Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2022 18:11:16 GMT -5
It seems now Bp Pivarunis is claiming that the Traditional Bishops are Successors to the Apostles:
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Dec 10, 2022 17:52:26 GMT -5
It seems now Bp Pivarunis is claiming that the Traditional Bishops are Successors to the Apostles: I caught this right away when I got the Adsum. I was and am very upset. That said, I have some thoughts: 1. This is a peacemaking/neutrality olive branch between the warring factions, which may be why des Lauriers was cited. 2. It is a sign that they are considering their position on the matter or already have one. 3. Perhaps terms are not yet defined here and the definition of mission, in terms of canon law, was not considered. Kind of like how some “trads” call a mass site a parish. 4. He believes, in some form, some of the errors about the status of traditional priests. Overall, I have had a good relationship with CMRI and it pains me that I would not be able to give them a whole-hearted recommendation.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2022 18:21:06 GMT -5
It seems now Bp Pivarunis is claiming that the Traditional Bishops are Successors to the Apostles: I caught this right away when I got the Adsum. I was and am very upset. That said, I have some thoughts: 1. This is a peacemaking/neutrality olive branch between the warring factions, which may be why des Lauriers was cited. 2. It is a sign that they are considering their position on the matter or already have one. 3. Perhaps terms are not yet defined here and the definition of mission, in terms of canon law, was not considered. Kind of like how some “trads” call a mass site a parish. 4. He believes, in some form, some of the errors about the status of traditional priests. Overall, I have had a good relationship with CMRI and it pains me that I would not be able to give them a whole-hearted recommendation. As someone with a very bad experience with a CMRI-trained and affiliated priest who is not fit to be one and was worse than anything I ever experienced from any other priest I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as an organisation. However I couldn't recommend the CMRI to anyone in my region before this happened. I wouldn't recommend them to anyone in any region seeking the Catholic faith now. The sede groups are one by one falling into public heresy. Many of the priests I have spoken to/messaged about this issue are clearly not ignorant about what the Church teaches, however they believe the teaching on Apostolic Succession is too difficult and are choosing to go their own way. That is their choice, but I won't follow them, nor can I support them in their actions. Without faith they cannot please God.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Dec 11, 2022 3:06:32 GMT -5
I caught this right away when I got the Adsum. I was and am very upset. That said, I have some thoughts: 1. This is a peacemaking/neutrality olive branch between the warring factions, which may be why des Lauriers was cited. 2. It is a sign that they are considering their position on the matter or already have one. 3. Perhaps terms are not yet defined here and the definition of mission, in terms of canon law, was not considered. Kind of like how some “trads” call a mass site a parish. 4. He believes, in some form, some of the errors about the status of traditional priests. Overall, I have had a good relationship with CMRI and it pains me that I would not be able to give them a whole-hearted recommendation. As someone with a very bad experience with a CMRI-trained and affiliated priest who is not fit to be one and was worse than anything I ever experienced from any other priest I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as an organisation. However I couldn't recommend the CMRI to anyone in my region before this happened. I wouldn't recommend them to anyone in any region seeking the Catholic faith now. The sede groups are one by one falling into public heresy. Many of the priests I have spoken to/messaged about this issue are clearly not ignorant about what the Church teaches, however they believe the teaching on Apostolic Succession is too difficult and are choosing to go their own way. That is their choice, but I won't follow them, nor can I support them in their actions. Without faith they cannot please God. Your approach may have been different than mine, aside from the serious issue to which you refer, and I do believe you. Generally, I do not write them (or any sede priests) and ask for personal positions. I do not take them into my confidence or have much interaction from them but rather, made my requests for the sacraments, raised my family, and did whatever I needed to do. I don’t get personal or go to them for problems or questions, I’ve always had approved texts for that. We generally leave after mass but will help out when asked. Over the years, I believe the way I have raised my children and conducted myself has spoken for itself and they have always done what I have requested (baptisms, First Communions). So zero problems on that end. But, I do not like this one bit and that’s why I am waiting to see how this all turns out before deciding my next course of action.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 11, 2022 10:54:23 GMT -5
