entire Declaration:
.
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.”
.
What can be “good and holy” in the worship of false gods and in the practice of false religions?
.
Following this quote in the Declaration, there is a footnote which is the most damning of all statements:
.
“Through the centuries, however, missionaries often concluded that non-Christian religions are simply the work of Satan and that the missionaries’ task is to convert from error to knowledge of the truth. This Declaration marks an authoritative change in approach.”
.
Since Vatican Council II, no longer is it the role of the missionaries to convert the people of these religions to Catholicism; their new role is merely to promote the “good” in them?! This doctrine is directly opposed to the mission of the Catholic Church.
.
Christ founded His Church to teach all nations all things whatsoever He commanded. This was His solemn command to His Apostles and their successors:
.
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28:19).
.
“Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16).
.
Where would the Catholic Church be today if the Apostles and their successors did not attempt to convert to the true Faith the followers of false religions? Where would the Catholic Church be today if the Apostles and their successors merely tried to promote the “good” found in these false religions?
.
.
The bold section is what I was indicating as the Mission of the Church.
Spot the difference.
CMRI's mission is the "preservation of the Catholic Faith," whereas the Church's Mission is the conversion of the world.
The Scripture of Mark 16:16 was practically the breastplate of St. Francis Xavier, the greatest Missionary of all time.
.
-
I would say that this is the most serious error of our time, and it is the one upon which all of the Vatican II church is built.
The weakness on this dogma is the reason why you have the SSPX "negotiating" with Rome. The dogma is absolute and without explanation clear and completely understandable by even the most unschooled person. The belief in some kind of salvation by ignorance is more or less a deceptive cover for unbelief in this dogma. Through this pilpul deception, there is almost no doctrine that you cannot find a way to negate or escape its implications.
.
Dang that's good.
.
.
It's truly astounding that this question was put to rest in its essence 803 years ago:
.
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
(Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215. (http://catholicism.org/lateran-iv.html))
.
Why didn't we have a worldwide party for the 8th centennary 3 years back??
.
Oh, well! We can have another chance in only 97 years.
-
Spot the difference.
CMRI's mission is the "preservation of the Catholic Faith," whereas the Church's Mission is the conversion of the world.
The Scripture of Mark 16:16 was practically the breastplate of St. Francis Xavier, the greatest Missionary of all time.
And they're promoting the very principle that has practically killed off the entire missionary spirit and zeal of the Church. Missionaries like St. Francis Xavier went to convert the poor souls in pagan lands precisely because they knew that they could not be saved otherwise. So what's the point of missionary activity anymore, to just give them the "fullness" of the faith, as per Vatican II, even though said fullness is not strictly required for salvation?
-
And they're promoting the very principle that has practically killed off the entire missionary spirit and zeal of the Church. Missionaries like St. Francis Xavier went to convert the poor souls in pagan lands precisely because they knew that they could not be saved otherwise. So what's the point of missionary activity anymore, to just give them the "fullness" of the faith, as per Vatican II, even though said fullness is not strictly required for salvation?
.
^THIS^
-
.
What if you break your leg, or have a medical emergency, or lock your keys in the boot* or travel to a foreign country?
If you lock your keys in the trunk (*boot* for our GB fans like Greg Taylor), do you refuse the services of a locksmith just because he's a Freemason?
Just realized I ought to make it clear:
.
I absolutely did NOT even remotely insinuate any resemblance between Taylor and Masonry! :soapbox:
.
-
And they're promoting the very principle that has practically killed off the entire missionary spirit and zeal of the Church. Missionaries like St. Francis Xavier went to convert the poor souls in pagan lands precisely because they knew that they could not be saved otherwise. So what's the point of missionary activity anymore, to just give them the "fullness" of the faith, as per Vatican II, even though said fullness is not strictly required for salvation?
.
The CMRI is doing a lot of good in the world. They've got a priest in the Philippines and another (last I heard) in Russia. They have chapels all across America. They're bringing the TLM to people who've never had it. They have valid orders. Their sacraments are real. They visit the sick, sometimes traveling out of state to do so. They're writing books. They have a seminary. They have a bishop (without ordinary jurisdiction).
.
Within the context of all the good they're doing, we shouldn't get too carried away, though.
.
The CMRI is not God's answer to the crisis.
.
They've got doctrinal and consistency problems.
They say they're for the preservation of the Faith of Catholics, and they do a lot of good in that vein.
However, endemic problems nonetheless. It's a mixed bag.
They say they're all about the propagation of the true Message of Fatima, and they do a lot of good in that vein.
However, they will NOT say a word about the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
They say they support the Mission of the Church, and they do a lot of good in that vein.
However, they PUSH HARD on teaching the THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION of BoD and BoB, saying they're "defined dogmas."
.
But they're not, objectively and truthfully, so that's a lie. They push hard with a big fat lie, so that's a problem.
.
They PUSH HARD by telling individuals they must accept BoD and BoB as universally defined dogmas (without explaining what that inherently carries with it) thereby perhaps inadvertently (I don't know) watering down the very meaning of what dogma is.
2Vermont is all bent out of shape because she doesn't want to THINK about BoD or BoB -- Well, too bad. (She sent me a PM)
It's not all about what ANYONE wants to think about.
.
It's all about God's truth.
And God's truth is what the Church defines dogmatically, and ex cathedra definitions are our bullet-proof guide in this mess.
If you want to get valid sacraments from real priests you can do so at CMRI chapels.
But you have to keep your nose clean.
Don't go in there discussing BoD, BoB, or the need for the Pope and Bishops to consecrate Russia to the IHM.
They won't stand for it.
I spoke to Bishop Mark Pivarunas in person about the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the IHM.
He avoided the question.
He avoided it three times (reminds me of St. Peter).
But I'll give him credit for finally answering and answering honestly.
He said, and I quote, "That's not going to happen."
Wait.
Our Lady came to the 3 Fatima children and told them, "The Pope will do it but it will be late."
She said, the Pope will consecrate Russia to her but it will be late.
She left us hanging with the prophesy that it depends on us.
So the CMRI promotes the Fatima Angel's prayers (who else is doing that?) which is great.
But the CMRI says the Consecration of Russia isn't going to happen, when Our Lady said it is going to happen.
.
You see, sedevacantism puts +Pivarunas between a rock and a hard place.
In order for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to happen, there must be a valid pope and cooperating bishops worldwide.
But his PRIMARY FOCUS in all this, his raison d'être, his fundamental maxim without compromise, is "there is no Pope."
It's a lot like the flat-earthers, for whom all that matters is "flat" earth, and everything else must conform to this principle.
I guess you can say +Pivarunas is a man of principles, however, he's clinging to a few incorrect principles.
.
BoD and BoB are theological speculations that do absolutely nothing for the spread of the Faith of Catholics.
The Collegial Consecration of Russia is something we should be praying and fasting for, not saying, "It's not going to happen."
.
-
.
Like I said, I have a theory. There is an underlying reality that explains the CMRI.
-
2Vermont is all bent out of shape because she doesn't want to THINK about BoD or BoB -- Well, too bad.
Now I'm calling you a liar. ;D
-
.
Is this normal for a Catholic woman to spend her Sunday morning calling someone a "liar" instead of going to Mass?
.
2Vermont is all bent out of shape because she doesn't want to THINK about BoD or BoB -- Well, too bad.
Now I'm calling you a liar. ;D
.
You said you don't want to get into BoD arguments. That tells me you don't want to THINK about it, unless you normally get into arguments without thinking about what you're saying. That's the alternative. Do you want me to prove I'm not lying?
.
Nobody is asking you to argue. That's your choice. But don't call me a liar if you know what's good for you. ;D
.
.
.
-
.
Is this normal for a Catholic woman to spend her Sunday morning calling someone a "liar" instead of going to Mass?
.
.
You said you don't want to get into BoD arguments. That tells me you don't want to THINK about it, unless you normally get into arguments without thinking about what you're saying. That's the alternative. Do you want me to prove I'm not lying?
.
