The heresy of Christianity of heretics by bp. Pivarunas (CMRI)

[Hugues de Payns]

A message enclosed.

To see the attached message and download it one must log in.



I. On August 15, 2019, I sent bp. Pivarunas a message on his heresy (shorter, this one is supplemented) and so far I have not received any reply from him.


II. On September 15, 2019, I sent two priests from the cmri list ( http://www.cmri.org/traditional-latin-mass-directory.shtml ) a message sent to bp. Pivarunas with a request for an intervention in this matter.

- One of them answered that he forwarded my message to bp. Pivarunas,

- and the other, among others "Bp Pivarunas has a lot charges so he cannot answer to all requests at any time but he will try his best to do so.", "There are too many writtings at the same time." and "I am confused.". Finally (October 6, 2019) he wrote

"First of all we are Catholics. Christian has been created to confuse people by the modernist dialectics. Therefore we are not to be assimilated equal with other religions.",

to my question "I do not understand. Do you think that protestants are Christians or not ?" and the excerpt from the Larger Catechism of St. Cardinal Bellarmin regarding the question "What do we do the Sign of the Holy Cross for ?" and the answer to it (this is in the attached message) he hath not replied anything so far.


III. On September 29, 2019, I sent almost all priests (who have an email address) from the cmri list ( http://www.cmri.org/traditional-latin-mass-directory.shtml ) and a priest who is simultaneously in "SGG" and "MHT" (I also sent him my supplement on October 28, 2019, but unfortunately I have not received any reply from him so far) a message sent to bp. Pivarunas (I sent my further supplements to some priests) with a request for an intervention in this matter.

- One priest replied among others that I am right.

- A second priest wrote back "Bishop Pivarunas is using common language, he is very down to earth.".

- And the third priest doggedly defended this heresy and bp. Pivarunas, among others, citing the heretical "canon 1325 §2" referred to in the attached message and 2 understandings of the word "a Christian": 1. in the broader sense 2. in the exact and full sense referred to in attached message. He also wrote "You have not presented "the teaching of the Catholic Church" but an error.".

He wrote about the evolution of the definition of the words Christianity, Christians and a Christian (this evolution is mentioned in the attached message).

In reference to one of quotations from the attached message he also wrote "Pope Pius XII. Has never called validly baptised orthodox or protestant people as non-Christians! You must not pick out one part of Church's teaching ignoring or at least not sufficiently respecting the entire teaching!" (I will not even comment on it), etc.

He wrote that he disagrees with the author of this article (Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.) https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m013rpProtestantsChristians.html

""Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D." is not at all a "CMRI priest" ! Is he generally a priest ? (I do not know if he had understood one issue with a CMRI priest because I wrote him that one Priest of CMRI wrote that I am right therefore he wrote about a priest - my footnote) I do not agree with his explanation in the specific question we do discuss here - he is making the same mistake as you did not distinguishing between a partly changed content of the term "Christian" during the centuries."

I am under the impression that all heavy guns have been brought, or at least most.


IV. One author of a page claiming to be sedevacantist wrote that one can call heretics "Christians" in conventional language.

He relied on the dubious credibility of the Apostolic Letter of Pope Pius IX Iam vos Omnes (about which in the attached message). In addition, on October 22, 2019, he wrote "Yes, the Eastern Orthodox are referred to as Christians during the Crusades against the Muslims. I'll have to look up the sources, but there's no problem in it under certain circumstances. That's the point you seem to reject. If you like, I'll give you many more examples later when I have more time.". I wrote back "Alright I will wait for other examples." and so far I have not received none more example.


Before writing a commentary, make sure you read this content and, above all, the attached message thoroughly and comprehensively.

[Fleur-de-Lys]

Soyez le bienvenu, Hugues! Puis-je me permettre de vous demander si vous êtes français?

[Michael Wilson]

Catholics are the only true Christians. Its pretty simple.

[Hugues de Payns]

Soyez le bienvenu, Hugues! Puis-je me permettre de vous demander si vous êtes français?

I am not French. There is one sentence about France in the attached message, which it seems to me you should read (apart from the rest of it, of course).

[Fleur-de-Lys]

There is probably no France since August 9, 1830 (with breaks for the anti-French revolution, directorate and two Bonapartes when there was no France).