It seems now Bp Pivarunis is claiming that the Traditional Bishops are Successors to the Apostles: I have a few thoughts on this: 1. This came as a great surprise to me, as CMRI prior to this, despite whatever faults they have, were at least theologically good. Whatever the issue they were facing, they relied on Pre-Vatican II sources to defend the Faith or any moral issue that arose, but this is a shift in positions, as far as I am aware at least, that has taken me off guard. It’s worth saying here to be clear, these new ideas on the apostolic succession being espoused in recent years have absolutely no theological support! I have never heard anything like this from CMRI and I have been following their statements and periodicals for a very long time. This is certainly something new and if they have been holding it before, it was not public. 2. For decades I have recommended CMRI to Catholics as they have always been a safe place to send them, at least in regards to their theology, their response to the crisis, and their not pretending that they have any authority, and that includes offices, in the Church. 3. The only source used by Bishop Pivarunas to justify his (apparent) new position was a reference to the late Bp. Gerard’s unproven belief “that the traditional clergy have the “missio” (mission) of the Catholic Church.” This is weak at best. Bp. Gerard would needed to have proven this according to Catholic theology, so it’s his proofs that matter, not his assertion. So if he did try to prove that, and I’m not aware that he did, let’s see his proofs, and whether they stand up to scrutiny, not his conclusion. 4. The idea of a mission and the apostolic succession are two different matters. Even a simple priest needs a mission. A successor of the Apostles of course must have a mission, but that’s just the beginning, he must be a ruling bishop who has an office in the Catholic Church. The successors of the Apostles cannot have just episcopal orders, they must also be the rulers. That’s what every source on his that can be found says. Fr. Cekada, who had a vast library and resources in 2012 could not defend his position, which is very closely related to this new theology of this statement, using any sources, he relied completely on his understanding of the facts of the crisis, and then challenged John Lane repeatedly to prove that the theology of the Church matched those alleged “facts.” 5. This statement does not say it is a theological position of CMRI as a whole, so I hope that it’s not widespread among the priests and laypeople who attend mass with them. It stands to reason, though, that if a leader of a group is saying this publicly, and no one in the group is disavowing it, then most likely many have adopted this belief or at minimum are not sure and are confused. I also hold some hope that this statement of Bp. Pivarunas was not well thought out and will be retracted. It’s never too late to have a second look and we all can make mistakes, so if this is just a mistake, and we can all hope so, then this matter can end, at least with CMRI, but as this new false doctrine is spreading, I don’t think this is by any means over, regardless of what happens with CMRI. 6. It appears to me, that similar to Fr. Cekada’s statements in 2012, this belief comes from a backwards theological approach. The way a Catholic must order his approach is to first believe all that the Church teaches, and that can be learned of course by the teachings of the magisterium, but in many matters it is more clearly understood more in depth with the approved explanations of the theologians commissioned by the Church, and then and only then does one apply the theology to the crisis. The backward approach that can easily lead one astray from orthodoxy is to put the apparent facts of the crisis first, and then make the theology fit the crisis. 7. It is with sadness that I must modify my recommendation of CMRI as a safe haven for Catholics. I am not telling anyone that they cannot go to mass there. I can’t do that anyway. All must make that judgment for themselves, but realize that this, in my opinion, is not a safe situation any longer as the leader is now claiming for himself, and other bishops, to be successors of the Apostles, and that on a scale of problems is huge. 8. The logical implicatIons of this development are many, but one is that if these “traditional” bishops are the only successors of the Apostles left, as Bp. Pivarunas implies in the statement, this could very easily lead to an illegal conclave. Fr. Desposito put out a public statement yesterday stating that there has been secret discussions among “totalists” moving towards such a conclave and he denounced it, as he rightly should have. He did not elaborate on who is involved in this new development, but it seems obvious to me that the persons involved believe the same erroneous idea on the apostolic succession as being espoused in the statement above. I am not by this saying that Bp. Pivarunas is involved and I certainly hope not, but this thinking lays the theological foundation for this course of action. I will have more to say on this new development in another post, and I will be moving this discussion to a new thread later. There is much more to be said here as this statement by Bishop Pivarunas needs more analysis and I want to discuss the entire statement that he made on this matter beyond the shorter quote above provided by Resolution.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 14:48:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2022 0:32:16 GMT -5
