Pope Looks To Reintergrate Sspx Tommorrow

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1772490' date='Feb 4 2009, 08:33 PM']Here's a quote, in English:

Can. 669 §1 As a sign of their consecration and as a witness to poverty, religious are to wear the [b]habit of their institute, determined in accordance with the institute's own law.[/b]--emphasis mine.

§2 Religious of a clerical institute who do not have a special habit are to wear clerical dress, in accordance with can. 284.

That is to say, the law of the institute trumps the canon. More recently, JPII, I believe, expanded this to include an identifiable, simple and becoming garb in keeping with the spirit of poverty. There is no reference to hem line, wimples, guimpes, bandeaus, veils or their length, starch, fifteen decade rosaries or the minimum mandatory size of the crucifix. Most sisters, including ones in modern dress, (which I think is identifiable, simple and becoming) will report that they are immediately taken for sisters, as the Community of the Resurrection in Maine specifically states on their website. Also, what does the 'habit of their institute' mean? The original monstrosities that Vat II tried to exterminate? The [i]institutes [/i]decided, by the vote of their professed sisters, to modernize--does that invalidate canon law?

I find that lay[b]men[/b] (males) are the ones that get most worked up about this.[/quote]
Yes, and to get its institutes approved it must have a habit of some kind. You need to read more closely in the future.

[jkaands]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1769371' date='Feb 2 2009, 12:09 AM']They are an order that was founded without a traditional habit. I'm not sure Canon Law addresses that particular concern.[/quote]

It does, specifically.

Here's a quote, in English:

Can. 669 §1 As a sign of their consecration and as a witness to poverty, religious are to wear the [b]habit of their institute, determined in accordance with the institute's own law.[/b]--emphasis mine.

If that particular institute had no habit at its foundation, "[i]in accordance with the institute's own law",[/i] then it doesn't have to have one now.

Period.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1772490' date='Feb 4 2009, 11:33 PM']Here's a quote, in English:

Can. 669 §1 As a sign of their consecration and as a witness to poverty, religious are to wear the [b]habit of their institute, determined in accordance with the institute's own law.[/b]--emphasis mine.

§2 Religious of a clerical institute who do not have a special habit are to wear clerical dress, in accordance with can. 284.

That is to say, the law of the institute trumps the canon. More recently, JPII, I believe, expanded this to include an identifiable, simple and becoming garb in keeping with the spirit of poverty. There is no reference to hem line, wimples, guimpes, bandeaus, veils or their length, starch, fifteen decade rosaries or the minimum mandatory size of the crucifix. Most sisters, including ones in modern dress, (which I think is identifiable, simple and becoming) will report that they are immediately taken for sisters, as the Community of the Resurrection in Maine specifically states on their website. Also, what does the 'habit of their institute' mean? The original monstrosities that Vat II tried to exterminate? The [i]institutes [/i]decided, by the vote of their professed sisters, to modernize--does that invalidate canon law?

I find that lay[b]men[/b] (males) are the ones that get most worked up about this.[/quote]
Nah, there are many women who think its riduculous as well. The sisters where I live wear a tiny pin somewhere on their collar and are not in ANY way identifiable as religious, especially when they are discussing their latest shopping trip.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1772490' date='Feb 4 2009, 08:33 PM']I find that lay[b]men[/b] (males) are the ones that get most worked up about this.[/quote]
How interesting, I notice that feminists tend to get most worked up over this issue.

[jkaands]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1772484' date='Feb 4 2009, 09:27 PM']The Holy See, even after Vatican II, has required that the "constitution" of a religious order specify the habit of the order, and has refused to approve its governing constitution otherwise.[/quote]

Find the statement, the source and quote the exact wording in English.

[Apotheoun]

In the Eastern Christian tradition religious "habits", which all look pretty much the same, are a mystery (i.e., a sacrament) that visibly manifests the person's (male or female) consecration to God. Sadly, much of the Western Church seems to have lost touch with this tradition.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Apotheoun

[jkaands]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1772477' date='Feb 4 2009, 09:19 PM']Bishop Williamson will probably cave in, but he shouldn't.[/quote]

He SHOULDN'T???

Ex-cuuuuse me??!!

