36 replies to this topic

[nunsense]

I was just sitting there thinking about things and it seemed to me that LCWR (the leadership not the individual convents) and the SSPX (leadership again, not individual parishioners) are both off track at opposite ends of the spectrum but...

LCWR leadership are still officially 'in communion' with Rome (although not really acknowledging their authority) but their theology is heading for the Twilight Zone...

SSPX leadership are officially still in schism (and not really acknowledging Rome's authority) but their theology is much more in alignment with the teachings of the Magesterium...

...so the question is, who is really farther away and who will get back on track first (if ever), when will it happen, and why do you think so?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[cmotherofpirl]

SSPX has a better chance, at least they try to act Catholic.

[beatitude]

The SSPX, unlike the LCWR, is composed of clergy. They can confer ordination and celebrate Mass. The women religious of the LCWR can't do this (although I know some of them do support women's ordination) and I think this is why the SSPX is classed as schismatic - the illicit celebration of the sacraments. I could be wrong.

As I see it, lack of humility is at the root of the problems we have seen with the SSPX and the leaders in LCWR. Same root cause, different manifestation. I don't have any idea who will change first, and I don't really want to guess. I pray for them both.

Edited by beatitude, 10 August 2012 - 03:25 PM.

[EmilyAnn]

As I see it, lack of humility is at the root of the problems we have seen with the SSPX and the leaders in LCWR. Same root cause, different manifestation. I don't have any idea who will change first, and I don't really want to guess. I pray for them both.

Exactly what I was gonna say.

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

SSPX isn't in schism yet. They have some right ideas, but some off track with the magesterium. They haven't been declared a schism yet as far as I am aware. But yes, they'll be back on track first. There are a LOT more young SSPX priests than young LCWR women. And they're closer in line with the magesterium. LCWR is only going further away, sadly.

[beatitude]

Claire, I struggle to see this in terms of age. In the Gospels we see labourers coming to the vineyard at the eleventh hour, and still receiving their full day's wage. The fact that the dissenters in the LCWR are predominantly elderly doesn't seem all that significant when you remember that conversion of the heart can happen in a moment, and it only takes one spark for the fire to spread.

Meanwhile, the Gospel also gives us the story of the young man who asked Jesus what he must do to become perfect - and who then 'went away sad', because what was asked of him was just too hard. He seemed to have everything on his side, all the promise of youth, and his theological understanding was certainly brilliant. But for what? In the end he couldn't bring himself to do what was needed.

The more I think about this, the more it makes me uncomfortable to try and predict who will come home first. It's not a race. I wouldn't like someone looking at my sins and those of some other person, then talking over who is likely to repent the quickest.

[nunsense]

I'm sorry if some people seem offended by this thread (those who don't want to speculate I guess I mean). I meant it very lightheartedly and not as a serious attack on either of these groups. Of course I pray for both of them and wish them well. I just happened to think about them because they are at such opposite ends of the specturm, with the SSPX appearing to be 'more Catholic than the Pope' and the LCWR to be turning into a 'guru cult' (of Barbara Max Hubbard). These things are rather amusing to me when viewed in a certain light. Yes, I do understand that there are serious issues for each organization and that these need to be addressed. But maybe if these organizations (and some other people) could learn to laugh at themselves, they would see what they are doing to the Church with their posturing. Nothing increases humility like a good laugh at ourselves.


All I can say about some of the reactions here is lighten up folks. God is in His heaven and all is right with the world. For 'All shall be well and all shall be well ...'



Apropos of nothing:


“God save us from gloomy saints!”
― Santa Teresa de Jesús


'From silly devotions
and from sour-faced saints,
good Lord, deliver us. '

- TERESA OF AVILA

Edited by nunsense, 11 August 2012 - 02:26 AM.

[beatitude]

The comments about gloomy and sour-faced saints can't be 'apropos of nothing' when they follow on from, "All I can say about some of the reactions here is lighten up folks." Adding 'apropos of nothing' as a little disclaimer doesn't take the sting out of the way you used those quotations, it just makes them sound a bit passive-aggressive.

The Debate Table isn't usually where people put lighthearted stuff. Maybe if you'd posted in the Lame Board, you would have had a different reaction, but here I don't think you can blame people for taking your question seriously, especially as the opening post doesn't come across as all that lighthearted in tone and content.

[nunsense]

The comments about gloomy and sour-faced saints can't be 'apropos of nothing' when they follow on from, "All I can say about some of the reactions here is lighten up folks." Adding 'apropos of nothing' as a little disclaimer doesn't take the sting out of the way you used those quotations, it just makes them sound a bit passive-aggressive.

The Debate Table isn't usually where people put lighthearted stuff. Maybe if you'd posted in the Lame Board, you would have had a different reaction, but here I don't think you can blame people for taking your question seriously, especially as the opening post doesn't come across as all that lighthearted in tone and content.

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

[Maximilianus]

SSPX vs LCWR? would say SSPX wins, as has been stated they are on average younger, thus giving them the advantage of youth, plus I think it's enough to overcome the LCWR's experience factor, face it, even with all the experience they can't be expected to be physically on par. Now if the LCWR use ringers then that is another story, and it is totally possible they will employ outside help, but even with that it will take a dedicated game plan a strategy to hold off the onslaught of the SSPX squad.


We are talking about Ultimate Frisbee, right?

[nunsense]

We are talking about Ultimate Frisbee, right?

You got it in one.

[MIkolbe]

...so the question is, who is really farther away and who will get back on track first (if ever), when will it happen, and why do you think so?

Enquiring minds want to know.

The one that learns humility and obedience first and uses their intellect rather than worshiping it.

Otherwise, I agree with Max.

[Basilisa Marie]

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?

[nunsense]

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?

Actually I was wonderinf if the LCWR would split in two, with the more radical of them deciding to laicize as a leadership group (as some of them have already suggsested) while the rest choose to stay in line with Rome. They have five years to work things out though so who knows whether the SSPX will come around about Vatican II before then or not. They both have a long way to go but if the LCWR decide to split, I suppose that could happen at any time.

[Basilisa Marie]

Actually I was wonderinf if the LCWR would split in two, with the more radical of them deciding to laicize as a leadership group (as some of them have already suggsested) while the rest choose to stay in line with Rome. They have five years to work things out though so who knows whether the SSPX will come around about Vatican II before then or not. They both have a long way to go but if the LCWR decide to split, I suppose that could happen at any time.

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.

[nunsense]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

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.

[USAirwaysIHS]

Over time, younger, more orthodox sisters will take over, and the problem will solve itsself.

Why do you think that younger, more orthodox sisters wouldn't go (continue going) to more orthodox orders?