Nobody is asking you to argue. That's your choice. But don't call me a liar if you know what's good for you. ;D
.
.
.
Isnt it strange that a Catholic man would post that someone sent them a private message without asking whether that would be fine with that person...on a Sunday? And then proceed to misrepresent the private message by stating that said person was "all bent out of shape"?
I was never "all bent out of shape". I sent the Private Message because I was hoping you would clarify the part of Reply #32 where you mentioned me ... privately. I thought that would be the best way to handle it so we could avoid what is happening now...
Rather than just answering that question directly, you chose to tell me that it's not all about me. Which of course I agree with but then that's also an odd thing for someone to say who constantly refers to me in his posts in this thread. It's as if you want to pull me into this thread even though you're not outright "asking me" to do so.
-
And they're promoting the very principle that has practically killed off the entire missionary spirit and zeal of the Church.
Missionaries like St. Francis Xavier went to convert the poor souls in pagan lands precisely because they knew that they could not be saved otherwise. So what's the point of missionary activity anymore, to just give them the "fullness" of the faith, as per Vatican II, even though said fullness is not strictly required for salvation?
.
They're promoting the very principle that has practically killed off the entire missionary spirit and zeal of the Church, as you say.
.
While they promote that very principle, they continue to complain that Vatican II also promotes the principle -- ? -- Why would anyone complain about it when they're contributing to it themselves?
.
If it's "the most damning of all statements" in Vatican II, what is it when the CMRI promotes it?
.
From the page (http://www.cmri.org/94prog6.htm),
Vatican II “in the Light of Tradition”?
Pastoral Letter by Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI
Feast of Ss. Peter and Paul
June 29, 1994
.
...Then comes the most preposterous statement of this entire Declaration:
.
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.”
.
What can be “good and holy” in the worship of false gods and in the practice of false religions?
.
Following this quote in the Declaration, there is a footnote which is the most damning of all statements:
.
“Through the centuries, however, missionaries often concluded that non-Christian religions are simply the work of Satan and that the missionaries’ task is to convert from error to knowledge of the truth. This Declaration marks an authoritative change in approach.”
.
Since Vatican Council II, no longer is it the role of the missionaries to convert the people of these religions to Catholicism; their new role is merely to promote the “good” in them?! This doctrine is directly opposed to the mission of the Catholic Church.
.
.
If the CMRI pretends to notice that this is opposed to the mission of the Church -- then why would the CMRI promote it??
.
Perhaps it's the fault of Vatican II that the CMRI pushes hard to promote the very principle that excuses people of false religions because it focuses exclusively on the "good in them." -?- By setting aside the necessity of Baptism and the necessity of the Sacraments, -?- All that is required of them is "invincible ignorance" -?- Which means you can't catechize them because then they'll lose their invincible ignorance. -?- By doing what the Missionaries of the Church have done since Apostolic times, suddenly Missionaries are now disrupting the well-being of non-Catholics??
.
As Ladislaus noted above, "So what's the point of missionary activity anymore, to just give them the "fullness" of the faith, as per Vatican II, even though said fullness is not strictly required for salvation?"
.
Perhaps it's the fault of Vatican II that the CMRI pushes hard with a doctrine that is directly opposed to the mission of the Church.
.
Perhaps it's ultimately someone else's fault, not the CMRI's fault.
-
Why would anyone complain about it when they're contributing to it themselves?
Because they're in a state of cognitive dissonance. They've tried to compartmentalize EENS away from the other modernist errors, but they do not understand that EENS-denial is at the root of the modernist errors.
-
Because they're in a state of cognitive dissonance. They've tried to compartmentalize EENS away from the other modernist errors, but they do not understand that EENS-denial is at the root of the modernist errors.
.
You're too kind. Would that it can be explained away by a psychological aberration.
It seems to be a lot more serious than compartmentalization.
.
My exposure to how they cope with the Church's teaching on Modernism was very helpful for me. I went into the meeting believing that a good priest these days would be eager to help Catholics better understand what Modernism is and what we can do to stay far away from it in our own thinking.
.
If someone told me what I was about to see, I wouldn't have believed it. I could hardly believe my eyes as it was happening. But happen, IT DID.
.
Three other men asked him a question after I took the opportunity to highly recommend the study of Pascendi in order to understand Modernism, but that you can't just read it like a Jack London short story. That got their attention I suppose, because they could all be Jack London fans, I thought. The name evokes images of a poor man who strikes it rich by his unrelenting efforts as a writer. That, and fantastic images of powerful forces, both natural and human.
.
But the response the priest gave them when they asked him, "Father, what is Modernism... what is Pascendi?" took me entirely by surprise. I noticed that they did NOT ask him: Father, who is Jack London? If they had, he could have been equivalently as helpful if he had answered that London was a famous author whose short stories were about the same length as Pius X's encyclicals but not as challenging to read.
-
Because they're in a state of cognitive dissonance. They've tried to compartmentalize EENS away from the other modernist errors, but they do not understand that EENS-denial is at the root of the modernist errors.
.
That's right, a second quote for the same post! It made me recall a certain 44-page encyclical of Pius XII (much less challenging to read BTW than Pascendi), from which my present interest is number 27, i.e.,
.
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.6 Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.
.
6. Cfr. Litt. Enc. Mystici Corporis Christi, A.A.S., vol. XXXV, p. 193 sq.
.
That's got to be one of the most compact paragraphs of all time! While it treats of one broad topic, the Church, it refers to what must be three very different groups of people, but we have no idea whether any, most or all of them are Catholics! Perhaps they're all Protestants. Maybe they're a mix of Protestants, Jєωs and Orthodox. Or they could all be Moslems. Who knows? Were any of them Americans?
.
He says, "Some say..." followed by "Some reduce..." and "Others finally..." Are the "others finally" who they are, doing what they're doing, so as to warrant mention in this cryptic Letter, as a RESULT of the "some" who "reduce?" Is the last group an effect of the second group who "reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church?" That would explain the "finally" -- like the fans at a race track cashing in their ticket after the race is over, or stock brokers collecting their gains after the closing bell rings. Because then the third group owes its existence as a group to that cryptic "(reduction) to a meaningless formula."
.
I'd like to ask a CMRI priest about that paragraph, to see if it's something they covered in seminary classes. I suspect it was.
-
I neglected to include the source for the Humani generis quote in the post above:
.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
.
Also, it wasn't a "44-page" encyclical but a 44 paragraph encyclical. That was a typo! (and I ran out of edit time)
-
Because they're in a state of cognitive dissonance. They've tried to compartmentalize EENS away from the other modernist errors, but they do not understand that EENS-denial is at the root of the modernist errors.
That is actually quite true. They believe that their "debate" over bod/ignorance has nothing to do withholding the Faith, whole and entire. I ask again, if there are these various methods of alternative salvation, what is the need for the Church? Why did the Church have to declare this dogma?............Three times?
The modernists prepared the ground well over the last hundred years, for their new doctrine of an optional Catholic Church, they were already 3/4 of the way converted by the time Vatican II rolled around.
-
That is actually quite true. They believe that their "debate" over bod/ignorance has nothing to do withholding the Faith, whole and entire. I ask again, if there are these various methods of alternative salvation, what is the need for the Church? Why did the Church have to declare this dogma?............Three times?
The modernists prepared the ground well over the last hundred years, for their new doctrine of an optional Catholic Church, they were already 3/4 of the way converted by the time Vatican II rolled around.
This.
Reminds me of Fr. Wathen, speaking about the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation he says:
"The Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation is described as fundamental or "foundational" to Catholic theology. It is called the "Dogma of Faith," because, of a truth, unless a person accepts it in all its momentous absoluteness, he really does not accept the Catholic Faith, howsoever he protests that he does. Conversely, he who dilutes this doctrine to any degree, so radically distorts the Faith that he renders it null and void, and his own faith in the bargain. For he who denies this doctrine makes Catholicity hardly more than a nicety, as if membership in the Church were like the first-class compartment on a commercial airliner, in which the majority of others will arrive at the same destination, really none the worse for their second-class transport".
