The Leadership Conference of Women Religious which says it leads about 57,000 sisters in the USA is throwing an absolute hissy-fit over their meeting with the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Müller, on Monday. The author of an NCR (National Chismatic Reporter) writes the following (you can read the whole article HERE:
"Within hours of the Vatican's announcement Monday that Pope Francis had reaffirmed a controversial takeover of the primary group of U.S. Catholic sisters, reactions from prominent American sisters ranged from "wait and see" to the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back."
And doesn't this sound like something Bishop Fellay would say:
"Nothing has changed," said Margaret Thompson, a professor of history and women's studies at Syracuse University in New York and an associate of the Monroe, Mich., Immaculate Heart of Mary community.
"We were hoping, some of us, that Pope Francis would be very, very different from Pope Benedict," Thompson said. "For us to expect anything radically different was probably wishful thinking."
Sr. Mary Ann Hinsdale, a theologian at Boston College and member of the Immaculate Heart of Mary community, said she was "very disappointed" with the news and said it may suggest Catholics are still learning how Pope Francis will handle delicate matters.
"All these nice gestures" -- for example, the decisions to wash women's feet on Holy Thursday and to wear more basic liturgical vestments -- "don't necessarily say what he thinks theologically or with regard to his understanding of religious in North America," Hinsdale said.
Just remember, hell has no fury than a woman scorned and you can only imagine when it is the LCWR!
31 comments:
Question? Why do you put schismatic in quotes for the LCWR and not in quotes for the SSPX?
The SSPX are not in schism; either in practice or by decree. It is improper to promote that view, as it is inconsistent juridically and will do more harm than good.
I am not an adherent to the SSPX, mind you, but I think that fair is fair. We should be accurate when we can.
See my remarks on Fr. McD's previous post.
While this is certainly welcome, it comes rather close to being a sop for the orthodox. Why? One SSPX, one LCWR. If the problem were proportional this would be fine. But as I noted below, the problem is grossly disproportional.
Of course, as has been pointed out to you many times on this blog, the SSPX aren't schismatic. Just yesterday, you yourself told another poster that only a council or a group of bishops could declare someone a heretic. And today you unilaterally declare the SSPX schismatic.
Moreover, the SSPX teach nothing other than Catholicism as it has always been taught. And you cannot show otherwise. The LCWR, on the other hand, seek to change the doctrine of the Church for their own purposes in conformity with the world.
I really don't seek to argue about this, but your misinformation and refusal to avoid sensationalism and false equivalencies compels me out of charity to defend my Catholic brothers and sisters who happen to be affiliated with the SSPX.
Marc, I grew up in the pre-Vatican II Church and Mass and I know it very well. We loved the Holy Father and were submissive and obedient to him. I see none of that in the SSPX but lip service. They are Protestants dressed in pre-Vatican II clothing. It is shocking to compare them to us faithful Catholics of the 1950's.
The submissive obedience of the Pre-vatican 2 Church was the fertile field in which the land mines of vatican 2 were planted and harvested.
The Church has squandered it's rights to submissive obedience from the laity (and clergy) with 50 years of hypocrisy, heterodoxy and scandal. How dare any Pope or Bishop demand obedience based on Tradition without first adopting all that Tradition demands of him.
Fr. McD;
"They are Protestants dressed in pre-Vatican II clothing. It is shocking to compare them to us faithful Catholics of the 1950's."
That isn't your call to make. The Church has been (sort of) clear that the SSPX is not in schism. They are not Protestant. They are Catholic, in name, in practice and in actuality. They question, but don't deny anything Catholic, which is the right and the expectation of the leadership.
There is one reason and one reason only why the SSPX are chastised as much as they are, liberal bishops. It is no secret that many European bishops have threatened to quit the Church (especially in France) if the SSPX are regularized.
The legitimacy of the Novus Ordo is a scapegoat. There is nothing which holds the NO to be some sort of "super liturgy" which must be unilaterally accepted. The Church has never operated that way, even with the Tridentine...but the liberals have forced that hand.
Bottom line, take the politics and the snotty noses away from the liberal wing of the episcopacy and the SSPX are regular in a heartbeat. The questions they ask are not irreverent, nor are they unheard of....
"They are Protestants dressed in pre-Vatican II clothing."
I don't think that's entirely fair. This seems more like a caricature rather than an accurate assessment.
The SSPX have several valid, very valid complaints about what has happened in the post Vatican II Church. Yet the priests and hierarchy of the postconciliar Church treat the SSPX with a venom they would never show toward the most obstinate heretics, leftist dissenters or anti-Catholic groups.
