Lcwr Vs Sspx - Which Will Get On Track First?

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1344730975' post='2466278']
Yeah, I think you might be right. It's sad, but it's going to end up forcing communities and sisters to make a decision about their relationship to the bishops. I think only a very small minority would end up breaking from the group, though. If the more radical sisters among them are actually trying to change the way the Church hierarchy works, they aren't going about it in ways that would actually result in any kind of change. And most LCWR sisters that I've talked to are very open to the idea of dialogue with the bishops, and don't have problems with the idea of working out some changes. Those people I know who associate with SSPX have been much more inclined to be sedevacantists and the like. I wonder if some people are more inclined to be sympathetic to the SSPX because of a general notion that there's no such thing as being too conservative.
[/quote]

Yeah, from what I have read and from sisters who are in the LCWR, I think the radical ones are in the minority. It would be good if they can't respond to the Magesterium appropriately that they let those who want to, so do.

And it is interesting about the idea that there's no such thing as too conservative, but are they really being conservative if they aren't in alignment with Rome? Or are they just being stubborn? Not saying, just asking.

[EmilyAnn]

I have to agree with nunsense. I don't think the issue is that the SSPX are conservative - after all the FSSP came back. The issue is obedience to the Church and the SSPX are severely lacking in this.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1344755152' post='2466432']
Yeah, from what I have read and from sisters who are in the LCWR, I think the radical ones are in the minority. It would be good if they can't respond to the Magesterium appropriately that they let those who want to, so do.

And it is interesting about the idea that there's no such thing as too conservative, but are they really being conservative if they aren't in alignment with Rome? Or are they just being stubborn? Not saying, just asking.
[/quote]

I think they're more conservative in the sense that they're resisting change in favor of the past to the nth degree. It's like being "more Catholic than the pope." I think in relation to the rest of our society, Catholics are definitely more conservative, but being "conservative" in itself is a morally neutral thing. And maybe that's why I see many Catholics being more comfortable with being lumped in the conservative category - it's because we're so used to it. But I think the SSPX is a perfect example of what it's like to be too conservative - they're so conservative that they're resisting any changes that Vatican II brought, even though those changes are deeply rooted in important parts of our Tradition. Being stubborn is kind of a part of being conservative. It's not always a bad thing. But in the case of the SSPX, it is.

I think it's sorta like...Okay, a family going for a walk in the park. The parents are treading along at a nice pace, and they know exactly where they're going on the trail. Some of the kids want to run ahead a bit, others are dawdling behind. If the kids running ahead get too far, the parents have to call out for them to stop, come back, or they might get lost or take a wrong turn. If the kids walking behind are too slow, everyone has to stop and "encourage" the slow kids to keep up. In my experience, it's easier to reign in the kids that are running ahead than it is to motivate the kids walking behind to go a little faster.

Or maybe my family just spent too much time in wooded parks when I was a kid.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1344717386' post='2466197']
LCWR.

The Church basically has to throw out Vatican II documents (Dignitatus Humanae and Nostra Aetate, etc) to get SSPX to come back. The LCWR has to add pro-life, pro-marriage ministries and fix who they have as keynote speakers. I think our Pope has bent over backwards trying to get the SSPX back in line, while they have remained obstinate. The LCWR, on the other hand, is getting no leeway from the bishops, but seem to be more open to dialogue. There are far more members of the LCWR that want to find a solution that makes everyone happy than SSPX (granted, there are more members of the LCWR than SSPX).

I don't think the Vatican should be compromising on documents like Dignitatus Humanae and Nostra Aetate, for anyone. What's the point of saying that people have a right to religious freedom if people are allowed to ignore that right?
[/quote]

Dead on. The LCWR is in a normal, though confrontational, relationship with Rome. Over time, younger, more orthodox sisters will take over, and the problem will solve itsself. I think the odds of bringing back the SSPX are about as good as ending any other schism-the Eastern Orthodox haven't come back to the fold in over 500 years.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1344810541' post='2466581']Over time, younger, more orthodox sisters will take over, and the problem will solve itsself.
[/quote]
Why do you think that younger, more orthodox sisters wouldn't go (continue going) to more orthodox orders?

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1344810910' post='2466582']
Why do you think that younger, more orthodox sisters wouldn't go (continue going) to more orthodox orders?
[/quote]

There are plenty of orthodox orders in the LCWR. The biggest problem is that there pretty much aren't any orthodox sisters in the leadership.

[sixpence]

I think if we put SSPX and LCWR all on a retreat together they may kill each other off and all the problems will be over.

[Aloysius]

The SSPX is not in schism, they are in risk of schism, and exist in an irregular and disobedient canonical position. They are disobedient, but not in schism. Rome is basically theatening that they will be declared to be in schism if the current negotiations do not solve the problem, but it has not yet come to that.

The Leadership Conference of Wiccan Revolutionaries is barely Catholic. I am not talking about the members of the orders involved, I am specifically referring to the Leadership Conference itself. They are the problem.