-
That is actually quite true. They believe that their "debate" over bod/ignorance has nothing to do withholding the Faith, whole and entire. I ask again, if there are these various methods of alternative salvation, what is the need for the Church? Why did the Church have to declare this dogma?............Three times?
The modernists prepared the ground well over the last hundred years, for their new doctrine of an optional Catholic Church, they were already 3/4 of the way converted by the time Vatican II rolled around.
The Vatican has adopted the principles of the ultra-Modernist VII theologian Rahner, who denied all the validity of dogmas:
“The attempt to make a universal [dogmatic] definition and use it categorically to control the course of History, considering possible detours as if they were defects …. is false a priori.”
Nothing is ever sacred and safe anymore in this new state of things. Even the Creed itself is at stake:
“There will no longer be one, basic, unique, and universal formula of the Christian Faith applicable to the whole Church.”
He explicitly denies that the Church is the only depository of salvation. Most traditionalists deny this implicitly (some groups being quite explicit about it, though). This thesis of his is officially adopted in Vatican II and taught ever since:
“Today the Church should not consider herself the sole depositary of salvation …. nor should she consider herself the only religious society in whose ambit one can find those who achieve salvation. … The Church should not be seen as a society of those who possess grace as opposed to those who are deprived of it. She must be seen as a society on the way to recognizing that …. she will become more herself as she accepts others who now only implicitly possess the grace of salvation”
And no, it has nothing to do with proper BOD/BOB, even though the corruption of the first one was the tool which liberals misused to obliterate the dogma.
-
The Vatican has adopted the principles of the ultra-Modernist VII theologian Rahner, who denied all the validity of dogmas:
Nothing is ever sacred and safe anymore in this new state of things. Even the Creed itself is at stake:
He explicitly denies that the Church is the only depository of salvation. Most traditionalists deny this implicitly (some groups being quite explicit about it, though). This thesis of his is officially adopted in Vatican II and taught ever since:
And no, it has nothing to do with proper BOD/BOB, even though the corruption of the first one was the tool which liberals misused to obliterate the dogma.
True indeed, and the Sedes and the SSPX are blind to the fact that they do indeed support this kind of deviation from orthodoxy, even if passively with their doctrines of extra-ecclesial salvation. It is the error of our times and in fact, the final and deadly error against the Faith.
-
And no, it has nothing to do with proper BOD/BOB, even though the corruption of the first one was the tool which liberals misused to obliterate the dogma.
Yes, it has to do with BOD indirectly, since it was the tool to water-down EENS, the cornerstone of catholicity.
-
.
The purpose of this post is to focus on the conspicuous omission by the CMRI of one of the 3 dogmatic definitions of EENS.
And secondly, to raise the question: Why does the CMRI like to keep dogmatic definition out of its readers' minds?
.
The CMRI website has something interesting on their Ecuмenism page:
http://www.cmri.org/02-v2_ecuмenism.shtml
The Decrees of Vatican II
Compared with Past Church Teachings
EcuмENISMPast Infallible Church Decrees on Ecuмenism
.
.
[This is a curious way to head the topic, because before Vatican II there was no such meaning, and the word "Ecuмenism" did not exist. Therefore, there are no pre-Vatican II "Decrees on Ecuмenism." Before Vat.II, ecuмenical meant: concerning all the Catholic bishops of the world. Therefore an ecuмenical council (actually spelled oecuмenical because of the Latin root) was a worldwide or universal council; there had been 20 such Oecuмenical Councils of the Church before Vat.II, when Vat.II was presented at its opening as the 21st Oecuмenical Council. Before it was over, however, the "O" had been dropped, and they habitually referred to it as, "The Council," as though it was no longer merely the 21st, but rather the only. In common practice the Councils that preceded Vat.II were to be forgotten, and Trent for example, was only mentioned when looking for a precedent to institute change (based on a lie). They actually said that the "Tridentine Mass" was a new product of Trent (that's a lie), therefore, they said, that the Novus Ordo as a new product of "The Council," was actually following tradition (lie), based on the Tridentine tradition (lie). Numerous articles from the 1970's verify this fact of history. Furthermore, the following two dogmatic definitions (CMRI never utters the term, "dogmatic definition" as if in an attempt to stuff it down the memory hole of 1984) would not be something a reader would expect to find on a page of "EcuмENISM" nor would anyone doing research be likely to find these two dogmas hidden in this particular corner of the website. But to top it off, they have the order reversed, with the last given first and the first given last -- is it in fulfillment of prophesy? (cf. Mark 10:31) and the second not given at all -- why do you suppose that is?]
.
.
Cantate Domino — Pope Eugene IV: The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches, that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs arid heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
.
Fourth Lateran Council: There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved..
.
Note: this material is found on a page titled "Ecuмenism" and not "Salvation" or "Dogmatic Definition" or "Necessity of the Church."
.
I find this interesting because these two citations are two of the 3 infallible ex cathedra dogmatic definitions of EENS, but are not identified as such. The website has "infallible" in the heading, but that's as far as the CMRI goes with it. The principle of ex cathedra dogma and dogmatic definition is not mentioned.
.
Apparently, CMRI doesn't like to say, "dogmatic definition" or "ex cathedra." They're much more interested in using the thing they want to CRITICIZE as the title of the page, even if that title did not exist prior to Vat.II.
.
Furthermore, as I said, these two are two of the three such dogmatic definitions. What happened to the third one?
.
Well, actually it's the second one. Note also that no date is showing for these two. Apparently the CMRI don't want its readers to learn dates for some reason. What do you suppose that reason would be?
.
The first dogmatic definition of EENS, from the Oecuмenical Council Lateran IV in A.D. 1215, given by Pope Innocent III: “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (The CMRI version has, "...can be saved.")
.
The second dogmatic definition of EENS, from the Bull Unam Sanctam in A.D. 1302, given by Pope Boniface VIII: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
.
Now why, do you suppose, would the CMRI conspicuously omit THAT dogmatic definition?.And once you have the answer to that question, you might be able to figure out the answer to the next question:
.
Why do you suppose the CMRI might like to steer its readers away from the principle of dogmatic definition per se?
.
-
.
As a point of context, it is helpful to recognize the fact that when Freemasons pick ONE POPE to hold up as their favorite object of ridicule, sometimes even building up an effigy of this Vicar of Christ which they proceed to insult and abuse ceremoniously (they're really big on ceremony!), which pope would you suppose is their favorite whipping boy? Keep in mind, for Freemasons, it isn't the appearance of a man or his mannerisms or his personal habits or preferences of which they take notice. They take notice of what WORDS he SPEAKS and what WORDS he puts down in WRITING.
.
Hint: check the previous post for which pope whose words the CMRI likes to ignore.
.
.
(ETA: I forgot to include the source data for the THIRD dogmatic definition, Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, A.D. 1441.)
-
Vatican I, defines a true validly nominated pope. The Holy Catholic Church has had anti-popes before. We are there.
-
Vatican I, defines a true validly nominated pope. The Holy Catholic Church has had anti-popes before. We are there.
Bull of Pope Paul IV — cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio,1559
“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
— “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
— “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . .
— “Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
— “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
Coronata — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1950
“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy.
1. What is required by divine law for this appointment . . . Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded. . . ”
“It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic — if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible.
“If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”
Marato — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1921
“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.”
Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927
“Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.”
CANON 6.6
All former disciplinary laws which were in force until now, and are neither explicitly nor implicitly contained in the Code, shall be regarded as having lost all force, unless they are found in the approved liturgical books, or they are laws derived from the natural and the positive divine law.
A. Dorsch — Institutions Theologiae Fundamentalis,1928
“The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state . . .
“Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body . . . Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way —that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not . . .
“For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died —for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.
“These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary” (De Ecclesia 2:196-7).
Fr. Edward J. O’Reilly, S.J. — The Relations of the Church to Society, 1882
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all throughout, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope —with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”
Msgr. Charles Journet, The Church of the Incarnate Word
B. The Church During a Vacancy of the Holy See
We must not think of the church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be recondensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous.* ‘But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic Churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven .. . But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to who He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter.
