I'll say  this much.  While I suspect that both the Thuc and Mendez lines are valid, BOTH of these lines look comparatively clownish, and riddled with scandal, as compared to that of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Lefebvre seems to have done everything by the book as much as possible.  A man of conviction.  Both of these others seem "sketchy."

If I were Latin Rite, I would attend an SSPX.  Honestly, very possibly even if I was Sedevacantist, I might still do so (and just sort of stay  quiet about it) becuase the Lefebvre lines just seem so much more safer.  I'm not persuaded either the Thuc or Mendez line are more safe than the Novus Ordo ones (though I assume the validity of all of them.)

In the debate between Cekada and Jenkins, Fr Cekada attempts to show that Fr Jenkins breaks cannon law by refusing communion to those associated with thuc liners, he gives the cannon and the 4 requirements (only 1 of 4 have to apply) for a priest to refuse communion and, at first glance, it seems Fr. Cekada has pinned Fr. Jenkins into a corner. However, Fr. Jenkins asks him, brilliantly, “would you give Holy Communion to someone wearing a baseball cap?” To which Fr. Cekada replies “no, he would fall under public sinner” but wearing a baseball cap isn’t a public sin.

You have a double standard, and that's often referred to as hypocrisy.  You condemn the CMRI for excommunicating the SSPX (at least according to your one source), but then claim it's perfectly OK for the SSPV to do the same thing.

The idiocy of Father Cekada's response has to do with the fact that wearing a baseball cap is not public sin, but it could theoretically fall under the requirement for the priest to maintain the proper decorum of Holy Communion.  It's not in the realm of "public sin" as Father Cekada claims.

SSPV made up this allegation that the CMRI are schismatic (Old Catholic) and then made up this nonsense about Thuc-line orders being invalid.  Father Kelly is known to have refused the Last Sacraments to a dying person who was sympathetic to Feeneyism.  When priest like those of the SSPV start excommunicating people, they are making themselves mini popes, and it's a schismatic tendency.

Now, if, as you alleged, the CMRI has effectively excommunicated the SSPX, then they're wrong too.  But they're both wrong.  Your hypocrisy comes from the fact that you think it's perfectly OK for the SSPV to do this but not the CMRI.

It's clear that the SSPV pray on the scrupulous, fan the flames of negative doubt and try to legitimize it, and thereby engage in a mass brainwashing program.  You are a victim, CIA.

You have a double standard, and that's often referred to as hypocrisy.  You condemn the CMRI for excommunicating the SSPX (at least according to your one source), but then claim it's perfectly OK for the SSPV to do the same thing.

The idiocy of Father Cekada's response has to do with the fact that wearing a baseball cap is not public sin, but it could theoretically fall under the requirement for the priest to maintain the proper decorum of Holy Communion.  It's not in the realm of "public sin" as Father Cekada claims.

SSPV made up this allegation that the CMRI are schismatic (Old Catholic) and then made up this nonsense about Thuc-line orders being invalid.  Father Kelly is known to have refused the Last Sacraments to a dying person who was sympathetic to Feeneyism.  When priest like those of the SSPV start excommunicating people, they are making themselves mini popes, and it's a schismatic tendency.

Now, if, as you alleged, the CMRI has effectively excommunicated the SSPX, then they're wrong too.  But they're both wrong.  Your hypocrisy comes from the fact that you think it's perfectly OK for the SSPV to do this but not the CMRI.

It's clear that the SSPV pray on the scrupulous, fan the flames of negative doubt and try to legitimize it, and thereby engage in a mass brainwashing program.  You are a victim, CIA.

You say the sspv started all this false information.... you and I both know that’s not tru. Fr. Cekada called them untouchable in an article in 1983 and after Fr. Jenkins, Fr. Jelly, and Fr. Sanborns trip to Germany they all mutually agreed they couldn’t be associated with them. Even after Fr Sanborn left, he refused to attend the consecration of Dolan. 
You may view wht the sspv does as wrong, but it is totally different from what the CMRI does. The CMRI tells people not to go to the sspx because they are non Catholics. The sspv says not o go to thuc line because it is doubtful and tainted with schism. The CMRI raises thuc to be a hero, the sspv knows the true hero is lefebvre. The sspv lets people decide for themselves on sedevacantism because they don’t have to authority to bind people to it, the CMRI says if you aren’t sedevacantist you aren’t Catholic. Now with the una cuм issue, if they say “don’t go” that’s one thing, but they don’t just do that. They call it a MORTAL SIN. That is the definition of making your own sect. 

Utterly Idiotic.  I could spend 10 paragraphs ripping this nonsense you just posted to shreds, but I'm not going to waste my breath on someone who is willingly being duped.

PS -- your allegation regarding the CMRI could well be slanderous.  I know people who regularly (daily) assist at una cuм Masses with the blessing of their CMRI priest.  But that's par for the course for the SSPV ... slandering and calumniating their enemies.

Even if the CMRI DID hold that it's wrong to attend una cuм Masses, it's not because they're a sect, but, rather, for theological reasons, because they consider the Novus Ordo to be a non-Catholic sect ... an opinion with the SSPV shares, by the way.  SSPV call the Novus Ordo a non-Catholic religion.  Whereas the SSPV say it's OK to offer Mass in communion with said non-Catholic religion, the CMRI (again, granting that you're not calumniating them with bad information) have decided that it's not OK ... a mere theological disagreement.

I will not respond to what you have said any further because of the first paragraph of this text I am quoting.
“Utterly Idiotic.  I could spend 10 paragraphs ripping this nonsense you just posted to shreds, but I'm not going to waste my breath on someone who is willingly being duped.”

    - why is this personal attack needed? Willingly being duped? I have already said that not once, never in my life, have I talked to any sspv clergy about the thuc issue aside from telling a priest that the CMRI is taking over a chapel in NY. You say that I am being duped but I have read every article written by Fr cekada on the thuc bishops written towards the sspv. What makes you think I am being duped? Is it because I actually read the responses of the sspv to these claims? The real people being duped are those who are told that thuc was a perfect bishop with no holes and who arguably was a better version of lefebvre. Nonsense!
      You accuse me of slander but you tout the same lies about Mendez that Fr cekada and Sanborn do! I responded to you point by point and yiu still call me brainwashed. 

If you're truly interested in knowing the truth about the CMRI's position on Una cuм, perhaps you should check what the Superior General of CMRI actually says regarding the una cuм issue rather than base your opinion of the CMRI on some random person's comments:

Bp. Mark Pivarunas and his brethren, of the C.M.R.I., have provided the following statement in relation to so-called “una cuм” Masses, to be appended to this article.

"The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (C.M.R.I.) holds that the Catholic faithful may petition the Sacraments from traditional Catholic priests who unfortunately offer their Masses "una cuм" (John Paul II).

"Although C.M.R.I. does not accept John Paul II as a legitimate successor of St. Peter, it does not consider such traditional priests (who offer "una cuм" Masses) as schismatic. For, if such priests were schismatic in the canonical sense of the word, then they would be required, upon their recognition of the vacancy of the Apostolic See, to abjure their error and be received back into the Church.

"Nevertheless, it has never been the practice of any traditional bishop or priest to require this abjuration of error of any priest who at one time mistakenly recognized John Paul II as a true pope.

"This does not mean that C.M.R.I. in any way endorses the theological contradiction of those traditional priests who maintain that John Paul II is a true pope.

"Lastly, we exhort the faithful to use great discretion when they approach such priests for the Sacraments. This is especially true in regard to their children, who may be confused by their erroneous opinions on the Papacy and on the infallibility of the Church."

Bp. Mark Pivarunas, C.M.R.I., Superior General
The Priests of C.M.R.I.
August 10, 2002


Of course, based on your posts thus far on this forum, I don't believe for one second that you have any interest in knowing the truth about CMRI.

I know this isn't related to the quote directly, but I'm just asking.  Does the CMRI deny communion to Catholics who aren't sedevacantists?  What do they require from those to whom they give communion?  Thanks.

If you're truly interested in knowing the truth about the CMRI's position on Una cuм, perhaps you should check what the Superior General of CMRI actually says regarding the una cuм issue rather than base your opinion of the CMRI on some random person's comments:

Bp. Mark Pivarunas and his brethren, of the C.M.R.I., have provided the following statement in relation to so-called “una cuм” Masses, to be appended to this article.

"The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (C.M.R.I.) holds that the Catholic faithful may petition the Sacraments from traditional Catholic priests who unfortunately offer their Masses "una cuм" (John Paul II).

"Although C.M.R.I. does not accept John Paul II as a legitimate successor of St. Peter, it does not consider such traditional priests (who offer "una cuм" Masses) as schismatic. For, if such priests were schismatic in the canonical sense of the word, then they would be required, upon their recognition of the vacancy of the Apostolic See, to abjure their error and be received back into the Church.

"Nevertheless, it has never been the practice of any traditional bishop or priest to require this abjuration of error of any priest who at one time mistakenly recognized John Paul II as a true pope.

"This does not mean that C.M.R.I. in any way endorses the theological contradiction of those traditional priests who maintain that John Paul II is a true pope.

"Lastly, we exhort the faithful to use great discretion when they approach such priests for the Sacraments. This is especially true in regard to their children, who may be confused by their erroneous opinions on the Papacy and on the infallibility of the Church."

Bp. Mark Pivarunas, C.M.R.I., Superior General
The Priests of C.M.R.I.
August 10, 2002

http://www.sedevacantist.com/una_cuм.html

Of course, based on your posts thus far on this forum, I don't believe for one second that you have any interest in knowing the truth about CMRI.

I will retract my statement about the CMRI and una cuм masses. Everything else (from my OP) still stands.

This settles it, CIA.  You need to set straight whoever you got your bad information from.  As I said, I know a CMRI priest around here who has no issues with their parishioners seeking the Sacraments from an una cuм priest.  Was this some lay person who attends CMRI?  Or was it someone from the +Dolan / Cekada camp.  Although +Dolan was consecrated by Pivarunas, they are not actually CMRI.

The person who said it is the European version of CMRI. IMBC or something. I thought (because of twitter) that the CMRI was vehemently anti una cuм but it turns out it is just cekada Dolan and Sanborn. 

   - why is this personal attack needed? Willingly being duped? I have already said that not once, never in my life, have I talked to any sspv clergy about the thuc issue aside from telling a priest that the CMRI is taking over a chapel in NY. You say that I am being duped but I have read every article written by Fr cekada on the thuc bishops written towards the sspv. What makes you think I am being duped? Is it because I actually read the responses of the sspv to these claims? The real people being duped are those who are told that thuc was a perfect bishop with no holes and who arguably was a better version of lefebvre. Nonsense!
      You accuse me of slander but you tout the same lies about Mendez that Fr cekada and Sanborn do! I responded to you point by point and yiu still call me brainwashed.

It's because you have demonstrated clear intellectual dishonesty.

Nobody ever said that Thuc was a PERFECT bishop.  What we're saying is that there's zero proof that he was not mentally competent to validly consecrate and ordain.  And that any imprudent (arguably even sinful) behavior on his part has absolutely nothing to do with validity.

If you wanted to argue that there's a relevant difference between the (now-shown-to-be-mythical) "excommunication" of una cuм Catholics by the CMRI and the effective excommunication of Catholics by the SSPV, that's one thing, but you ridiculous assert that these are TOTALLY different.  Your readiness to believe one clown's statement about the CMRI also shows you as prone to confirmation bias (aka intellectual dishonesty).

Based on your uncritical acceptance of anything SSPV, my guess is that you're contemplating entering their seminary (or, rather, it's the "Congregation" now).  As for Mendez, the core facts bout Mendez are well established and docuмented.  Many of them, especially the questions about his mental competence after the stroke, came out in sworn affidavits during the legal proceedings from Bishop Mendez' family after his death.  No lies are being told about Bishop Mendez.