SSPX Could Return This Week - Agreement With Rome Near

[piouswoman]

Simply the truth (again).

If bishops imagine that they can decree the purpose of creation in a way that contradicts the Baltimore Catechim, then those bishops are very far gone. Men and women were created for the very same purpose. I learned that in 1950. The teaching hasn’t changed.

It is ironic that now you are laying such import on the Baltimore Catechism, which is the very Catechism which was suggested to me to acquire when I wrote and asked the SSPX, several years ago. Many times on this forum have I quoted from the Baltimore Catechism and been attacked from all sides.

 

[catharina]

My conscience is clear, I have not perpetrated lies and falsehoods. To continue to perpetrate that which is untrue can only result in more damage to the SSPX, you cannot claim ignorance in that regard, only bad intent and a hardened heart, can you claim. That is an un-Catholic action to take. It is unjust, it is uncharitable, and you haven’t any knowledge of the facts and the details that go on in the negotiations between Rome and the SSPX, so to spout off in such a way can only expose your purpose which is to do harm.

Well, since your conscience is clear, you might want to keep it that way. That is, stop accusing others of things that are clearly (and definitely) beyond your scope of personal knowledge and understanding. Okey-dokey? Soldify that “perfect” conscience.

 

[catharina]

It is ironic that now you are laying such import on the Baltimore Catechism, which is the very Catechism which was suggested to me to acquire when I wrote and asked the SSPX, several years ago. Many times on this forum have I quoted from the Baltimore Catechism and been attacked from all sides.

Ironic indeed. Guess sspx forgot to make it part of their “revised doctrine.”

Want to check out my quote? Look it up.

 

[piouswoman]

Her opinion of herself is reflected in her user name. She calls me a liar on a post that begins “I believe…”. I do not know how she thinks one’s belief can be a lie. However, if such a gutteral reaction devoid of logic is woven through the SSPX, their future will be bleak. (again, my opinion)

As I said…the un-Catholic and un-charitable attacks extend not only to the SSPX but to the SSPX faithful…let the attacks continue, and we shall see in the end where the graces are.

 

[piouswoman]

Ironic indeed. Guess sspx forgot to make it part of their “revised doctrine.”

Every word out of your mouth contains insult to the SSPX.

 

[piouswoman]

Want to check out my quote? Look it up.

I don’t need to look it up, I have read it many a time…and now explain to me how that quote has anything to do with the topic at hand:
“Why did God make you?” AND the answer: “God made me to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him in heaven.”

The good and holy priests of the SSPX are doing just that.

 

[Our_Refuge]

=

JReducation;3860910]So how to we justify the hundreds of thousands of **religious sisters **who never became mothers, went to universities and became teachers, doctors, social workers, nurses, theologians, administrators, and more.

They are married to Christ.

Was Mother Teresa one of these women who should have never been beatified, because she went to university twice. She had degrees in education and in nursing and was not a mother.

She was married to Christ

Should we not have canoized St. Edith Stein who had two PhDs and wrote very profound philosphical texts on philosophy of theology? She also was not a mother.

Again, she was a nun, married to Christ

What about St. Francis Xavier Cabrini, who went to university and became a teacher and missionary?

A nun, married to Christ

Or St. Katherine Drexel who had two university degrees, in Business Administration and in Education.

A nun married to Christ

Let’s not forget Maria Montessori, MD who was the first female Italian physician and whose case is up for beatification. She was a wife, mother, physician and educator.

A good Catholic, I can’t conceive of her being declared a saint. Don’t know enough of her personal life. How many children did she have? Did she put their spiritual welfare ahead of her work?

Since the Church did infallibly beatify and canonized them, that means that there is a plac for women in higher education and for women who choose not to be mothers, but to serve God and the Church in something else.

All those you listed were nuns, married to Christ and His church.

 

[catharina]

Every word out of your mouth contains insult to the SSPX.

No - but since you continue to offer support of sspx, I add the reasons why I can’t support it. For bishops to attempt to re-define the purpose of men/women and why God created us is a mangled notion that won’t fly with me. I learned all of the doctrine as a child and young adult. I haven’t forgotten it - despite the bishops’ attempts to twist and turn things.

