Author Topic: Father Pinaud (Read 5728 times)

Ambrose · « **on:** May 03, 2014, 12:29:53 AM »

The other thread about the awful manner in which Fr. Pinaud was treated makes me wonder if he has given any thought to working with or joining CMRI.

CMRI currently operates almost 60 chapels and mass locations in the United States alone, and is very active internationally, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, etc.

The CMRI could really use good priests to keep meeting the needs of so many Catholics who keep calling them to expand into their areas but they are already spread thin.

The CMRI does not require priests who work with them to join their order, that decision is totally for the individual priest to make. Many CMRI priests are secular priests who are priests affiliated with CMRI but not religious. They work with CMRI, live in their rectories, receive their assignments from the leadership, but ate free to leave, as they are not religious. Also, some former SSPX priests also assist CMRI, but on an as needed basis.

If this sounds like a good option for Fr. Pinaud, Bp. Pivarunas is a very approachable and good leader, and the CMRI is thriving and growing exponentially under his leadership. They operate under a solid pre-Vatican II rule, and their priests are all hard working zealous priests who are actively working all over the place to save souls.

The CMRI would offer any good priest an assignment to do God's work, and I strongly recommend him to at least think about this, and if possible visit St. Michael's in Washington, their flagship church, and speak you the priests, or visit Bp. Pivarunas in Omaha, NE and speak with him directly ask questions and learn more about them.

(No CMRI member spoke to me about this, it is just my own thoughts and opinion, for what it's worth.)

pbax · « **Reply #1 on:** May 03, 2014, 03:15:30 AM »

Why would you ever think Father would want to join a Sedevacantist group?

Defender · « **Reply #2 on:** May 03, 2014, 07:12:29 AM »

Quote from: pbax

Why would you ever think Father would want to join a Sedevacantist group?

Father Pinaud announced publicly in Quebec his intention of taking over the work of Fr Raffalli who is a sedevacantist.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #3 on:** May 03, 2014, 10:18:20 AM »

Quote from: pbax

Why would you ever think Father would want to join a Sedevacantist group?

Perhaps the R&R position no longer makes sense to him?

Mabel · « **Reply #4 on:** May 03, 2014, 11:56:07 AM »

I think they should at least get in touch and exchange notes. I know of several places in Canada where CMRI priests travel to do mass just for one family, when they can. It is hard to believe but some people are not aware of all the masses out there.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #5 on:** May 03, 2014, 07:29:16 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

The other thread about the awful manner in which Fr. Pinaud was treated makes me wonder if he has given any thought to working with or joining CMRI.

CMRI currently operates almost 60 chapels and mass locations in the United States alone, and is very active internationally, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, etc.

The CMRI could really use good priests to keep meeting the needs of so many Catholics who keep calling them to expand into their areas but they are already spread thin.

The CMRI does not require priests who work with them to join their order, that decision is totally for the individual priest to make. Many CMRI priests are secular priests who are priests affiliated with CMRI but not religious. They work with CMRI, live in their rectories, receive their assignments from the leadership, but ate free to leave, as they are not religious. Also, some former SSPX priests also assist CMRI, but on an as needed basis.

If this sounds like a good option for Fr. Pinaud, Bp. Pivarunas is a very approachable and good leader, and the CMRI is thriving and growing exponentially under his leadership. They operate under a solid pre-Vatican II rule, and their priests are all hard working zealous priests who are actively working all over the place to save souls.

The CMRI would offer any good priest an assignment to do God's work, and I strongly recommend him to at least think about this, and if possible visit St. Michael's in Washington, their flagship church, and speak you the priests, or visit Bp. Pivarunas in Omaha, NE and speak with him directly ask questions and learn more about them.

(No CMRI member spoke to me about this, it is just my own thoughts and opinion, for what it's worth.)

I attend an SSPX chapel now out of necessity.

When traveling to Spokane/Post Falls the decision is very simple... it is St. Michael's or Mary Immaculate Queen.