It is also unfair because, unlike the Protestants, the SSPX has valid orders. And again, the Vatican has made the point several times that although Lefebvre may have committed a schismatic act, the SSPX is not in schism.
Compare that to many of the parish priests we tolerate year after year, hoping and praying for orthodoxy and relief. Instead we live as closet Catholics led by priests (not you Father) who are in de facto schism.
What's right is right.
A fundamental tenet of the Catholic faith is recognition and obedience to the Successsor of Peter. If anyone is disobedient to the Holy Father whether they be LCWR or SSPX, they are outside of the Catholic Church.
Their valid orders makes it all the more serious what they are doing, especially the ordination of bishops independent of papal authority.
Pope Benedict reached out the best he could and even brought back some of the things that the SSPX would have liked in the papacy, but it was and is going to be their way or the highway. They've made that quite clear and there isn't going to be another Pope Benedict anytime soon that I can tell. A missed opportunity for being made completely regular in the Church and perhaps similar to the Anglican Ordinariate.
I've pretty much said what I have to say. to recap, I simply can't see the mote of the SSXP as the huge bugbear they're being made out to be by the Vatican when the regular hierarchy ignores the modernist beam in its own eye.
Fr. McD;
"Pope Benedict reached out the best he could and even brought back some of the things that the SSPX would have liked in the papacy, but it was and is going to be their way or the highway. They've made that quite clear and there isn't going to be another Pope Benedict anytime soon that I can tell."
I would be willing to bet that any member of the FSSPX would disagree with you wholeheartedly. They, at no point, believe that it is "their way or the highway." They believe that it is the Church's way. They don't stand on this principle based on some sort of heady arrogance, but they do it out of a sense of service and true humility.
Like I said, I am not an adherent, but I am sympathetic. I think that their view is more consistent with 2000 years of Catholic thought through today than 90% of the Church at large.
Perhaps they missed an opportunity, but I can honestly say, they'll just wait. The Church will regularize them when the Church sees fit.
This isn't a matter of arrogance, but rather it is a matter of humility. It takes a lot of humility to continue to operate in the face of constant "label changing" and unwarranted and unfounded persecution from their own Church.
Important to note, the SSPX has never said they won't accept Vatican Council II, they just won't accept the interpretation as it stands...but then again, they can't get the benefit of the doubt, because they live in cassocks and pray in Latin.
Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]
SSPX is in schism for refusing to offer submission to the Roman Pontiff.
In a March 17 interview, Cardinal Castrillón affirmed once again publicly, "The Fraternity of St. Pius X is not a consolidated schism per se, but its history has included some schismatic actions..."
If a man commits "adulterous actions" is he not, then, an adulterer? I find Card Castrillon's comments disingenuous.
I'd concede they are de facto schismatic (from outward appearance). I also think they are de facto sedevacantist. But, I think they are criticized heavily because they submit to all the popes and not just the one who happens to be alive (but consider my below point about their over emphasis of Vatican I).
But, since the whole issue is who makes that determination of schism, it is, according to this blog's author, not within our purview to judge then schismatic. In light of the fact that the Holy See has gone out of its way to say they aren't schismatic, I think it best to do precisely what the SSPX are accused of not doing and be obedient to the Pope's determination.
I happen to sympathize with the SSPX, but I also know the dangers inherent in adhering too closely to their line of thinking: they put to much emphasis on Vatican I and that causes a lot of problems that are likely to result in schism for those who are keen to analyze the history of the papacy. It's a dangerous position for an arm-chair theologian and best avoided. But, I think they have excellent theologians (as does the FSSP) whose influence needs to be heard by the Church at large.
Communiqué from the SSPX's General House on the occasion of the election of Pope Francis
With the news of the election of Pope Francis, the Society of St. Pius X prays to Almighty God that He abundantly bestow on the new Sovereign Pontiff the graces necessary for the exercise of this heavy charge.
Strengthened by Divine Providence, may the new pope "confirm his brethren in the Faith"[1], with the authority which St. Pius X proclaimed at the beginning of his pontificate:
We do not wish to be, and with the divine assistance never shall be aught before human society but the Minister of God, of whose authority We are the depositary. The interests of God shall be Our interest, and for these We are resolved to spend all Our strength and Our very life.[2]
St. Francis of Assisi, whose name the new pontiff has taken, heard the Crucified Savior say to him, "Go, Francis and rebuild my Church." It is in such a spirit that the bishops, priests, and religious of the Society of St. Pius X assure the Holy Father of their filial desire "to restore all things in Christ, so that Christ may be all and in all”[3] according to their means, for the love of the Holy Catholic and Roman Church.
Seems to me that "filial" means obedience.
Pot meet kettle. Kavanuagh meet disingenious.