The difference between the two is that the SSPX's positions are actually Catholic positions; they don't hold any positions that are anathema or have ever been declared heretical. Their theological opinions would've been considered acceptable in every age of the Church; they come into a problem when they demand that the Magisterium hold their theological opinions as binding doctrines (and that is why there are "doctrinal problems", not heresies, doctrinal problems).
[spoiler]ie, Thomistic soteriology is an acceptable theological opinion, but demanding that every Catholic hold it as doctrine would be doctrinally problematic [/spoiler]
Their disobedient actions, and their raising of certain theological opinions to the level of doctrine in a way that conflicts with the current Magisterium, make their situation problematic. But it was said above that giving more leeway to them is somehow acting like one can't be too "conservative"... I say that's a terrible way to phrase it. The fact of the matter is that the entire source of all their positions is passing down what they have received, nothing they say is in any way an innovation, it all flows from the tradition they have received; which is why reconciling them is important for this Pope because it would provide a visible witness to continuity with tradition.

on the contrary, the LCWR are promoting innovations with no basis in Christian Tradition, it's absolutely apples and oranges. It's not the "too liberal" side versus the "too conservative" side; it's the difference between people who are being disobedient [i]heretics [/i]vs. people who are being disobedient [i]Catholics.[/i] the SSPX are being disobedient Catholics, which is certainly wrong, but the LCWR folks that hold heretical views on issues of sexuality and sexual morality are not acting as Catholics at all.

Who will get in line first? It's very hard to say. The SSPX issue will be solved by both the SSPX and Rome finding the best way to express the continuity of doctrine in the Church... it's not just the SSPX that has to solve a problem before that will happen, probably; Rome has to solve the problem of the widespread hermeneutic of rupture that pervades among many in the Church... of course if the SSPX can work out a deal with Rome and get into the game as licit ministers with a canonical mandate, that'd go a long way to help to combat the hermeneutic of rupture. the LCWR needs to affirm Catholic doctrines on sexuality, because they have demonstrated a chasm between their thinking and the thinking of Catholic faith and morals. On their part the SSPX certainly will need to find a way to allow for Vatican II to be interpretted in the light of tradition, which is not to say they need to repudiate their opinions regarding religious freedom et cetera, that's not what's been asked of them; it's a very complicated situation.

long story short: I don't have an inkling of an idea who will get in line first. I don't like sitting in judgment over the SSPX as being too "prideful" because I see them as having the sincere motivation of trying to pass down exactly what they received without alteration, which is what Lefebvre and the four bishops are supposed to do as successors to the Apostles... because of that motivation, I don't think it's quite so simple as to just say they are being "prideful", even if they're wrong in their actions. whereas in the case of innovators who wish to change the Church, I am much more ammenable to say it has to do with "pride".

what I can hope is that the Pope of Christian Unity has a few more tricks up his sleeve... I actually think that if he didn't face such opposition in the Vatican, an SSPX deal would've been set up by now. There were people on both sides that sabotaged that deal (to the point where the Pope couldn't have made it happen as he wanted to without it being seen as a repudiation of Vatican II which he does not want it to be)... all we can do is pray and hope.

oh, and we probably shouldn't be calling the groups we don't like names like the Leadership Conference of Wiccan Revolutionaries. mea culpa, but seriously, when you see the txt of their keynote address, it's hard to call them by their real name.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Aloysius

[PhuturePriest]

I think we have to remember the situation the Bishop in charge of the SSPX is in. As Brother Jay from Catholic Answers Forums noted, he is in charge of an entire Order of Priests. He has to do what is right for them. Where some want to come back, the majority do not. He himself seemed as if he wanted to come back, but he had to remember being a leader is about selflessness, not selfishness. He wasn't just thinking about himself. What he decided affected hundreds of others. In this light, his deciding to stay in semi-schism (I say "semi" because I'm still not sure if they are) was a good deed in theory. He obviously chose wrong, but you have to remember if he chose to switch there would be a lot of uproar from his own Community and the entire thing would splinter into a thousand pieces. This is opposed to the LCWR who simply hate Church teachings and what the Church has stood for since it was created. In both spectrums there is a humility issue. As Tim Staples said on this subject, "I love it when people say 'Who is this Pope Paul VI to modify the liturgy?' He's the [i]Pope[/i], that's who, and according to the book of Acts he has the authority." I'm not going to say who is closer to coming back in communion because they are both in the wrong no matter what light you put them in. I would join the SSPX any day over the LCWR and you couldn't pay me enough money to even consider the theology of the LCWR, but no matter how you put it heresy is heresy. We shouldn't turn heresy into a "Which heresy is better?" contest. I'm not bashing or slighting anyone here, just to clarify, but this is what my mind at 1:20 AM feels.

Edited August 13, 2012 by FuturePriest387

[Aloysius]

I would object to saying that the SSPX believes heresies. IMHO the "doctrinal issues" that Rome wishes to resolve with them refer to the issue of whether some of the things they hold are merely acceptable particular theological opinions or whether they are doctrines that must be believed by all Catholics... that is the nature of the disagreement as I see it, and that is not an issue of heresy. unless one can show me a position of theirs that has ever been condemned as heresy or anathematized.