My generation hasn’t yet died off (thanks be to God).

 

[catharina]

I don’t need to look it up, I have read it many a time…and now explain to me how that quote has anything to do with the topic at hand:
“Why did God make you?” AND the answer: “God made me to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him in heaven.”

The good and holy priests of the SSPX are doing just that.

So WHY are the bishops teaching that:
they have discovered another purpose for the lives of men/women.

I’ll stick with the catechism, thank you.

 

[Our_Refuge]

So WHY are the bishops teaching that:
they have discovered another purpose for the lives of men/women.

I’ll stick with the catechism, thank you.

How can you say that the SSPX is teaching something other than

“God made me to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him in heaven.”

Bishop WIlliamson has said nothing different. Is the primary purpose of marriage to have children or to have university degrees?
Can one have both? Yes but it is extremely difficult. God did not create women to aspire for degrees but to aspire to have children.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

There is no legitimate reason why a woman, or a man for that matter, cannot earn a degree of any sort, then marry, then have children- or not marry for that matter. There is nothing in Tradition that is against it. There is nothing in the Code of Canon Law- 1917 or 1983- that is against it. There is nothing in the CCC that is against it. It is one man’s opinion who is currently outside the teaching of the Church; in fact, somebody who incurred automatic excommunication by being ordained a bishop without papal authority.

I certainly do not care what the SSPX teaches. And I would not hold my breath waiting for the SSPX to come back to the Church. They seem to always find a delay, and the 28th is today.

As to who is a canonized saint and who is not- That is not up to the posters on CAF, thank goodness, but the Church.

 

[JReducation]

=
They are married to Christ.

She was married to Christ

Again, she was a nun, married to Christ

A nun, married to Christ

A nun married to Christ

A good Catholic, I can’t conceive of her being declared a saint. Don’t know enough of her personal life. How many children did she have? Did she put their spiritual welfare ahead of her work?

All those you listed were nuns, married to Christ and His church.

The only nun on my list was St. Edith Stein. Therefore, she is the only one who is a consecrated virgin married to Christ.

The other women religious are not nuns, they are sisters. Sisters are not consecrated virgins and are legally not spouses of Christ. They do not take the same vows as nuns. They make simple vows. The Church has never recognized women religious in simple vows as brides of Christ, only cloistered nuns have that title, because they make solemn vows and belong to exempt religious orders. If you look at the liturgical calendar you will notice that some of these women are listed as religious and others as virgins. Only cloistered nuns in solemn vows can be called virgins. All other women religious are Religious. Mother Teresa was not a nun or married to Christ. She was a sister. In her heart she was married to Christ, because she experienced mystical union with him.

You have Catherine of Siena who was married to Christ by virtue of a Mystical Marriage that God graced her with, but she was never a religious. She was a lay woman. She was a Secular Dominican.

Maria Montessori founded her system based on her Christian belief that Christ wanted all children to be served, not just those who were intelligent and had financial means to get an educaiton. The Montessori system was created to meet the needs of special children living in the slums of Rome and it had a religious education component to it, until it was brought to the United States.

Maria as the mother of three children, a wife, a doctor, a teacher, and daily communicant, as well as a woman of prayer. Her cause of beatification is now in the hands of a postulator from her home diocese.

The marriage to Christ does not hold as an explanation for only one of these women. The rest were Sisters or lay women.

If we say that a Sister or a Nun can have an academic education, because she is a religious, but a secular woman should not and should marry and have children, are we not controlling people’s choices? Are we not discriminating against those women whom God has not called to the religious life?

JR

 

[Our_Refuge]

Some may be smart enough to handle motherhood and a career, that is beside the point, the selfish pursuit and prominence of a working mothers career will inevitably rob the children of the motherly guidance and attention that is vital. Isn’t it enough of a contribution to society for a woman to raise good, moral, Catholic adults? If it isn’t, then that mother is soaking in feminism and modernism.

I want to apologize to you for all of the SSPX bashing. I am not with the SSPX, don’t know anyone that is.
It is OK to disagree with the SSPX but to bash them more than you would the Orthodox, who have their own pope, or protestants that deny everything is simply wrong.
This situation between the SSPX and Rome is very serious.There are clearly doctrinal issues that need to be resolved. The SSPX interprets Religious Liberty differently that the Vatican II council. Maybe behind closed doors these issues are being worked out. The definition of Ecumenism is different for the SSPX than what is practiced by churchmen like Cardinal Kasper. This needs to be worked out.

I know that the SSPX is frustrated when they see theologians like Hans Kung, who denies papal infallibility among other things, and is allowed to be a priest in good standing and NOT excommunicated. Or theologian Charles Curran who teaches that the pill, abortion, homosexuality, pre-martial sex are fine and dandy and has NOT been excommunicated.

It is in God’s hands. These disputes are nothing new.

 

[Our_Refuge]

The only nun on my list was St. Edith Stein. Therefore, she is the only one who is a consecrated virgin married to Christ.

The other women religious are not nuns, they are sisters. Sisters are not consecrated virgins and are legally not spouses of Christ. They do not take the same vows as nuns. They make simple vows. The Church has never recognized women religious in simple vows as brides of Christ, only cloistered nuns have that title, because they make solemn vows and belong to exempt religious orders. If you look at the liturgical calendar you will notice that some of these women are listed as religious and others as virgins. Only cloistered nuns in solemn vows can be called virgins. All other women religious are Religious. Mother Teresa was not a nun or married to Christ. She was a sister. In her heart she was married to Christ, because she experienced mystical union with him.

You have Catherine of Siena who was married to Christ by virtue of a Mystical Marriage that God graced her with, but she was never a religious. She was a lay woman. She was a Secular Dominican.

Maria Montessori founded her system based on her Christian belief that Christ wanted all children to be served, not just those who were intelligent and had financial means to get an educaiton. The Montessori system was created to meet the needs of special children living in the slums of Rome and it had a religious education component to it, until it was brought to the United States.

Maria as the mother of three children, a wife, a doctor, a teacher, and daily communicant, as well as a woman of prayer. Her cause of beatification is now in the hands of a postulator from her home diocese.

The marriage to Christ does not hold as an explanation for only one of these women. The rest were Sisters or lay women.

If we say that a Sister or a Nun can have an academic education, because she is a religious, but a secular woman should not and should marry and have children, are we not controlling people’s choices? Are we not discriminating against those women whom God has not called to the religious life?

But they are two different callings. A sister or nun is not going to have children. They will remain virgins. The can dedicate all of their time to their calling. A mother’s first priority is her children not her career. That is all the Bishop is talking about. What is God’s plan? For women to be mothers or businessmen.?
In a perfect world the man would work and the women would be with the children. If this were the case the world would flourish because there would be no unemployment. Jobs for men would be everywhere. Children would not come home from school to an empty house. More children would be home schooled. People would not live beyond their means. That is God’s plan. But we have embraced the secular world and ignored His plan and this is why the world is the way it is.

 

[Our_Refuge]

=OutinChgoburbs;3861058]There is no legitimate reason why a woman, or a man for that matter, cannot earn a degree of any sort, then marry, then have children- or not marry for that matter. There is nothing in Tradition that is against it.

There is nothing in tradition for it.

There is nothing in the Code of Canon Law- 1917 or 1983- that is against it. There is nothing in the CCC that is against it.

There is nothing in canon law or the catechism for it either.

It is one man’s opinion who is currently outside the teaching of the Church; in fact, somebody who incurred automatic excommunication by being ordained a bishop without papal authority.

If you asked Pope Benedict if it is better for women to have children and work outside the home or to have children and stay at home with them I am willing to bet he would say stay at home with the children

 

[pnewton]

…let the attacks continue, and we shall see in the end where the graces are.

The end has come for LeFebvre. Williamson and Fellay are still excommunicated. A chance to rejoin fellowship with the Catholic Church proper has been rejected so far. Will the end come for them while they are still excommunicted?