If I were Fr. Pinaud there would be no question where I would hang my Biretta.

Bernardus · « **Reply #6 on:** May 04, 2014, 01:42:13 PM »

Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.

The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...

holysoulsacademy · « **Reply #7 on:** May 04, 2014, 02:07:09 PM »

Quote from: Bernardus

Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.

The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...

SSPX IS insinuating that ex-SSPX and other non-indult/FSSP trads are by default sedevacantist BECAUSE they DO NOT ATTEND any of the abovementioned.

They keep repeating that mantra just like the NO repeated the mantra "schismatic" of anyone attending SSPX.

Demonize is the right word, as that is the only way they can make themselves appear angelic.

Ambrose · « **Reply #8 on:** May 04, 2014, 02:25:20 PM »

Quote from: Ferdinand

Quote from: Ambrose
The other thread about the awful manner in which Fr. Pinaud was treated makes me wonder if he has given any thought to working with or joining CMRI.

CMRI currently operates almost 60 chapels and mass locations in the United States alone, and is very active internationally, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, etc.

The CMRI could really use good priests to keep meeting the needs of so many Catholics who keep calling them to expand into their areas but they are already spread thin.

The CMRI does not require priests who work with them to join their order, that decision is totally for the individual priest to make. Many CMRI priests are secular priests who are priests affiliated with CMRI but not religious. They work with CMRI, live in their rectories, receive their assignments from the leadership, but ate free to leave, as they are not religious. Also, some former SSPX priests also assist CMRI, but on an as needed basis.

If this sounds like a good option for Fr. Pinaud, Bp. Pivarunas is a very approachable and good leader, and the CMRI is thriving and growing exponentially under his leadership. They operate under a solid pre-Vatican II rule, and their priests are all hard working zealous priests who are actively working all over the place to save souls.

The CMRI would offer any good priest an assignment to do God's work, and I strongly recommend him to at least think about this, and if possible visit St. Michael's in Washington, their flagship church, and speak you the priests, or visit Bp. Pivarunas in Omaha, NE and speak with him directly ask questions and learn more about them.

(No CMRI member spoke to me about this, it is just my own thoughts and opinion, for what it's worth.)

I attend an SSPX chapel now out of necessity.

When traveling to Spokane/Post Falls the decision is very simple... it is St. Michael's or Mary Immaculate Queen.

If I were Fr. Pinaud there would be no question where I would hang my Biretta.

I agree, and in my opinion, CMRI is going to be the standard bearer holding the ground for Catholics unti a Pope comes again. The SSPX has always stood their ground against the Conciliar church, but as that resolve weakens, God will use others. CMRI is growing all over the place, and they are training and ordaining many young men for the priesthood.

If I were to advise any young man right now who may have a vocation, I would urge him to go to the CMRI minor seminary in Idaho if he were a teenager, and to go to the major seminary in Omaha if he was older than 18. The CMRI even retrained and conditionally ordained a Novus Ordo priest recently who is residing at St. Michaels in Washington.

Ambrose · « **Reply #9 on:** May 04, 2014, 02:31:23 PM »

Quote from: Bernardus

Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.

The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...

Good post, but in our current climate, being labelled as a sedevacantist is more often a compliment than a slur against someone. The winds are changing, the Conciliar church and it's false "popes" are coming crashing down, and more and more Catholics are finally seeing the whole picture.

The false arguments against the position of "sedevacante" have been debunked and the truth is now shining more clearly. So long as Francis the Pretender claims the Papacy, this trend will only continue. He has shown Catholics the truth with his words and deeds and has done more to make this truth known more than all of us "sedevacatists" combined. Life is full of ironies.

Bernardus · « **Reply #10 on:** May 04, 2014, 02:54:41 PM »

Quote

Good post, but in our current climate, being labelled as a sedevacantist is more often a compliment than a slur against someone. The winds are changing, the Conciliar church and it's false "popes" are coming crashing down, and more and more Catholics are finally seeing the whole picture.