*During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. “The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power.”
Msgr. Journet — The Church of the Incarnate Word
“During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap. xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or 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.”
Cajetan, O. P. — De Comparatione Autoritatis Papae et Concilii
“. . . by exception and by suppletory manner this power (that of electing a pope), corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the inexistence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happens at the time of a schism.”
Billot — De Ecclesia Christi
“When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council.”
“Because ‘natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a Superior is passed to the immediate inferior, because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need.”
Vitoria — De Potestate Ecclesiae
“Even if St. Peter would have not determined anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to substitute him and appoint a successor to him... If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a Holy Father.
“Hence such an election; ‘a tota Ecclesia debet provideri et non ab aliqua partuculari Ecclesia.’ (“It should be carried by all the Church and not by any particular Church.”) And this is because “Ilia potestas est communis et spectat ad totam Ecclesiam. Ergo a tata Ecclesia debet provideri.’” (“That power is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole Church.”)
Cajetan:
“Immediately, one ought to resists in facie, a pope who is publicly destroying the Church; for example, to want to give ecclesiastical benefits for money or charge of services. And one ought to refuse, with all obedience and respect, and not to give possession of these benefits to those who bought them.”
Silvestra:
“What is there to do when the pope wishes without reason to abrogate the positive right order? To this he responds, ‘He certainly sins; one ought not to permit him to proceed thus, nor ought one to obey him in what is bad; one ought to resist him with a polite reprehension. In consequence, if he wished to deliver all the treasures of the Church and the patrimony of St. Peter to his parents; if he was left to destroy the Church or in similar works, one ought not to permit him to work in this form, having the obligation of giving him resistance. And the reason for this is, in these matters he has no right to destroy. Immediately evident of what he is doing, it is licit to resist him. Of all this it results that, if the pope, by his order or his acts, destroys the Church, one can resist and impede the execution of his commands.’”
Suarez:
“If the pope gave an order contrary to the good customs, one should not obey him; if his intent is to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it is lawful and valid to resist; if attacked by force, one shall be able to resist with force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.”
St. Robert Bellarmine:
“Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff that attacks the body, it is also licit to resist (him) who attacks the soul, or who disturbs the civil order, or, above all, he who intends to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of that which he wills. It is not licit, with everything, to judge him impose a punishment, or depose him, for these actions are accorded to one superior to the pope.”
St. Francis de Sales:
“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”
St. Robert Bellarmine:
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
St. Antoninus:
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913
“The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
Pope Innocent III:
“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged, In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”
Matthaeus Conte a Coronata — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1950
“If indeed such a situation would happen, he (the Roman Pontiff) would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”
A. Vermeersch — Epitome Iuris Canonici, 1949
“At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”
Edward F. Regatillo — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1956
“‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could he be its head.”
-
.
Of all the Popes in the history of the Church, which one is the greatest opponent for Freemasons?
.
When Freemasons pick ONE POPE to hold up as their favorite object of ridicule, sometimes an effigy of this Vicar of Christ which they proceed to insult and abuse ceremoniously (they're really big on ceremony!), which pope would you suppose is their favorite whipping boy?
.
Which Pope is the one whose legacy poses to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the most ominous obstacle by far?
.
Keep in mind, for Freemasons, it isn't the mere appearance of a man they take notice of.
They take notice of the WORDS he puts down in WRITING, words that carry down through the ages.
.
Do they like to ridicule St. Peter?
Or Pope St. Pius X?
How about their arch enemy Pope Pius IX? (He convened Vat.I -- which Freemasons hate)
Or Pope St. Pius V? (He implemented Trent -- much to the chagrin of Freemasons in the future)
Pope Innocent III? (He gave us one of the EENS dogmatic definitions)
Pope Pius VII? (He was the Pope imprisoned by Napoleon and gave Freemasons a lot of trouble)
-
In 1738, a mere twenty-one years after the Masonic Order first went semi-public in London (1717), the then Pope Clement XII, in his encyclical letter In Eminenti condemned Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. This exclusion was extended by Pope Pius IX in his Apostolicae Sedis of October 12, 1869 to include the Carbonari and other secret societies also active in the republican revolution in Italy at the time. In all, the Church has issued twenty bulls warning the faithful against Masonry.[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn1) The problem is that the organisation, while giving the appearance of being Christian to the outside world, in fact has inner cores of ruling initiates who are ultimately about the work of the Devil. This was further emphasised in Pius IX’s Letter Scite Profecto of July 1873, wherein he attributed Masonry to Satan, for he says it can only be him, the eternal adversary of God, who is responsible for it; founded it, and contrived its development. On Nov. 21, 1873 in ‘Etsi Multa,’ the Pope described it as ‘Satan’s ѕуηαgσgυє’ with ipso facto excommunication (canon 2335) for any Catholic who joined or associated with it, reserving absolution to the Holy See alone. The most comprehensive of all these epistles on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ however, was Pope Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus (1884), warning of the monstrous doctrines of the socialists and communists while pointing out to individuals in these societies to be aware of the ultimate aims of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. At the end of this Letter was the invocation of Michael, the prince of the heavenly angels together with Saint Joseph, declared Patron of the Church in the prorogued first Vatican Council (1870), better known in a subsequent ‘Prayer to Saint Michael’ from then on said after Mass. Next, in 1890, in the vernacular encyclical Dall’Alto, addressed to the clergy and people of Italy Masonry was described as pervaded with the spirit of Satan. Another warning came in the Pope’s Custodi of 1892. Addressing the Italian bishops, the Holy Father asserted that ‘the diabolical spirit of all former sects is revived in Masonry that attacks everything sacred, while the public, lulled in false security, does not recognise the danger, for Christianity itself is at stake.’
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref1) The best known of these in 1751, 1814, 1821, 1826, 1829, 1832, 1846, 1865, 1869, 1873 and Pope Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus in 1884.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 3rd, 1997, the following report appeared in The Catholic Herald, an English weekly newspaper:
‘The Grand Orient of Italy decided to award the Pontiff Pope John Paul II with the Order of Galileo Galilei, the highest form of recognition able to be made by Italy’s Freemasons to a non-member, in recognition for his promotion of universal Masonic values of fraternity, respect for the dignity of man, and the spirit of tolerance… Our intention is to pay homage to a man who, unlike his predecessors, showed himself to be extremely open-minded, rehabilitating Galileo, promoting a critical analysis of the Inquisition [etc.].’
Let us recall here the ‘Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita,’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn1) otherwise known as the ‘Alta Vendita Plan’ discovered in 1820, whose ultimate end is that of Voltaire and the French Revolution which speaks of working for a generation that will rejoice in having a pope ‘according to our wants’ and of a clergy who will ‘march under our banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys.’ Now consider the above report, wherein we see the masters of Italian Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ - whose ultimate aim is to see in the total victory of Antichrist - honour Pope John Paul II with an award named after Galileo Galilei. Coming as it does in a Catholic newspaper, openly and without inhibition, probably illustrates the influence his reformation has had, inside and outside the Church today better than anything we could say.
The Alta Vendita plan tells of an era of infiltration into the Catholic Church by the Carbonari, who had links with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, so that they could introduce into the Church their liberal and progressive ideals and principles, a revolution and reformation that manifested itself at that pastoral council Vatican II (1962-65). Martin Wagner, in one of the most revealing books on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ ever written, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation (1912), summarises this well known society of illuminati thus: ‘Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in its chief and essential features is a religious institution, and as such has marks and elements that are peculiar to itself but which also differentiate it from Christianity.’
“Masonry is a religion. If it is not why should it have temples, altars, official rituals, with hymns, odes, prayers, consecrations, and benedictions? Why have high priests, chaplains, written and authorised forms for opening and closing its meetings, for corner-stone laying and dedications, for installations, for the burial of its dead and what not? Why then the grotesque imitations and caricatures of the Church’s forms, even to its sacraments?”[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn2)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref1) The secret papers of the Alta Vendita (written in the early 1800s), highest lodge of the Italian secret society, the Carbonari, acquired by Pope Gregory XVI and, on the orders of Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII, was published by Cretineau-Joly in his work The Roman Church and Revolution, reprinted in 1885 and many times since.