[EmilyAnn]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1344838857' post='2466785']
I think we have to remember the situation the Bishop in charge of the SSPX is in. As Brother Jay from Catholic Answers Forums noted, he is in charge of an entire Order of Priests. He has to do what is right for them. Where some want to come back, the majority do not. He himself seemed as if he wanted to come back, but he had to remember being a leader is about selflessness, not selfishness. He wasn't just thinking about himself. What he decided affected hundreds of others. In this light, his deciding to stay in semi-schism (I say "semi" because I'm still not sure if they are) was a good deed in theory. He obviously chose wrong, but you have to remember if he chose to switch there would be a lot of uproar from his own Community and the entire thing would splinter into a thousand pieces.
[/quote]

I disagree. If he wants to come back and there are those who want to come back as well then it is his duty, both as a superior and as a Catholic, to lead them back. If others want to still stay away, then that's on them. Refusing to come back into full Communion and obedience cannot ever be a good deed.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='EmilyAnn' timestamp='1344854946' post='2466807']
I disagree. If he wants to come back and there are those who want to come back as well then it is his duty, both as a superior and as a Catholic, to lead them back. If others want to still stay away, then that's on them. Refusing to come back into full Communion and obedience cannot ever be a good deed.
[/quote]

Well, you have a point. I'm simply saying from a leadership role he was looking after his Community. I'm not saying I agree with what he did, and I of course agree that he made the wrong decision.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1344809617' post='2466578']
I think it's sorta like...Okay, a family going for a walk in the park. The parents are treading along at a nice pace, and they know exactly where they're going on the trail. Some of the kids want to run ahead a bit, others are dawdling behind. If the kids running ahead get too far, the parents have to call out for them to stop, come back, or they might get lost or take a wrong turn. If the kids walking behind are too slow, everyone has to stop and "encourage" the slow kids to keep up. In my experience, it's easier to reign in the kids that are running ahead than it is to motivate the kids walking behind to go a little faster.
[/quote]
While I realize all analogies limp, I think this "hiking in the woods" analogy isn't very good, as it (intentionally or not) seems to follow the central "progressive" conceit that the Catholic Faith is marching progressively ever leftward, and that while conservative Catholics are dawdling behind, "liberal" or "progressive" Catholics are in fact ahead of the game, and at the vanguard of Catholic thought. After all, it's only a matter of time before the fuddy-duddy celibate male hierarchy will be forced to get with the times and follow the People of God by giving its blessing to womyn priestesses, gay marriages, neo-pagan goddess spirituality, and the rest of it. By this mindset, "liberal Catholics" aren't so much heretical as ahead of the curve.

I prefer the analogy of the Bark of Peter. If you're not on board, you're left floundering on your own in the sea, whether you happened to jump ship on the port or on the starboard.

I think, unfortunately, liberal dissenters like those in the LCWR will try to remain "officially" under Rome while continuing to push unorthodox teachings, as they are like termites who do their damage from within. The SSPX folks are at least more honest and straightforward about their differences.

I don't like speculating on this, like we're placing bets on ponies, but the SSPX, while they are in grave disobedience, are not heretical in their teachings, while much of the LCWR's croutons is not even Christian.


Perhaps it's just because I'm a stubborn conservative, but I reject the notion that the future of the Church will inevitably be more "liberal" and "progressive." Many of the younger priests and religious, and those seriously active in the Church (as opposed to those who check their religion as "Catholic" in an opinion survey) are more orthodox and traditional than their elders, and from what I've seen, there are actually more young people at more orthodox and traditional parishes than at more liberal ones. I don't think the Church will ever go back to just like the pre-Vatican II days, but I think it will be more orthodox and "conservative," if smaller.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

when was sspx told by the vatican that they are in schism. An FSSP priest told me that they are valid but illigitament. Which seemingly i assume is different to being officially at logger heads or in schism to the holy catholic church, because my line of questioning was as to whether they where.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1344684499' post='2465972']
Well, I guess it's a good example of how difficult communication is on the Internet, isn't it?

I put it in the debate table because I know how much controversy both of these organisations stir up and how polarising a thread with either of them can be. If a mod wants to move it to the lame board, then by all means they should do so.

I still think it's a bit much not to feel that we can speculate on such things without having the attitude that we are ' ... looking at my sins and those of some other person, then talking over who is likely to repent the quickest.' My intention was simply to wonder since both of them are at extreme opposite ends of the spectrum, whether this would influence a change of heart and how quickly.

But I guess this thread has served its purpose because it is causing debate, perhaps not about the actual topic, but still it is a debate of sorts.

Apropros of something obviously then
[/quote]


I understand. Even face to face all our good intentions can be taken the wrong way. A priest told me this which started me desiring to have better communicative skills. He told me this after i hid behind a corner and jumped out and said "BOO" to a younger parishner that i didn't know so well, and the act was reported to the priest and i was repramanded. I had no intention to harm the person. Mind you she recovered from it assumably because when i finaly caught up with her and apologised she said it was ok.

Onward christian souls.
JESUS iz LORD.
GOD is GOOD,GOD is LOVE, GOD SAVES.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye