Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen

  • Thread starter Thread starter maryalene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sir_galahad said:
What I meant is that the CMIQ worships and believes in a manner very similar to traditional Roman rite Catholics who are in good standing with Rome, but the CMIQ won’t accept the authority of the Pope and tend to be a bit harsh and reactionary in their view toward those who are in full union with the Pope. Isn’t that sort of like the relationship between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox? I’m not being sarcastic… not being an Eastern Catholic I’d like to know where I went wrong.
Click to expand...
The difference lies in the fact that the Orthodox do not say that the current Mass is invalid nor do they question the Church’s right to modify the Liturgy.
 
Thursday1 said:
And their rejection of the Validity of the nominative Mass of the Church.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
Click to expand...
Yes, true enough. Rejecting the validity Novus Ordo is a heresy.

Still doesnt mean I have to like it though…
 
Yes, true enough. Rejecting the validity Novus Ordo is a heresy.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but they are in schism and not in union with the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
You know that heresy and schism are two different things. They reject the claimants to the papacy…where is the schism or heresy?

Even if, in the end, they are proved wrong…there is no heresy or schism. The orthodox reject the primacy of the pope, and after the definitions of Vatican I, they are heretics. The protestants reject all sorts of Catholic Dogmas.

What does CMRI reject that makes them heretics? Is their “schism” truly a rejection of the primacy of the pope or a denial of the papacy?

Consider these questions carefully before you caluminate this group.
 
Well, after reviewing their website, I agree with most of the posters here. I did some more looking and found a TLM offered weekly at one of our diocese’s parishes so I think I’ll try that one.

One other question though - what are Feeneyites? I am not familiar with that term. I apologize if I am asking silly questions but I appreciate everyone’s time. Thanks again!
 
maryalene said:
One other question though - what are Feeneyites? I am not familiar with that term. I apologize if I am asking silly questions but I appreciate everyone’s time. Thanks again!
Click to expand...
They were followers of a Fr. Feeney who denied Baptism by desire. They said water Baptism was absolutely necessary. Their error was condemned by the Holy Office under Pius XII. So now, anyone with that view is usually called a Feeneyite, even if they don’t actually have historic roots to that specific movement.
 
gorman64 said:
You know that heresy and schism are two different things. They reject the claimants to the papacy…where is the schism or heresy?

Even if, in the end, they are proved wrong…there is no heresy or schism. The orthodox reject the primacy of the pope, and after the definitions of Vatican I, they are heretics. The protestants reject all sorts of Catholic Dogmas.

What does CMRI reject that makes them heretics? Is their “schism” truly a rejection of the primacy of the pope or a denial of the papacy?

Consider these questions carefully before you caluminate this group.
Click to expand...
Here is what the Catechism says.

2089 *Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

So they are in schism because they refuse to submit to the Pope and are not in communion with the Church, they are heretics because they deny that the Pope is actually the Pope and make the claim that the Mass is invalid, which goes against the Canons of the Council of Trent.

Council of Trent
SESSION THE TWENTY-SECOND
ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

**CANON IV.–**If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.
**CANON VI.–**If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
 
Council of Trent
SESSION THE TWENTY-SECOND
ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
Click to expand...
CANON IV.–If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.
CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
Do you really believe that these canons apply to the Novus Ordo Missae? Was Trent defending the Novus Ordo? Does CMRI use the Traditional Mass that Trent is referring to here?

I can quote sections of Trent that condemn much of what the the Novus Ordo stands for…have you considered that as well. Don’t use the Council of Trent as merely a source of “proof texts” for your defense of the NOM. Read it all.
 
gorman64 said:
Do you really believe that these canons apply to the Novus Ordo Missae? Was Trent defending the Novus Ordo? Does CMRI use the Traditional Mass that Trent is referring to here?

I can quote sections of Trent that condemn much of what the the Novus Ordo stands for…have you considered that as well. Don’t use the Council of Trent as merely a source of “proof texts” for your defense of the NOM. Read it all.
Click to expand...
The Council of Trent anathematized anyone who suggested that any of the rites or outward signs the Church establishes as discipline might lead the faithful to impiety. That applies to ANY of them.
 
gorman64 said:
Do you really believe that these canons apply to the Novus Ordo Missae? Was Trent defending the Novus Ordo? Does CMRI use the Traditional Mass that Trent is referring to here?

I can quote sections of Trent that condemn much of what the the Novus Ordo stands for…have you considered that as well. Don’t use the Council of Trent as merely a source of “proof texts” for your defense of the NOM. Read it all.
Click to expand...
Well then, in that case, do you personally consider the Novus Ordo legitimate, or not?
 
Thursday1 said:
And their rejection of the Validity of the nominative Mass of the Church.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
Click to expand...
That is correct. There is a difference between constructive criticism of certain aspects of the NO, and the outright denial of its validity.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
The Council of Trent anathematized anyone who suggested that any of the rites or outward signs the Church establishes as discipline might lead the faithful to impiety. That applies to ANY of them.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The Mass is the Mass regardless of Rite as long as the Church regards it as valid. The Council of Trent was speaking of the Mass itself, not a particular Rite.
 
The Council of Trent anathematized anyone who suggested that any of the rites or outward signs the Church establishes as discipline might lead the faithful to impiety. That applies to ANY of them.
Click to expand...
The whole question is whether the NO is a Catholic rite. It is because they believe that the disciplines of the Church cannot lead to or be a source of impiety…that they say this new rite could not have come from the Church. I think CMRI is very aware of the idea of disciplinary infallibility (even if it is an indirect infallibility).
 
Caesar said:
Indeed. The Mass is the Mass regardless of Rite as long as the Church regards it as valid. The Council of Trent was speaking of the Mass itself, not a particular Rite.
Click to expand...
Spot on, Caesar.
 
gorman64 said:
Now that we have established that you and Cesar agree…why not address the issue being discussed?
Click to expand...
Ok then, lets get back to the main topic. The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen is a sedevacantist organization and is not in good standing with Rome (would you expect sedevacantists to be?). They are in schism and they are heretics for claiming that the Holy See is currently vacant and that His Holiness Benedict XVI is an anti-pope. As such, they are no better nor worse then the protestants.
 
They are in schism and they are heretics for claiming that the Holy See is currently vacant and that His Holiness Benedict XVI is an anti-pope.
Click to expand...
Why is this so? Because you say it is? Given the situation over the last 40 of so years…can you understand (not agree, but understand) how one might draw that conclusion.

What is their heresy? Could the schism you are so sure of just end up being a mistake? Or maybe they are correct?
 
gorman64 said:
Why is this so? Because you say it is? Given the situation over the last 40 of so years…can you understand (not agree, but understand) how one might draw that conclusion.
Click to expand...
I can understand why they would believe such a thing. But such a belief goes against the very nature of the Papacy, which can neither pronulgate heresy nor end until the Church comes to a glorious conclusion at the end of time.

What would constitute a heresy on the part of the Papacy? The Novus Ordo? Problematic in some areas, but still quite valid, so not a heresy. Vatican II? Can’t be heretical since it wasnt infallible, and in either case the V2 documents are very general I’m sure we can agree that nobody really listens to what they really say anyway. The current state of the Church? Things have been worse (eg. during the Arian heresy), and most of the problems are due to various Bishops.

Besides, its not like similar claims havent been made in the past about the Papacy. The so-called “Old Catholics” and similar groups hold that the Papacy has been in heresy since 1870 because Blessed Pius IX and the First Vatican Council formally defined Papal Infallibilty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top