Pope Looks To Reintergrate Sspx Tommorrow

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1768455' date='Feb 1 2009, 11:02 AM']I am very concerned about this as well, [b]more than[/b] their ultra-conservative views on women. [/quote]
If you don't have a Y chromosome, you shouldn't speak.












jk

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1769851' date='Feb 2 2009, 02:51 PM']If you don't have a Y chromosome, you shouldn't speak.












jk[/quote]




mjk

[doe-jo]

Are they in yet?

[Seven77]

so...what happened?

[KnightofChrist]

It may be a couple days before it is public, or it didn't happen today at all.

[Resurrexi]

The article made it seem as if it was previously assumed that it was going to happen today, but would probably be delayed due to some difficulties.

Edited February 2, 2009 by Resurrexi

[jkaands]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1769319' date='Feb 1 2009, 11:37 PM']Yes, I wasn't insinuating that all orders changed their habits, or I guess uniforms might be a more accurate term, but I think you'd have been hard pressed to find sisters in outfits like that in 1955.
And might I add that those pictured are Daughters of Charity - some of my very favourite sisters, and sisters that were very helpful in my conversion were DoCs, so I'm not trying to diminish their devotion to Our Lord or their work, but I think there's something to be said for the veil and habit.[/quote]

No question about this. (Tho' I wouldn't like wearing one! )

...and it's true that the orders which wear habits are attracting more entrants than those who don't--tho' the former includes a smaller number of orders AND are smaller, so the numbers suggest more than they actually may mean--if you follow me...?

...but re the up and coming Visitation..I fear that many orders will be given notice, "habits or else" (and a lot of other things) and many will walk, and then we end up without the "Eries", (Adrians, BVM's and all their associates and oblates, which are numerous) but [i]with[/i] the SSPX, who, fortunately, are not prevalent in the US.

You may see, "Good riddance"--but the end may be as the Immaculate Hearts in Los Angeles, one tiny, dying order (those who chose not to defy Cardinal McIntyre) and those who did, who left, laicized and founded a thriving ecumenical community, the Immaculate Heart Community.

...the result may be more fracturing and alienation of the Catholics in the US and Europe, with cafeteria Catholics on [i]both [/i]right and left, not just on the left, as at present.

[jkaands]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1768994' date='Feb 1 2009, 08:22 PM']Like I said they need to repudiate all the cr.ap on their website.[/quote]

I really wish they would.

Repudiate it and

[b]REMOVE [/b]it.

[jkaands]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1768655' date='Feb 1 2009, 03:10 PM']


That is between the Pope and the leaders of the SSPX.[/quote]

...and the press.

don't kid yourself.

[jkaands]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1768688' date='Feb 1 2009, 03:26 PM']I see. Well I hope that the Pope accepts the SSPX exactly as they are, and then you will be confronted with a choice, accept the Pope's decision or dissent from it.[/quote]

The pope has ALREADY NOT accepted SSPX 'exactly as they are' but is insisting that Bp. Williamson recant PUBLICLY. After 50 US senators, whom you so airily dismiss, AND the chancellor of Germany sent a few words to the pope.

The pope is way ahead of you, Apo.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1772471' date='Feb 4 2009, 08:12 PM']The pope has ALREADY NOT accepted SSPX 'exactly as they are' but is insisting that Bp. Williamson recant PUBLICLY. After 50 US senators, whom you so airily dismiss, AND the chancellor of Germany sent a few words to the pope.

The pope is way ahead of you, Apo.[/quote]
Bishop Williamson will probably cave in, but he shouldn't.

[jkaands]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1769375' date='Feb 2 2009, 12:09 AM']An indult does not invalidate the law. Your example is irrelevant.[/quote]

Canon law does not prescribe a habit.

[Apotheoun]

Canon 669 §1. Religious are to wear the habit of the institute, made according to the norm of proper law, as a sign of their consecration and as a witness of poverty.

§2. Clerical religious of an institute which does not have a proper habit are to wear clerical dress according to the norm of can. 284.

[Apotheoun]

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.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Apotheoun

[jkaands]

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.