[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref2) Professor G. Gerberding, D.D., quoted by Martin L, Wagner, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation.
-
My mostly* only hesitation with this group is that they use the revised Easter Week given by Pope Pius XII. St. Mary's in Tacoma appeals to me because of the other devotional type activities according to their site that regularly go on.
Since I have not yet researched exactly what the revisions mean I only know two things about them:
1. A kind of renewal of baptismal promises is included
2. Some traditional catholics think that Pope Pius XII was influenced by modernists in his decision to promulgate the revisions. Example is those with the SSPV. I learned that he suffered from attacks of constant hiccoughs for years, and this would be debilitating and may have made it difficult to stand strong or Pope Pius XII may have had very good reasons for the revisions.
In any case, he made them and there is an argument to be ok with anything up until the death in 1958.
*because also I recall from research from a while back that certain groups of trad caths believe there is something deviated in the lineage of those ordained/consecrated. This goes back to the Schukardt era - that probably came from digesting material at jmjsite.com where I used to spend time.
-
In 1738, a mere twenty-one years after the Masonic Order first went semi-public in London (1717), the then Pope Clement XII, in his encyclical letter In Eminenti condemned Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. This exclusion was extended by Pope Pius IX in his Apostolicae Sedis of October 12, 1869 to include the Carbonari and other secret societies also active in the republican revolution in Italy at the time. In all, the Church has issued twenty bulls warning the faithful against Masonry.[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn1) The problem is that the organisation, while giving the appearance of being Christian to the outside world, in fact has inner cores of ruling initiates who are ultimately about the work of the Devil. This was further emphasised in Pius IX’s Letter Scite Profecto of July 1873, wherein he attributed Masonry to Satan, for he says it can only be him, the eternal adversary of God, who is responsible for it; founded it, and contrived its development. On Nov. 21, 1873 in ‘Etsi Multa,’ the Pope described it as ‘Satan’s ѕуηαgσgυє’ with ipso facto excommunication (canon 2335) for any Catholic who joined or associated with it, reserving absolution to the Holy See alone. The most comprehensive of all these epistles on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ however, was Pope Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus (1884), warning of the monstrous doctrines of the socialists and communists while pointing out to individuals in these societies to be aware of the ultimate aims of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. At the end of this Letter was the invocation of Michael, the prince of the heavenly angels together with Saint Joseph, declared Patron of the Church in the prorogued first Vatican Council (1870), better known in a subsequent ‘Prayer to Saint Michael’ from then on said after Mass. Next, in 1890, in the vernacular encyclical Dall’Alto, addressed to the clergy and people of Italy Masonry was described as pervaded with the spirit of Satan. Another warning came in the Pope’s Custodi of 1892. Addressing the Italian bishops, the Holy Father asserted that ‘the diabolical spirit of all former sects is revived in Masonry that attacks everything sacred, while the public, lulled in false security, does not recognise the danger, for Christianity itself is at stake.’
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref1) The best known of these in 1751, 1814, 1821, 1826, 1829, 1832, 1846, 1865, 1869, 1873 and Pope Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus in 1884.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 3rd, 1997, the following report appeared in The Catholic Herald, an English weekly newspaper:
‘The Grand Orient of Italy decided to award the Pontiff Pope John Paul II with the Order of Galileo Galilei, the highest form of recognition able to be made by Italy’s Freemasons to a non-member, in recognition for his promotion of universal Masonic values of fraternity, respect for the dignity of man, and the spirit of tolerance… Our intention is to pay homage to a man who, unlike his predecessors, showed himself to be extremely open-minded, rehabilitating Galileo, promoting a critical analysis of the Inquisition [etc.].’
Let us recall here the ‘Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita,’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn1) otherwise known as the ‘Alta Vendita Plan’ discovered in 1820, whose ultimate end is that of Voltaire and the French Revolution which speaks of working for a generation that will rejoice in having a pope ‘according to our wants’ and of a clergy who will ‘march under our banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys.’ Now consider the above report, wherein we see the masters of Italian Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ - whose ultimate aim is to see in the total victory of Antichrist - honour Pope John Paul II with an award named after Galileo Galilei. Coming as it does in a Catholic newspaper, openly and without inhibition, probably illustrates the influence his reformation has had, inside and outside the Church today better than anything we could say.
The Alta Vendita plan tells of an era of infiltration into the Catholic Church by the Carbonari, who had links with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, so that they could introduce into the Church their liberal and progressive ideals and principles, a revolution and reformation that manifested itself at that pastoral council Vatican II (1962-65). Martin Wagner, in one of the most revealing books on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ ever written, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation (1912), summarises this well known society of illuminati thus: ‘Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in its chief and essential features is a religious institution, and as such has marks and elements that are peculiar to itself but which also differentiate it from Christianity.’
“Masonry is a religion. If it is not why should it have temples, altars, official rituals, with hymns, odes, prayers, consecrations, and benedictions? Why have high priests, chaplains, written and authorised forms for opening and closing its meetings, for corner-stone laying and dedications, for installations, for the burial of its dead and what not? Why then the grotesque imitations and caricatures of the Church’s forms, even to its sacraments?”[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn2)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref1) The secret papers of the Alta Vendita (written in the early 1800s), highest lodge of the Italian secret society, the Carbonari, acquired by Pope Gregory XVI and, on the orders of Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII, was published by Cretineau-Joly in his work The Roman Church and Revolution, reprinted in 1885 and many times since.
[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref2) Professor G. Gerberding, D.D., quoted by Martin L, Wagner, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation.
Pope Clement XII
Pope Gregory XVI
Pope Pius IX
Pope Leo XIII
Any of the Popes who issued one or more of the 20 bulls against Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in 1751, 1814, 1821, 1826, 1829, 1832, 1846, 1865, 1869, 1873 and 1884
.
All Good Guesses
.
but no cigar
.
.
Of all the Popes in the history of the Church, which one is the greatest opponent for Freemasons?
.
When Freemasons pick ONE POPE to hold up as their favorite object of ridicule, sometimes an effigy of this Vicar of Christ which they proceed to insult and abuse ceremoniously (they're really big on ceremony!), which pope would you suppose is their favorite whipping boy?
.
Which Pope is the one whose legacy poses to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the most ominous obstacle by far?
.
Keep in mind, for Freemasons, it isn't the mere appearance of a man they take notice of.
They take notice of the WORDS he puts down in WRITING, words that carry down through the ages.
IOW out of all the words left for posterity of all the popes in the history of the Church, which words are the most offensive to Freemasons, such that the Pope who uttered them and cast them in stone is thereby become their principal adversary?
.
.
.
Hint: the Bull Unam Sanctam
-
.
Read this (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-a-cmri-chapel-a-reasonable-substitute-for-a-resistance-mass/msg619434/#msg619434) post carefully.
-
I, without any hesitation, support the Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae (CMRI)
http://CMRI.org
-
Pope Clement XII
Pope Gregory XVI
Pope Pius IX
Pope Leo XIII
Any of the Popes who issued one or more of the 20 bulls against Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in 1751, 1814, 1821, 1826, 1829, 1832, 1846, 1865, 1869, 1873 and 1884
.
All Good Guesses
.
but no cigar
.
.
Of all the Popes in the history of the Church, which one is the greatest opponent for Freemasons?
.
When Freemasons pick ONE POPE to hold up as their favorite object of ridicule, sometimes an effigy of this Vicar of Christ which they proceed to insult and abuse ceremoniously (they're really big on ceremony!), which pope would you suppose is their favorite whipping boy?
.
Which Pope is the one whose legacy poses to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the most ominous obstacle by far?
.
Keep in mind, for Freemasons, it isn't the mere appearance of a man they take notice of.