These attacks are a fruit of the seeds these men planted when they rejected the direction the Holy Spirit has taken the Church the last couple of generations and the last few popes. Also, the SSPX visitors here haven’t been the nicest of people, calling people liars for their opinion, denigrating the grace of God in their lives. This site is ran for Catholics and is faithful to the Holy Father. It is not sedevacantist, schismatic and definitely not SSPX.

 

[pnewton]

There is nothing in tradition for it.
There is nothing in canon law or the catechism for it either.

Then you fall back on the law of freedom espoused by St. Paul. If it is not sin, then it is okay. By the way, there is nothing in the CCC or canon law about men earning a degree, either.

This is not the way canon law or the CCC works.

 

[Our_Refuge]

=pnewton;3861138]The end has come for LeFebvre. Williamson and Fellay are still excommunicated. A chance to rejoin fellowship with the Catholic Church proper has been rejected so far. Will the end come for them while they are still excommunicted?

These attacks are a fruit of the seeds these men planted when they rejected the direction the Holy Spirit has taken the Church the last couple of generations and the last few popes. Also, the SSPX visitors here haven’t been the nicest of people, calling people liars for their opinion, denigrating the grace of God in their lives. This site is ran for Catholics and is faithful to the Holy Father. It is not sedevacantist, schismatic and definitely not SSPX./

Why not the SSPX? If protestants, Hindus, Buddists and atheists can post, why not the SSPX?

 

[JReducation]

But they are two different callings. A sister or nun is not going to have children. They will remain virgins. The can dedicate all of their time to their calling. A mother’s first priority is her children not her career. That is all the Bishop is talking about. What is God’s plan? For women to be mothers or businessmen.?
In a perfect world the man would work and the women would be with the children. If this were the case the world would flourish because there would be no unemployment. Jobs for men would be everywhere. Children would not come home from school to an empty house. More children would be home schooled. People would not live beyond their means. That is God’s plan. But we have embraced the secular world and ignored His plan and this is why the world is the way it is.

Don’t get me wrong. I have not problem with protecting the family and or anything against full-time mothers. But the Bishop could have done a better job in speaking about families, parenting and the rights of children to have strong Christian families and left out the whole discussion on academic education. If what he wants to say is that women who are mothers must be good mothers, just say so. He’ll get no argument for that.

I’ll give you a personal example. My mother was a physician. My wife was a physician. My daugher is a physician. I would not deny any of them the right to an education. However, if they were bad mothers, I would certainly call them on it. But I would not place the blame on the fact that they studied medicine.

In fact my wife and mother were excellent mothers. They are both deceased, but they dearly loved their children and made sure that their children received the best education, care, spiritual formation and they were there for their children, as well as for their patients.

My daughter is still single and has not plans of marrying, not has she plans of becoming a religious. Does she have to marry or become a religious? No. The Church does not require this. She loves being a pediatrician and does a great deal of good for children with disabilities. That’s her specialty.

I also included the examples of other women who never married and never became religious, such as Catherine of Siena and women who did marry and had professional a careers and lead holy lives, such as Maria Montessori.

It does not seem that God’s plan if for all women to become wive and mothers or religious. There are other options for woman which are also within God’s plan. The number of female saints who never married or had children is significant.

In addition, the bishop does not speak to the male’s responsibilities as a good father. What he says is that education is an attempt on the part of women to become more like men. If that’s the case, then religious sisters and nuns were part of this crew of people who wanted to be like men, because they are well educated. Does the SSPX deny Sisters and Nuns the opportunity to be educated to protect them from being masculine? If so, this is wrong. This is inconsistent with Church teaching and tradition.

I don’t see why not speak about the family and about parenting, if that’s what the Bishop’s concern really is.

JR

 

[bobzills]

Bob, we all know that annulments are your favorite subject.

But what do they have to do with the possibility of the SSPX returning to union with Rome?

It is related because the SSPX has been pointing out that since Vatican II, there have been problems arising in the Church which are not being properly addressed.