I see.

[Michael Wilson]

I read the newsletter from the CMRI, and the only thing that I see posted in reference to non-Catholics being Christians is the following:

...bends over backwards to seek a false unity among all religions, (Christian and non Christian alike), all are lovingly received and recognized.

Is this what you are objecting to in Bishop Pivanarunas' letter?

[Hugues de Payns]

I read the newsletter from the CMRI, and the only thing that I see posted in reference to non-Catholics being Christians is the following:

...bends over backwards to seek a false unity among all religions, (Christian and non Christian alike), all are lovingly received and recognized.

Is this what you are objecting to in Bishop Pivanarunas' letter?

No, definitely not. The attached message contains the entire and exact heretical quotation from the article of bp. Pivarunas, the link to the cmri website from which this quotation originates and photos of this heresy at its end.


At the end of my introductory commentary I wrote

"Before writing a commentary, make sure you read this content and, above all, the attached message thoroughly and comprehensively.".

[Michael Wilson]

Yes, I read your post, but I couldn't find the Pivarunas text that you were referring to; maybe you could post it on this thread.
B.T.W. Welcome to the Forum!
Maybe you could introduce yourself to the members and tell us a little about who you are in the "Coffee and Donuts" section here: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?board=1.0

[Hugues de Payns]

Yes, I read your post, but I couldn't find the Pivarunas text that you were referring to; (...)

I really do not know what is going on. Let's pass over that.

Maybe you could introduce yourself to the members and tell us a little about who you are in the "Coffee and Donuts" section here: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?board=1.0

No way. Besides, I have a bad experience with a priest who asked me the question "Could you please introduce yourself little bit more, (...)".

Until recently I thought that cmri and probably http://www.obispoenmisiones.com/ (if it is compatible with cmri) are the Catholic Church because only cmri fulfilled the conditions of being the Catholic Church in accordance with my awareness at that time.

I did not think that this is all so deep...

People stay at home. The Epistle to Jews [11:6]. The conditions are really apocalyptic.
You yourselves can baptize, you have the Perfect Repentance, the Spiritual Communion, the prayer, the Holy Bible, Catechisms, this all what the Catechisms recommend to do on Sunday etc. The Lord God does not require impossible things from you. The Gospel according to St. Matthew [24:24], the Epistle to Titus [3:10-11].

If I interpret the Holy Scriptures well then it remains to wait for the election of the Pope, and this will happen soon (in years).

[Hugues de Payns]

I forgot to correct, please replace or download the corrected message (enclosed).

instead of

"canon 87   

"One who by formal heresy or schism or apostasy rends asunder the bond that unites him with the Church, is yet bound by the obligations resulting from his baptismal vow."

Do protestants meet an obligation of professing the True Faith resulting from their baptismal vow ? 

The Holy Baptism is inextricably linked to professing the True Faith, so protestants can not call themselves Christians because of the reception of the valid Holy Baptism."

should be

"Canon 87   

"64. By baptism a person becomes a subject of the Church of Christ, with all the rights and duties of a Christian, unless as far as rights are concerned there is some obstacle impeding the bond of communion with the Church, or a censure inflicted by the Church. (Canon 87.)"

Do protestants fulfil a duty of professing the True Faith resulting from their baptismal vow ? 

Is there some obstacle impeding the bond of communion with the Church, or a censure inflicted by the Church for protestants ?

The Holy Baptism is inextricably linked to professing the True Faith, so protestants can not call themselves Christians because of the reception of the valid Holy Baptism."

[St.Justin]

The Church has ruled that All Baptizms are valid so long as matter and form are correct
So that clears that up.
All those Baptized following the proper matter and form are Catholic.
So that clears that up.

[Prayerful]

Someone with a valid baptism starts Catholic, only later hereticating.

[Hugues de Payns]

Because of the content from the following link https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23188.0 the corrected message enclosed.

Furthermore, everywhere (including the topic) where there is "bp. Pivarunas" should be "mr. Mark Pivarunas disguised as a bishop", instead of "CMRI" should be " "CMRI" ", instead of "priest", "priests", "Priest" should be in order "a man disguised as a priest", "men disguised as priests", "a man disguised as a Priest".