They take notice of the WORDS he puts down in WRITING, words that carry down through the ages.
IOW out of all the words left for posterity of all the popes in the history of the Church, which words are the most offensive to Freemasons, such that the Pope who uttered them and cast them in stone is thereby become their principal adversary?
.
.
.
Hint: the Bull Unam Sanctam
Years ago in New England three sisters from Saint Benedict Center walked into an insurance office selling From the Housetops. It was after 5pm and all the employees had left for the day. The boss invited the sisters in for a conversation. He used to be Catholic but is now a mason, he told them. He then opened his desk drawer and took out two items: a wooden box and an ornamental dagger. "Do you want to know what's in this box?", he asked them. Without waiting for an answer he opened it and brought out a human skull, or a facsimile of one, and told them it was the skull of Pope Boniface VIII which they stabbed at their meetings with this dagger. No drama occurred afterwards but the good sisters were naturally nervous. Dominating this emotion one sister spoke up and asked him," when you were a Catholic you made your First Holy Communion and believed it was Jesus Christ, the Son of God, didn't you?" "Yes, I did. I used to believe that." "Then how could you have given that up?" And they left his office.
-
There is no 'unmentionable thing" Neil, so quit trying to read my mind. I am just tired of the constant battles on the BOD topic here, so I prefer to avoid them like the plague.
However, given you are looking for the CMRI to recognize the teaching "Outside the Church there is No Salvation". I will offer you this link from the CMRI website (although I am sure it's still not good enough for you):
http://www.cmri.org/02-v2_non-christian.shtml
The attitude of the Catholic Church towards pagans, Mohammedans and Jєωs has always been clear — there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Even supposing a person were invincibly ignorant of the true Church, he must still follow the natural law to be saved (implicit baptism of desire). It is evident, according to Catholic theology, that these false and immoral religions are opposed to the natural law. The Fathers of the Church, as well as many true Popes, have been quite strong in their condemnation of these religions, and especially of Mohammedanism and Judaism, which have persistently attacked the Catholic Church throughout history.
.
This re-phrasing says the same thing:
.
There is no salvation outside the Church EXCEPT for those who follow natural law.
.
We have the attitude of EENS as to pagans, Jєωs, and mohammadeans. But we fancy a different attitude as to those who follow natural law.
-
Well, their publication TWICE published an article entitled "The Salvation of those outside the Church" ... a direct word-for-word contradiction of Catholic dogma.
That article is in the library, go read it! The title was not there's it was the authors.
You know that because I posted this truth about the article. It offends God and He is crucified again when people deceive.
-
The American resistance seems to have aligned itself with at least one heretical Feenyite chapel. The CMRI chapels I’ve been to have signs posted advising that they will not allow non-Catholic Feenyites to receive the sacraments. So the CMRI is a much safer course in the U.S. if you wish to remain Catholic.
Who in particular has aligned with which "Feeneyite" chapel? You toss the term heretical around too freely. Father Feeney's distinction between justification and salvation has never been condemned. And at best one could argue that BoD is theologically certain but not de fide. I don't agree it's even that ... but the bar for heresy is very high. Yet Father Feeney does not reject BoD per se but states that it suffices for justification but not salvation. Disagree if you will, but that position has never been condemned.
-
That article is in the library, go read it! The title was not there's it was the authors.
You know that because I posted this truth about the article. It offends God and He is crucified again when people deceive.
Where's the deception? I quite clearly wrote that the CMRI "published" the article. What's deceptive is publishing and promoting an article with a title that contradicts Catholic dogma and presenting it as Catholic teaching.
-
I, without any hesitation, support the Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae (CMRI)
http://CMRI.org
Tell us something we don't already know. By far the most virulent despisers of EENS have ties to the CMRI ... only to be rivaled by the SSPV. Even apart from the doctrinal issues, how can anyone "support without hesitation" a group with such utterly sordid beginnings, founded by an admitted perpetrator of sins against nature, a culture which initially permeated their clergy ... not to mention the cult-like practices and intercommunion with schismatic Old Catholics?
-
CMRI just expelled a priest who could not go along with their support of NFP, among other things?
They even sent him to a shrink to get him to "behave." Pleasant Marxist technique.
-
Where's the deception? I quite clearly wrote that the CMRI "published" the article. What's deceptive is publishing and promoting an article with a title that contradicts Catholic dogma and presenting it as Catholic teaching.
The point is, you desire to guide readers to assume that CMRI agrees with the Title as written.
-
Tell us something we don't already know. By far the most virulent despisers of EENS have ties to the CMRI ... only to be rivaled by the SSPV. Even apart from the doctrinal issues, how can anyone "support without hesitation" a group with such utterly sordid beginnings, founded by an admitted perpetrator of sins against nature, a culture which initially permeated their clergy ... not to mention the cult-like practices and intercommunion with schismatic Old Catholics?
What? No Catholic despises the truth of EENS, especially myself and CMRI. I simply expect BoD to be understood as the Church teaches, in concert with EENS (as opposed to those that would have one contradict the other).
As for the beginnings of this organization, those short comings have been addressed and resolved.
I very much enjoy the religious of CMRI, and hold in high regard Bishop Pivarunas.
http://cmri.org/sedevac.htm
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/image/sede_vacante.gif)
-
Lads logic is flawed he says "Tell us something we don't already know. By far the most virulent despisers of EENS have ties to the CMRI ... only to be rivaled by the SSPV. Even apart from the doctrinal issues, how can anyone "support without hesitation" a group with such utterly sordid beginnings, founded by an admitted perpetrator of sins against nature, a culture which initially permeated their clergy ... not to mention the cult-like practices and intercommunion with schismatic Old Catholics?"
He seems to forget that Jesus Christ handpicked Judas. CMRI's beginnings began when Vatican II left them staying firm to the teachings they have learned from the beginning as did other groups scattered. Yet, Lad clings to the idea that somewhere there has to be a head, he doesn't know where but somewhere in his fantasy because he forgets that Jesus Christ is the head of His church, and the Popes are His representatives on earth, he forgets that a doubtful pope is no pope, yet he clings to his mirage.
Traditional Catholic pray the Act of Faith with their rosary, yet many ignore the words "I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived."
Yet, these Catholic's dare to speak with disdain about CMRI.
They prefer to accept a Pope who deceives. According to them, the Holy Ghost failed, the Church failed. They recognize the man but resist the man, CMRI recognizes the Papacy ALWAYS, and because we recognize the Papacy there is nothing to resist.
-
Merry, as a long time CMRI supporter and the administrator of the CMRI Chapel for 20 years in Oklahoma City ( not to mention the irony that my some was asked to leave the seminary in Omaha over his anti-NFP stance; we are still close to the Bishop) I am beyond curious about who you are suggesting was removed from duty as a priest and sent to counseling over the NFP issue. Perhaps you misspoke or you are referring to some other group but this claim would be news to me. In the interest of squelching a simple misunderstanding could you please provide some further info on this claim when you can? Thanks in advance Merry.
-
.
Someone who thinks there is salvation outside the Church, someone who is coming from the Old Catholics (schismatics since Vat. I), and someone who rejects Francis as Pope, and who believes that BoD is a dogma of the Faith and belief in which is more necessary than in EENS, is welcome at CMRI.
.
But anyone who dares to hold that BoD is theological speculation (verifiably the truth) and not de fide, who is opposed to NFP as a matter of principle, or who assists at Mass in any chapel that could be called "Feeneyite" (by any number of criteria!) is automatically persona non grata at the CMRI sites. They have other forbidden topics as well. These are a sample thereof.
.