A bishop who PUBLICLY denies the Holocaust AND 9/11??

AND who's gotten the pope in a whole lot of trouble?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1772501' date='Feb 4 2009, 08:44 PM']He SHOULDN'T???

Ex-cuuuuse me??!!

A bishop who PUBLICLY denies the Holocaust AND 9/11??

AND who's gotten the pope in a whole lot of trouble?[/quote]
I may think that Bishop Williamson's views on historical matters are foolish, but the Vatican has no power to require him, nor anyone else for that matter, to believe in certain historical events, or to believe in a particular interpretation of any given historical event.

[Apotheoun]

Do I accept the American interpretation of the events surrounding Pearl Harbor, yes, but I do not believe in it as an act of divine and catholic faith.

Will a Japanese Catholic who believes that his country was defending its interests by attacking the United States on December 7th, and that the attack in question was provoked by American embargoes on vital raw materials, go to hell for believing that? No. Because that belief is not a dogmatic truth.

[jkaands]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1772497' date='Feb 4 2009, 09:38 PM']How interesting, I notice that feminists tend to get most worked up over this issue.[/quote]

I have nothing against the habit. I do think that it is not essential to be identified as a sister in a shopping mall or the airport, rather than in their line of duty. The leader of the Apostles of the Sacred Heart--modified habit--who is conducting the Visitation, has clearly stated that her, ie. the pope's, investigation is not about wearing the habit, but about reviving the apostolic congregations. Although many feel that resumption of the habit is a magic solution, a review of habited congregations show that only a small minority of these are actually growing, or, actually, holding their own. Most are small. Once again, do a thorough and systematic survey of websites and the Guide.

By the way, to get back on track, you might not mind insulting 50 senators who complained to the Pope about Bp. Williamson, but what about Francis Cardinal George, Cardinal of the Archdiocese of Chicago and spokesman for the US Cardinals? It's harder to ignore[i] him.[/i]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090203/pl_usnw/president_of_u_s__bishops_says_holocaust_denial__deeply_offensive_and_utterly_false"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090203/pl_u...d_utterly_false[/url]

[jkaands]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1772504' date='Feb 4 2009, 09:50 PM']I may think that Bishop Williamson's views on historical matters are foolish, but the Vatican has no power to require him, nor anyone else for that matter, to believe in certain historical events, or to believe in a particular interpretation of any given historical event.[/quote]

The Pope does have the power to insist that Williamson keep his mouth shut.

Edited February 5, 2009 by jkaands

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1772529' date='Feb 4 2009, 09:10 PM']The Pope does have the power to insist that he keep his mouth shut.[/quote]
Maybe in the Latin Church.

Now the dilemma for Bishop Williamson is that his SSPX superior has told him not to speak on historical topics, and the Vatican is asking him to do just that. I suppose the Vatican needs to talk to Bishop Fellay first next time.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1772527' date='Feb 4 2009, 09:09 PM']By the way, to get back on track, you might not mind insulting 50 senators who complained to the Pope about Bp. Williamson, but what about Francis Cardinal George, Cardinal of the Archdiocese of Chicago and spokesman for the US Cardinals? It's harder to ignore[i] him.[/i]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090203/pl_usnw/president_of_u_s__bishops_says_holocaust_denial__deeply_offensive_and_utterly_false"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090203/pl_u...d_utterly_false[/url][/quote]
I'm not all that interested in what 50 U.S. Senators think, and Cardinal George is not my bishop, so his views have little impact on my religious life.

Certainly the good Cardinal has a right to his opinions on historical matters unrelated to the faith, but so do I, and so does Bishop Williamson.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Apotheoun

[jkaands]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1772537' date='Feb 4 2009, 10:14 PM']I'm not all that interested in what 50 U.S. Senators think, and Cardinal George is not my bishop, so his views have little impact on my religious life.

Certainly the good Cardinal has a right to his opinions on historical matters unrelated to the faith, but so do I, and so does Bishop Williamson.[/quote]

Francis Cardinal George is the President of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops; his Archdiocese is the largest in the United States, and as such, he is [i]the [/i]ranking prelate.

Loyal Catholics in the United States should[i] pay attention [/i]to what he says.

[ardillacid]