The false arguments against the position of "sedevacante" have been debunked and the truth is now shining more clearly. So long as Francis the Pretender claims the Papacy, this trend will only continue. He has shown Catholics the truth with his words and deeds and has done more to make this truth known more than all of us "sedevacatists" combined. Life is full of ironies.

I agree with you Ambrose, but I was writing that for the 'Resistance' people of Quebec that are being mislead by a small minority. For the Lefebvrists, being label a 'sedevacantist' is worst than being Novus Ordo or SSP. They try to categorize Fathers Pinaud and Rioult as sedevacantists without knowing that one SSPX priest in Quebec for the last 10 years is also 'non una cuм'!

I'm just stating the facts right. Fathers Pinaud and Rioult are not sedevacantists. They don't name Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass and Father Pinaud didn't name him in the Good Friday second Oremus for the Pope. He red the Oremus, but didn't say 'Franciscus'.

Unbrandable · « **Reply #11 on:** May 04, 2014, 04:32:05 PM »

Quote from: Bernardus

I'm just stating the facts right. Fathers Pinaud and Rioult are not sedevacantists. They don't name Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass and Father Pinaud didn't name him in the Good Friday second Oremus for the Pope. He red the Oremus, but didn't say 'Franciscus'.

Last sentence of Eleison Comments #353:

"True priests should neither flirt with Rome today, Nor cut the Pope out of their Mass, I say."

Louis · « **Reply #12 on:** May 04, 2014, 04:34:45 PM »

Last sentence of Eleison Comments #353:

"True priests should neither flirt with Rome today, Nor cut the Pope out of their Mass, I say."

You forgot the "I say": an opinion of Bishop Williamson only his opinion.

Ambrose · « **Reply #13 on:** May 04, 2014, 05:13:36 PM »

Quote from: Bernardus

Quote
Good post, but in our current climate, being labelled as a sedevacantist is more often a compliment than a slur against someone. The winds are changing, the Conciliar church and it's false "popes" are coming crashing down, and more and more Catholics are finally seeing the whole picture.

The false arguments against the position of "sedevacante" have been debunked and the truth is now shining more clearly. So long as Francis the Pretender claims the Papacy, this trend will only continue. He has shown Catholics the truth with his words and deeds and has done more to make this truth known more than all of us "sedevacatists" combined. Life is full of ironies.

I agree with you Ambrose, but I was writing that for the 'Resistance' people of Quebec that are being mislead by a small minority. For the Lefebvrists, being label a 'sedevacantist' is worst than being Novus Ordo or SSP. They try to categorize Fathers Pinaud and Rioult as sedevacantists without knowing that one SSPX priest in Quebec for the last 10 years is also 'non una cuм'!

I'm just stating the facts right. Fathers Pinaud and Rioult are not sedevacantists. They don't name Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass and Father Pinaud didn't name him in the Good Friday second Oremus for the Pope. He red the Oremus, but didn't say 'Franciscus'.

Good post, but if I may add, that you should refer to them as neo-Lefebvrists. Archbishop Lefebvre was not an anti-sedevacantist, and was clearly moving towards declaring the seat vacant himself by 1986. The fact that he did not, does not mean that he swayed the other way against realizing that John Paul II was not a Pope.

The post Lefebvre SSPX is living in historical revisionism. Archbishop Lefebvre illustrated his thinking on the matter in very clear terms and explained Catholic teaching on the matter with crispness and clarity. If you read the link below, you may realize that there is absolutely no difference between Archbishop Lefebvre's principles and that of St. Robert Bellarmine.

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Archbishop-Lefebvre-1986-Address-to-Seminarians

Defender · « **Reply #14 on:** May 04, 2014, 05:24:28 PM »

Quote from: Bernardus

Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.

The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...

The 'non una cuм' position is just the new "branding" name of sedevacantism...