In my experience, CMRI groupies are all too eager to pick a fight with a visitor over the question of valid episcopal consecrations or valid priestly ordinations. They are all too prepared to go toe-to-toe against someone who dares to question certain things, some of which are of little or no importance such as BoD, while they consistently ignore our need to pray for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary -- even though they pretend to promote the (edited) Message of Fatima and the Queenship of Mary Immaculate (to whose Heart they deny awaits the consecration of Russia). One has to wonder if Bishop Mark Pivarunas were given the opportunity to consecrate Russia to the IHM together with the Pope and other bishops of the world, whether he would refuse. They interrupt conversations, acting like Communist informants, in an effectively de facto effort to control freedom of speech within property limits. This is made obvious by the fact that their priest will later approach you and request a private meeting in the back office, when he will inform you that certain things cannot be discussed on their property, which see, and if you don't conform to this rule, you will be forbidden from attending the chapel. That is because the priest was informed by one of his groupies of the conversation you were having with a friend.
.
Their behavior is far more like a trepidatious cult than like a truly Catholic group.
-
SvincentL - PM
-
Neil Obstat's theory above is questionable and unproven.
By their fruits, you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?" [Matthew 7:16]
Neil Obstat prefers the thorns and thistles of Francis proven by his written sass and foolish assumptions of how CMRI would act in a given situation.
Those of grace reading would earnestly and humbly pray this month to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for Truth. Those who refuse to do so will answer to God for their rejection for there is No Salvation Outside the Church.
-
.
Someone who thinks there is salvation outside the Church, someone who is coming from the Old Catholics (schismatics since Vat. I), and someone who rejects Francis as Pope, and who believes that BoD is a dogma of the Faith and belief in which is more necessary than in EENS, is welcome at CMRI.
.
But anyone who dares to hold that BoD is theological speculation (verifiably the truth) and not de fide, who is opposed to NFP as a matter of principle, or who assists at Mass in any chapel that could be called "Feeneyite" (by any number of criteria!) is automatically persona non grata at the CMRI sites. They have other forbidden topics as well. These are a sample thereof.
.
In my experience, CMRI groupies are all too eager to pick a fight with a visitor over the question of valid episcopal consecrations or valid priestly ordinations. They are all too prepared to go toe-to-toe against someone who dares to question certain things, some of which are of little or no importance such as BoD, while they consistently ignore our need to pray for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary -- even though they pretend to promote the (edited) Message of Fatima and the Queenship of Mary Immaculate (to whose Heart they deny awaits the consecration of Russia). One has to wonder if Bishop Mark Pivarunas were given the opportunity to consecrate Russia to the IHM together with the Pope and other bishops of the world, whether he would refuse. They interrupt conversations, acting like Communist informants, in an effectively de facto effort to control freedom of speech within property limits. This is made obvious by the fact that their priest will later approach you and request a private meeting in the back office, when he will inform you that certain things cannot be discussed on their property, which see, and if you don't conform to this rule, you will be forbidden from attending the chapel. That is because the priest was informed by one of his groupies of the conversation you were having with a friend.
.
Their behavior is far more like a trepidatious cult than like a truly Catholic group.
Neil, As to the matter of salvation outside of the Church, I will simply say that you can be treated exactly the same way at some SSPX Chapels whose doctrinal position is exactly the same and some of the laity are as fanatic about it as sedes. All SSPX clerics are BoD believers and those who might stray are quickly done away with. They all get there doctrinal orientation from the Archbishop and thus they have been formed in these ideas. There is no where that a Catholic can go to be trained in the true dogmatic Catholic Faith. It is a sad state of affairs.
-
The CMRI, generally speaking, supports NFP. So if Feeneyites are 'non catholic' because they hold a view which is (according to you) heretical, then the CMRI is both heretical AND PAGAN, because NFP violates both Church law and natural law. ...This is your extremist logic applied equally...
-
The point is, you desire to guide readers to assume that CMRI agrees with the Title as written.
I stated the fact that the CMRI published this heretical-sounding article twice. Readers can draw their own conclusions. Whether the CMRI agree with it or not doesn't matter. Had they disagreed with it, of course, they could have simply added an editorial footnote. Yet the fact is that they published it. It's just as reprehensible as if they had printed an article questioning the perpetual virginity of Mary ... even if they didn't "agree with" it.
-
What? No Catholic despises the truth of EENS, especially myself and CMRI.
That's not even close to being the truth. In fact, in the modern era, the vast majority of so-called Catholics actively despise the dogma EENS, especially yourself and the CMRI. You CLAIM that you do not despise it because the version that you do not despise is the one where you interpret it away to mean nearly the opposite of what it says. You do not despise your own interpretation of it, and so in your mind you do not despise it. But in fact you despise the dogma as it was meant and intended by the Popes who defined it.
Get this straight. Nobody goes on a crusade, such as you and the CMRI and other CMRI folks here on CI, in promotion of BoD for the rare hypothetical possibility that some catechumen who died without the Sacrament could somehow be saved. You promote BoD as some kind of super-dogma precisely because you see it as a tool with which to undermine the strict meaning of EENS as taught by the Church. That's why it's such a big deal to you and the object of so much passion.
-
CMRI's beginnings began when Vatican II left them staying firm to the teachings they have learned from the beginning as did other groups scattered. Yet, Lad clings to the idea that somewhere there has to be a head, he doesn't know where but somewhere in his fantasy because he forgets that Jesus Christ is the head of His church, and the Popes are His representatives on earth, he forgets that a doubtful pope is no pope, yet he clings to his mirage.
Sedevacantism had nothing to do with my criticism of the CMRI. I don't fault them for that. Talk about flawed logic. No, "CMRI's beginnings began" as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ network which then obtained doubtful orders from Old Catholic schismatics.
-
.
Someone who thinks there is salvation outside the Church, someone who is coming from the Old Catholics (schismatics since Vat. I), and someone who rejects Francis as Pope, and who believes that BoD is a dogma of the Faith and belief in which is more necessary than in EENS, is welcome at CMRI.
Don't forget about the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and pedophiles.
-
They interrupt conversations, acting like Communist informants, in an effectively de facto effort to control freedom of speech within property limits. This is made obvious by the fact that their priest will later approach you and request a private meeting in the back office, when he will inform you that certain things cannot be discussed on their property, which see, and if you don't conform to this rule, you will be forbidden from attending the chapel. That is because the priest was informed by one of his groupies of the conversation you were having with a friend.
.
Their behavior is far more like a trepidatious cult than like a truly Catholic group.
Hmmm. So they still retain their cult-like characteristics ... with which they had been immersed since the beginning.
-
Again, what is telling is that the moderators support the cleric that organized the reception of sacraments at a Feenyite chapel by a resistance bishop. This is in light of the ex resistance priest of the sede vacante position who has been asking for confirmation at his Canadian chapel for months to only be ignored.
:confused: What are you talking about? These are public events, so you needn't be this cryptic about it.
-
Sedevacantism had nothing to do with my criticism of the CMRI. I don't fault them for that. Talk about flawed logic. No, "CMRI's beginnings began" as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ network which then obtained doubtful orders from Old Catholic schismatics.
Again you mislead ...
Once Bishop Musey took over CMRI in Spokane, all of Bishop Schuckardt’s priests took an Abjuration of Error and got conditionally ordained by him.
You seem to forget that God can work good from evil, we are all born in sin, REMEMBER!
Why not or if you don't know; RESEARCH what really happened in regard to Schuckardt:
Episcopal Consecration
Bishop Brown soon became acquainted with Brother Schuckardt and tried to persuade him to accept ordination from him. Later he proposed to consecrate Brother Schuckardt to the episcopacy in addition to ordaining him to the priesthood. After Bishop Brown had repented of having received consecration from the Old Catholics, Brother Schuckardt agreed to receive consecration from Bishop Brown: "[T]hese past months have been spent in intense soul searching and continuous prayer to know and follow God's holy will. Thus I could not give you a reply until I felt fairly certain in my heart and mind. Now, finally, in concluding our novena in honor of the Annunciation, I have come to a decision. It is with holy trepidation that I accept your offer..."[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schuckardt#cite_note-schuckardt71-7) Between October 28 and November 1, 1971, Schuckardt was ordained and consecrated a bishop[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schuckardt#cite_note-8) in a rented ballroom in Chicago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago), as they were not welcome in the churches of the Catholic Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church).In 1969, Daniel Quilter Brown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Q._Brown) received episcopal consecration as an Old Catholic (English-line Old Catholic) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Roman_Catholic_Church) bishop in the line of Arnold hαɾɾιs Mathew (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Mathew). Brown had been born and raised a Roman Catholic, but became disenchanted with the reforms of Vatican II, and had chosen to become an Old Roman Catholic bishop in order to perpetuate valid episcopal orders, believing that the Old Catholics still retained valid Orders.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schuckardt#cite_note-5) Despite the fact that Bishop Brown obtained his consecration in the Old Catholic Church, he and his followers called themselves Roman Catholics and refused to use the title of "Old Catholic." Shortly after his consecration, he broke all ties and communications with the Old Catholics.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schuckardt#cite_note-brown70-6)
Also you state here --->I stated the fact that the CMRI published this heretical-sounding article twice. Readers can draw their own conclusions. Whether the CMRI agree with it or not doesn't matter. Had they disagreed with it, of course, they could have simply added an editorial footnote. Yet the fact is that they published it. It's just as reprehensible as if they had printed an article questioning the perpetual virginity of Mary ... even if they didn't "agree with" it.