Your approach may have been different than mine, aside from the serious issue to which you refer, and I do believe you. Generally, I do not write them (or any seed priests) and ask for personal positions. I do not take them into my confidence or have much interaction from them but rather, made my requests for the sacraments, raised my family, and did whatever I needed to do. I don’t get personal or go to them for problems or questions, I’ve always had approved texts for that. We generally leave after mass but will help out when asked. Over the years, I believe the way I have raised my children and conducted myself has spoken for itself and they have always done what I have requested (baptisms, First Communions). So zero problems on that end. But, I do not like this one bit and that’s why I am waiting to see how this all turns out before deciding my next course of action. You are a lot more prudent than I am to be sure. I think that is the correct attitude to hold. I want to help, but I think just doing our duties is the most important thing we can do in these times.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 12, 2022 9:52:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Dec 12, 2022 22:04:00 GMT -5
Your approach may have been different than mine, aside from the serious issue to which you refer, and I do believe you. Generally, I do not write them (or any seed priests) and ask for personal positions. I do not take them into my confidence or have much interaction from them but rather, made my requests for the sacraments, raised my family, and did whatever I needed to do. I don’t get personal or go to them for problems or questions, I’ve always had approved texts for that. We generally leave after mass but will help out when asked. Over the years, I believe the way I have raised my children and conducted myself has spoken for itself and they have always done what I have requested (baptisms, First Communions). So zero problems on that end. But, I do not like this one bit and that’s why I am waiting to see how this all turns out before deciding my next course of action. You are a lot more prudent than I am to be sure. I think that is the correct attitude to hold. I want to help, but I think just doing our duties is the most important thing we can do in these times. Exactly. I do have anxiety for my children though, finding friends and spouses with a level head in all of this is going to be rare.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 13, 2022 8:14:55 GMT -5
" With regard to religion, the most pleasing of novelties are often the most dangerous. The reasons which support a doctrine do not render it Catholic;and until the Church has decided what is to be believed concerning such opinions, we should be careful neither to condemn them, nor speak favorably of them. " St Ignatius Loyola- advice to some of the Fathers at Trent
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 13, 2022 11:43:21 GMT -5
Bishop Pivarunas wrote:
What is said above is a true statement, and I agree with it, but what is left unsaid is who is part of the "false hierarchy of the Conciliar Church of Vatican II." This is where the problem lies, the statement appears to include every bishop on earth who claims an office in the Catholic Church, as part of this false hierarchy. But, there are many problems with this, as this has never been proven. I believe this is what he is intending to mean, as the rest of the statement goes along with this understanding, as why would the traditional bishops need to preserve the apostolic succession, when it's fully intact with some of the remaining office holders in the Church? The statement only makes sense if he is saying that every territorial Catholic bishop in the world has defected from the Faith and all sees are vacant.
Bishops do not automatically lose their office for cowardice, or inaction, or failing to defend the Faith. Secondly, guilt cannot be presumed, as there is no condemned sect, It must be shown on a case by case basis that each and every bishop in question has lost his office according to the high standard of showing them to be public heretics, (and by this I am also excluding statements or actions that would lead to a canonical suspicion of heresy, it must be heresy).
This argument is built on assumptions and rash judgment, not evidence. Whether these bishops are pathetic cowards, or have messed up on many Catholic principles, or are very liberal but are not heretics, or whether they are useless hirelings, is absolutely not the same as them being heretics. They simply do not lose their office automatically for any of these other crimes, it must be heresy or apostasy.
The next point is that the successors of the apostles is defined by the Church, not by the problems of this crisis. The successors must be the lawful rulers of the Church, they must, like the original apostles, who they are succeeding, teach, govern and sanctify. The traditional bishops do not govern and cannot govern as they have no office to govern. Therefore they are not identical to the Apostles, and are not their successors. The successors of the Apostles do not have universal jurisdiction, only over specific territory, and are not individually infallible, but they do individually possess the other characteristics of the original Apostles. If this idea were true, that the successors of the Apostles could be men, not identical to the originals, then there is an essential defect in the Church, as the new successors of the Apostles, the traditional bishops, do not possess the same characteristics as all other successors of the Apostles in Church history, and a new doctrine has been formed that clearly breaks with the past 2,000 years during this crisis.
I am not making this up, I am a nobody and I have no office or power in the Church to do anything. Don't listen to me or take my word for this! Read what the approved Catholic theologians say on this, over and over again, from many different points in time. It's the same thing. The successors of the Apostles who continue the Apostolic Succession must be the rulers in the Church, they must have the office of being a ruling bishop so that they are one with the Apostles.
The last point is that these successors of the Apostles, the ruling jurisdictional bishops can never be wanting in the Church. They are essential to the Church itself, and there can be no interruption in their presence in the world. They must be persons, not empty offices, as one priest publicly asserted. The theologians all say that these persons called the successors of the Apostles, the rulers of the Church are essential to the Church itself.
This new position being promoted recently is like a photocopy of the Church. It will look the same in almost every regard, with the sacraments, bishops, priests, almost all of the Apostolic doctrine but unlike the real Church it is not complete, it's missing something essential. This new almost identical church will be a very close imitation, and maybe even elect it's own "pope," but it will be not be the Church founded by Jesus Christ, just a very strong counterfeit, even more believable than the Conciliar sect, but still not the Catholic Church of all ages. What is being contemplated is a non-apostolic church, with a false claim to apostolicity based on a new a definition of the term.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 30, 2022 16:53:08 GMT -5
Someone asked me if this position as explained in the statement of Bp. Pivarunas might be something that he had not considered carefully enough as he published it in the Adsum, a newsletter, and not on the CMRI website, or as part of their theological position.
It's a good question, and as I said in my previous post on December 11th, I have the same hope, that Bp. Pivarunas, who prior to this statement in Nov., 2022, to the best of my knowledge has never made a claim to the apostolic succession for either himself or other "traditional" bishops, and wrote this without thinking deeply enough about what he is actually claiming and stating.
Any of us can make a mistake. I realize that, and I am not here to bash CMRI or Bp. Pivarunas if that is the case. Actually, I would have more a greater respect for him, if that's the case, as it takes humility to admit one is wrong, especially in public. So, the ball is in his court, so to speak. If he was mistaken, I hope he corrects the record, and all will be as before, and many will think even better of him than we already had, as he will show that he can and will humbly admit a mistake. If, however, this is a new position being espoused by him, and he truly believes it, and will not change, despite the evidence showing that he is wrong, then it does change things, with all of the consequences that will follow, which should be obvious.
Unless a retraction comes forward, my advice given on December 11th remains, that I am no longer recommending CMRI as a group, although the priests who are not believing this new position will be fine. I do not know who is who right now, as to any names. I also realize that no one needs to listen to me, so take my recommendation for what it's worth, as I, as one with no authority, cannot and will not tell anyone what to, and all I can state is my opinion and advice.
Time will tell, as to how this plays out, and all should pray for him.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2023 15:32:27 GMT -5
I know of two CMRI-affiliated priests who hold the position that the CMRI has actual jurisdiction in the Church above that of supplied jurisdiction both were trained by Bp Pivarunis. It is a similar position to that publicly held by some of the priests at SGG.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 2, 2023 12:47:28 GMT -5
I know of two CMRI-affiliated priests who hold the position that the CMRI has actual jurisdiction in the Church above that of supplied jurisdiction both were trained by Bp Pivarunis. It is a similar position to that publicly held by some of the priests at SGG. Anyone can assert anything. All claims to an office must be proven, not asserted. If they are claiming to have jurisdiction without an office that also must be proven.
|
|
Butterfly3
Junior Member
I need to remember to log onto this site every once in awhile.
Posts: 74
|
Post by Butterfly3 on Jan 3, 2023 13:56:47 GMT -5
It seems now Bp Pivarunis is claiming that the Traditional Bishops are Successors to the Apostles: Yes. There's no problem with that unless you're NO and/or post trads. Sedes are very on point with lineages. They can't break the line. I'm pretty sure sedes don't believe that the changed language of prayers is valid. Mist ppl question this. All bishops are apostles of christ. Well unless you speak errors and heresies then you're catholic in name only. I guess your talking about jurisdiction. That's a good point you should ask a priest about it instead of make up opinions what it could mean online. Not talking about personally you. I guess laity can talk Church politics but it might divide ppl saying it publicly
|
|