|The CMRI and their validity
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||Ghislieri [ Mon May 26, 2014 9:32 pm ]|
|Post subject:||The CMRI and their validity|
Hello all. I would just like to say first that I am new to the SV position and have been an admirer of Mr. Daly and Mr. Lane's writings for quite some time. I have a question that I know has been addressed before, but I need a little more education.
Why do the SSPV attack their (CMRI) line so vigorously? They seem to focus on the fact that Archbishop Thuc consecrated some unworhty canidates and therefore excommunicated himself, and then state that if anyone goes to their masses, they would be themselves be excommunicated.
Is there anything to this? I have been going to a CMRI chapel recently, but have not received communion yet, and this issue has been gnawing at me. Help! Thanks!
|Author:||James Schroepfer [ Mon May 26, 2014 10:04 pm ]|
|Post subject:||Re: The CMRI amd their validity|
www.thucbishops.com and Father Cekada's articles at traditionalmass.org
I highly suggest if you are struggling with this to watch the video presentations on this site. If you are a reader dig in. The 100 page letter is excellent in laying the details out over the issue. I started going to the CMRI just a couple of years ago. I have read not only the books but many of the cited sources of both The Sacred and The Profane as well as the 100 page letter to Bishop Kelley cite. The SSPV has maintain their position in spite of many new facts coming to light, and my own conclusion is that the CMRI orders are valid. From my understanding of sacramental theology, once the fact of the ordination has taken place, the validity of the orders must be viewed as valid unless there is positive doubt in either the matter, form, intention so the burden of proof of a defect is on the SSPV. They try to switch it around if you talk to them trying to shift this burden of proof to the laity.
Father Cekada does an excellent job from cited sources laying out the principles and laws Catholic laity should follow when trying to understand this issue. The SSPV on the other hand, other than their one bias book which relies primarily on the testimony of two witnesses who both switched their stance on the issue to support the CMRI later on, offers very little as far as Church teaching on the subject. Instead Bishop Kelley relies upon emotions raised by NEGATIVE doubts to scare the reader into thinking he cannot approach a Thuc-line priest for sacraments.
There is nothing to this to my knowledge, and personally I feel it is work of the devil to keep traditional Catholics, especially sedevacantists, fighting amongst each other. If you have any thoughts or questions I would be happy to try and help. I suggest though, you first start with going through the background material found at www.thucbishops.com and see if that can answer some of your concerns.
|Author:||Ghislieri [ Tue May 27, 2014 3:22 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: The CMRI and their validity|
Thanks, James. I have read just about all of the defenses by Mr. Derksen, and have seen and read Fr. Cekada's defenses as well. Just trying to put some attacks made against me by some SSPV attendee's in perspective. I thanks you for your personal insights.
|Author:||James Schroepfer [ Tue May 27, 2014 4:47 pm ]|
|Post subject:||Re: The CMRI and their validity|
I think it unfortunately falls under pride. I asked Bishop Santey why the SSPV will not respond to the 100 page letter, and he told me he did not feel a layman was worthy of a response. Many of the SSPV attendees have only looked at the question from the perspective of Bishop Kelly. Most have not even read The Sacred and the Profane, they just have heard passing bits and pieces and formed an emotional response based on what they have heard. All the SSPV members I have gotten to actually examine both sides, which is not many, will admit Bishop Kelly seems very bias in his information and analysis. The several have also come to the opposite conclusion of Kelly's that the priests and bishops of the Thuc-line are valid.
There is a pride often in their laity as the laity often still view the Novus Ordo Church as the Catholic Church. The perspective taken then is that the SSPV and Traditional Catholics are just better than them. It is kinda like the Anglican High Church verses the Low. So they hold to the Traditions of the faith more from a feeling of pride, this feeling we are better than you, than the knowledge it is the truth. Often I find, at least in the younger generation, no understanding or a very limited one of the differences between the Catholic faith and the Novus Ordo faith. They will just say "I am a SSPVer because I hold onto Tradition'" but they cannot tell you really what that Tradition even is compared to the new religion.
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group