If you ever read the article past the Title you might have a different opinion, I would hope so!
-
Again you mislead ...
Once Bishop Musey took over CMRI in Spokane, all of Bishop Schuckardt’s priests took an Abjuration of Error and got conditionally ordained by him.
You seem to forget that God can work good from evil, we are all born in sin, REMEMBER!
My point, which is not misleading, is that the organization's foundation was immersed in sins against nature and the affiliation with schismatics. Later regularization can never undo that history. Rarely has the Church approved any religious organization that had been riddled with such scandal. And, as Neil observes, the cult-like behaviors that were there in the early years have left a lasting mark on the group. Yes, we are all born in sin, but not many founders of approved religious organizations have been perverts.
-
If you ever read the article past the Title you might have a different opinion, I would hope so!
I've read the thing, and the body is as heretical as the title itself.
-
http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/bishop-richard-williamson-administered-confirmations-at-feeneyite-chapel-may-25-2016.3987/ (http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/bishop-richard-williamson-administered-confirmations-at-feeneyite-chapel-may-25-2016.3987/)
The Canadian ex-Resistance priest that is Sede vacantist (in fact he must still at least support the resistance bishops by requesting confirmations at his chapel) was related to me by Father Rodrigo (the last priest to be ordained by Bishop Williamson) who just joined with Bishop Dolan. I don’t remember all the names who told me off hand but I plan to translate an interview and send it to True Restoration soon.
Note: my comments have been heavily edited to even make them appear that I favor the resistance when I actually don’t so much. The comments in this thread will probably also disappear eventually.
OK, thanks. So Father Gavin Bitzer.
Well, maybe Bishop Williamson doesn't consider Feeneyism to be heretical as you do.
-
I've read the thing, and the body is as heretical as the title itself.
According to you and others who are believers in Feeneyism.
Lad again ... My point, which is not misleading, is that the organization's foundation was immersed in sins against nature and the affiliation with schismatics. Later regularization can never undo that history. Rarely has the Church approved any religious organization that had been riddled with such scandal. And, as Neil observes, the cult-like behaviors that were there in the early years have left a lasting mark on the group. Yes, we are all born in sin, but not many founders of approved religious organizations have been perverts.
Schuckardt fell from grace after he organized, the devil hated him and he FELL. It is nice to know you, a man who never sinned nice to meet you Saint Lad.
BTW Schuckardt has already died, judged by God, therefore he needs no judgment from you. I forget, however, that feeneyists love to judge the soul of others, they enjoy saying who is and who is not a member of the Church, something that is forbidden by the Church, that is to judge the SOUL of others. REMEMBER THAT TEACHING! Which is why you hate that article, it explains exactly what the CHURCH teaches about NO SALVATION. It just doesn't fit your erroneous teachings of EENS.
-
OK, thanks. So Father Gavin Bitzer.
Well, maybe Bishop Williamson doesn't consider Feeneyism to be heretical as you do.
Father Bitzer is a wholly orthodox priest who holds the Dogma as the Church defined and proclaimed it. It is a sign of the times when those who are orthodox in belief are called non-Catholics by the sects and cults who have made lying about Father Feeney a part of their doctrine.
-
Well, maybe Bishop Williamson doesn't consider Feeneyism to be heretical as you do.
And maybe this chapel doesn't make "feeneyism" as big deal and most "3 baptism" chapels do? I've been to this chapel before; there was no "Baptism litmus test" for admittance. The priest holds his views on baptism and doesn't require anyone else to believe anything.
Most people who believe in "3 baptisms" act as if it's a dogma. Most who are "feeneyites" think there's room for discussion. The "3 baptisms" group is far more rabid and obsessed...so they assume the feeneyites are just as obsessed (which they aren't).
-
Another "black n white", "either-or", "binary" mindset from a sedevacantist. You lack the ability to admit, or recognize, distinctions.
-
Another "black n white", "either-or", "binary" mindset from a sedevacantist. You lack the ability to admit, or recognize, distinctions.
By distinctions do you mean the quality of your pope?
-
Just cut the crap and find yourself a SSPV/CSPV chapel.
-
You either deny the Council of Trent or you don’t. Pretty cut and dry. If you think that Baptism or the desire thereof is a debatable topic then you believe the canons of the Council of Trent are a debatable topic. And yes, that makes you a heretic. Clear cut and easy to see.
An orthodox reading of the Council of Trent does not support baptism of desire as understood by modern clerics and laity.
There were not many liberals in those days.
You would have us believe that the Church needed the council of Trent to clarify the dogma of exclusive salvation. It is an absurd notion.
-
Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly, he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (IV, De Bapt., xxii) and St. Bernard (Ep. Ixxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Desire.
Ask and you shall receive. Especially when we ask for something of God's Will.
-
The answer is yes. As you are obliged to attend Mass on Sunday, if the CMRI mass is practical to attend, and so long as Sedevacantism is not regularly pushed in the sermons, it is an alternative.
-
Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly, he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (IV, De Bapt., xxii) and St. Bernard (Ep. Ixxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Desire.
Ask and you shall receive. Especially when we ask for something of God's Will.
This citation is completely distorted. Elsewhere, St. Ambrose explicitly taught that catechumens could not be saved with their desire. It's unknown what exactly he meant here, but it could be either 1) that there was a question regarding whether or not he could have received emergency Baptism as he was dying from someone close to him (since news didn't travel so well back then, especially the details) or 2) whether St. Ambrose was suggesting BoB, since Valentinian had been killed for rejecting Arianism.
Ask for Baptism, and you shall receive Baptism.
-
CMRI kicked Bishop Musey out, verbally attacked and slandered him in a public forum at Mount Saint Michael's. Once he realized the cult like tactics used to coerce vocations and the improper religious formation, he told them to disband for one year. He thought it was prudent to give them time to air out and decide without coercion if they truly had vocations. He called it Spiritual Incest. Those are the facts and he was very well aware of what occurred after listening to countless confused souls. One of the many problems with them is the lack of a proper formation. They are and always will be self taught. It is a mess and I am sorry for any person of good intention who has, is or did suffer in any way as a result of what happened. They have driven many good souls away. It is a tragedy and I pray for them all. Catholicism is logical and brings peace. Truth brings peace.
-
CMRI kicked Bishop Musey out, verbally attacked and slandered him in a public forum at Mount Saint Michael's. Once he realized the cult like tactics used to coerce vocations and the improper religious formation, he told them to disband for one year. He thought it was prudent to give them time to air out and decide without coercion if they truly had vocations. He called it Spiritual Incest. Those are the facts and he was very well aware of what occurred after listening to countless confused souls. One of the many problems with them is the lack of a proper formation. They are and always will be self taught. It is a mess and I am sorry for any person of good intention who has, is or did suffer in any way as a result of what happened. They have driven many good souls away. It is a tragedy and I pray for them all. Catholicism is logical and brings peace. Truth brings peace.
Thanks for the insight on their seminary problems EMSV!