Damn, Templar! You stole my fire! LOL! Ignotus is fundamentally dishonest, aside from being disingenuous. He is one of those beams in the Church's eye about which Anon 5 speaks.
Well Pater, some day when you're a Cardinal, you can set them all straight.
Anon, You mean somebody is going to turn Ignotus into a bird? LOL!
It sounds like "filial obedience" but in action, the SSPX demonstrates something else. It is analogous to the person who says he is not a racist, but referes to African Americans as a "feral minority." Or who says he is not a bigot, but refers to gays men as "fags."
...and, then, there are apostate Priests who wink at doctrine and have lost their faith, but who remain in the Church and carefully avoid revealing the truth about themselves through quibbling, prevarication, and dishonesty. They are deceivers in the most Biblical sense of the word, pretenders who sow division and distrust everywhere they go.
Remember, Ignotus/Kavanaugh, in that particular post it was you who assumed that "feral minority" referred to Blacks. I merely used the term with no referent.
Oh, and fags is a perfectly good word referring to those who engage in disgustingly aberrant behavior that is based upon a biological and theological falsehood and which mocks marriage, sexuality, and normal human identity...the kind of creatures people like you just love to defend and whine about. We also used to call them "queer," which is perfectly descriptive.
PI
In English English a fag is a cigarette. Faggots in more robust times were used for burning heretics. We have a lot of slang terms for homosexuals, most of them too descriptive in terms of perverted sexual conduct to use on a Catholic blog. One of the more obscure ones is 'iron', from cockney rhyming slang (iron hoof = poof).
John is absolutely correct. My parents used to smoke like chimneys. One of the commonest refrains I heard from them was “I must have a fag.” My mother, being of a particularly mischievous nature, derived great enjoyment from uttering this refrain when visiting me in Macon after I told her what the word meant in American English and despite my admonitions in this respect. There were other expressions of a similar nature that she used to similar effect but they go beyond the scope of the present discussion. =)
John - I know the British usage of "fag." That was not Pin/Gene's intent.
Pin/Gene - My assumption that you used "feral minorities" to refer to African-Americans was, to use John's lingo, spot on. You made your meaning abundantly clear in subsequent posts:
Pin/Gene said...
"Ignotus, The feral minorities are a reality...and they are not going to give up their guns. It is not racist to tell the truth. The feral minotities are largely Black. Even the Mayor of Atlanta said that the population of Atlanta is (I believe)54 per cent Black but that 54 per cent is responsible for 96 per cent of the crime in Atlanta." January 28,2013
"A high percentage of Blacks in this country (as depicted by your liberal media)behave as a feral minority." February 21, 2013
Ignotus, "Feral minorities" is not a racist term. It simply describes the behavior of large groups of mostly blacks looting, killing, stealing, whoring, dealing drugs, and organizing flash mobs in areas where they exist in large numbers." April 3, 2013.
Yes, you used "feral minorities" in reference to African-Americans.
Well, John, I actually like the term, "pillow biters." It has a nice ring to it...LOL!
Add this one: "Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...
Oh, God. Don't tell me Ignotus is anti-gun. LOL!! It figures. That is so pitiful...I guess he really believes all those feral minorities he loves so much are gonna' give up their guns jus' 'cause we ax 'em nice. LOL!
April 30, 2012, 4:38 p.m.
And, your point, Ignotus?
Pin/Gene - The point is obvious.
Now, Kavanaugh, you constantly perseverate about my imagined sins and you repeatedly bring up my "skipping Mass" even though I said I had been to Confession (you are a Priest, right?) and you go on and on about what you perceive as my shortcomings..my, my. Weren't you the one who was accusing me of being a bully? LOL! Can you say "irony?" How about, "hypocrisy?" Why the Hell did you enter the Priesthood, anyway? Weren't they hiring at the car wash?
Fr., I think you need to take control of your blog. I see little relevance in all this juvenile tit-for-tat. I was under the impression I was reading an adult blog, not a middle school study hall bickering session.
Thank you Brad for your observation and I would like to encourage once again and caution everyone from insults in commenting. I would suggest that Gene and PI try to simply deal with issues not personality issues, make your point concerning the post and try to avoid vitriol. I will be more solicitous in deleting rude comments that go to adolescent arguing. Thanks.
Now, Brad,don't get your panties all in a wad. You are, apparently, a new comer. Ignotus and I have both posted many things of substance, which is why we disagree to begin with. We don't need for you to whine and pout because every moment on the blog is not a marvel of relevance. Lighten up.
BTW, Fr. controls the blog quite well. You should see the stuff he hasn't posted. LOL!
Post a Comment