Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2023 10:31:17 GMT -5
This book will clearly show how the CMRI descend from schismatic bishops and therefore forfeit any claim to the title “Catholic” file.io/cuaQeUaylymg
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 7, 2023 11:18:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 7, 2023 11:32:14 GMT -5
The link is dead..said file was deleted
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 7, 2023 12:19:50 GMT -5
Generally speaking, I am hesitant to recommend anything by Fr. Cekada, as I do not trust his scholarship on many matters, but his older writings were very good, and it is this I am recommending which answers the charge of schism against CMRI: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/356/first-stone-cekada-1991
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2023 13:26:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 7, 2023 13:27:07 GMT -5
This book will clearly show how the CMRI descend from schismatic bishops and therefore forfeit any claim to the title “Catholic” file.io/cuaQeUaylymgWhat mass do you attend
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2023 13:35:50 GMT -5
This book will clearly show how the CMRI descend from schismatic bishops and therefore forfeit any claim to the title “Catholic” file.io/cuaQeUaylymgWhat mass do you attend SSPX, why?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 7, 2023 14:07:01 GMT -5
Its relevant...dont get huffy puffy
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 7, 2023 14:10:10 GMT -5
did you fix the link to your evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 7, 2023 15:49:39 GMT -5
Thank you. I will read it soon and give you feedback. I also request that you read the documents I posted above, which are very relevant to this. I know you are new here, so I want you to know this is not a pro-CMRI forum. The only interest we have on here is the truth. I do go to CMRI sometimes, for full disclosure, but I also attend SSPX, and Eastern Catholic Rites as well. From my reading and research into this charge against them, I think the allegation fails, but I will read the paper you have once you free access to it, with an open mind to the arguments.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Aug 7, 2023 17:10:08 GMT -5
Could you please make it open access so we don't need to log-in? Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2023 0:43:05 GMT -5
Could you please make it open access so we don't need to log-in? Thanks. Hopefully I fixed it
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 8, 2023 15:24:49 GMT -5
Dominus Vobiscum,
Thank you for posting your sources, I appreciate it. Those resources are very valuable for another reason, which I have been saying on here for a long time, that the acceptance of the +Thuc lines, along with the idea that it's licit to consecrate bishops, but especially bishop after bishop in our crisis, is extremely controversial and hardly settled.
I read the entire document. We have many of the documents on this site that were being discussed actually, such as "Two Bishops in Every Garage," and "The First Stone," as well as the paper of Fr. Cekada on the Old Catholics.
One key issue I have with the various documents is the conclusion that there was indeed a sect with the CMRI leadership under Francis Schuckardt, which is possible but I am not certain of it. The documents do not make a compelling case of that, at least to me. But, let's say for the sake of argument that a sect was formed, it would not have been a declared sect, as it was certainly a new sect, as all members were Catholics, and all are being accused of joining the sect. That certainly has not been proven.
It's one thing to join a known sect, one that is either condemned by the Church, or a break off of an already existent sect, but this is certainly not the case with the CMRI. They were Catholics who were resisting the Conciliar sect, but were amateurs and didn't know what they were doing. They were acting stupidly and certainly as a cult with their behavior and practices, but their desire was not to separate from the Church, but to remain within her.
The context of the early CMRI should make this clear, as it was the same background to the early SSPX and so many others who rejected the new sect, but the common thread is that they were haphazard in how the responded to it. They all acted differently, but none acted in any way that showed any sign that they actually had any deep grasp of how to correctly react to what they were witnessing. A simple way to say this: no one knew what they were doing in the late 1960's and 1970's.
In order to join a sect one must know they are joining a sect, and I contend that even if a sect was formed, by Schuckardt, and his leadership, that not a single Catholic who was affiliated with them wanted to join a sect and by that separate from the Church. The group they were adhering to was at a minimum an uncondemned sect, and the Catholics affiliating with it were not desiring to leave the Catholic Church by joining a sect. It's ridiculous to think that any of the Catholics, who by the way, were all Catholics in good standing with the Church, none of them excommunicated by name, wanted to leave the Church and join a sect. There is no evidence to support this.
Most Catholics are simple, they do not understand much on many issues. In a recent thread, I made this observation, that very few Catholics have any idea of the necessity of faculties for confession, and very few have any clue of when those faculties are not present in the confessor, how the jurisdiction is being supplied to the confessor by the Church or under what circumstances, yet they easily line up for confession, just trusting and not understanding any of this. I really doubt most would even know that jurisdiction is even necessary, for that matter!
When Daniel Q. Brown consecrated Schuckardt, do you really think any Catholics affiliated with the group were saying, "great, now that this is done, and remaining in communion with Schuckdart, I am no longer a Catholic, and I am now formally part of the Old Catholic Sect!" Did any of the people there say that? So, why assume that about them? The Church makes no such assumptions about a Catholic leaving the Church and joining a sect. The canonists are clear that they must know it's a sect. But CMRI did not in any way identify itself as a sect, and Rome, (and I mean real Rome) did not condemn the leaders of the group, most especially Francis Schuckardt, so all people going there must be presumed innocent, not guilty of joining a sect, if even one existed in the first place.
The actions of early CMRI may be been stupid and haphazard, but the reason for these actions were clearly not to separate from the Church. As stated above, even if a sect were formed, it's clear that only Francis Schuckardt and those who knowingly grasped the matters involved would have been members, not the entire group of Catholics affiliating with it, who were by all appearances oblivious as to the serious issues involved with this group.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 8, 2023 20:23:54 GMT -5
Years ago, I put together some sources that explain how one that was once a Catholic joins a sect. When I did this, I had in mind Catholics who were affiliated with the undeclared Conciliar sect, but the principles apply just was well to other scenarios, including the Catholics affiliated with the CMRI in the earlier days under Francis Schuckardt. tradcath.proboards.com/thread/666/non-catholics-sects
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 9, 2023 14:18:22 GMT -5
This is greatly underestimated and always overlooked point.It is the very crux of this crisis
|
|