U.S.: Franciscans side with the LCWR

  • Thread starter Thread starter bkovacs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
 
This is outrageous, but as Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says in the article you posted it is always the ‘usual suspects’ that stand up for those Catholics who spread heresy.
 
See, this is why I always decline subscriptions offers from the St. Anthony Messenger.
 
I think the Vatican is on the losing side here.

The rank and file laity in the US generally support to LCWR as do many/most co-religious.

The horses have gotten out of the barn a long time ago.

Some say the Confrence of Major Superioers groups will be the antidote. Hardly IMO. Despite the professed youthfullness of this group of nuns their average age is 60 and they are averaging only 5 vocations a year in member congregations. Their are about 50 such so go figure. You can’t get there from here. Despite outlers like the Dominicans of Nashville. They are falling behind just like the LCW just not as quickly.

It’s ironic that Rome gets accused of micro-managing and central control. The last 20 plus years have seen none of that.

If there was a Mormon group “stepping out” like this, so to speak, or an orthodox Jewish group they would have been corrected/expelled almost immedialty.For the good of the faithful.

For the US it’s too late. IMO Rome will eventually back down as short of that religious sisters will disappear overnight in the US. The LCWR will not back down and they have all the cards.

JMHO.
 
I would also like to comment that this is mainly the OFMs. Not the OFM Cap or OFM Conv, or other Franciscan associated orders or groups. The articles states the Order of Friars Minor. Not sure where the others stand yet.
 
This is just another crack in the dike that leads me to beleive schism is inevitable. The battle lines are being drawn between those who will stand on the Teachings and direction of Holy Mother Church, and those who, like the protestants, want to make it up as they, and the world, goes along. We were warned of this numerous times.

Pray for the Holy Father as He continues to right the ship.

Maybe we need a little St. Thomas Becket.
youtube.com/watch?v=NRt2cKvJLlE
 
If you see the trends happening in Rome. In regards to the Popes comments on re-establishing our Roman Catholic identity, and the filling of certain positions of authority. New alliances forming. Examples Ordinariates, SSPX, better ties with Eastern Orthodox, and Eastern Christianity in general. Rome is definatley not on the losing side. And AMEN to that.
 
Tobias2 said:
I think the Vatican is on the losing side here.

The rank and file laity in the US generally support to LCWR as do many/most co-religious.

The horses have gotten out of the barn a long time ago.

JMHO.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The rank and file laity of in the US hasn’t seen a sister in years and wouldn’t know a member of the LCWR from Sister Bertrile. Unless you are “:inside the beltway” of the Church, it will be a non-issue.
 
Tobias2 said:
I think the Vatican is on the losing side here.

The rank and file laity in the US generally support to LCWR as do many/most co-religious.

The horses have gotten out of the barn a long time ago.

Some say the Confrence of Major Superioers groups will be the antidote. Hardly IMO. Despite the professed youthfullness of this group of nuns their average age is 60 and they are averaging only 5 vocations a year in member congregations. Their are about 50 such so go figure. You can’t get there from here. Despite outlers like the Dominicans of Nashville. They are falling behind just like the LCW just not as quickly.

It’s ironic that Rome gets accused of micro-managing and central control. The last 20 plus years have seen none of that.

If there was a Mormon group “stepping out” like this, so to speak, or an orthodox Jewish group they would have been corrected/expelled almost immedialty.For the good of the faithful.

For the US it’s too late. IMO Rome will eventually back down as short of that religious sisters will disappear overnight in the US. The LCWR will not back down and they have all the cards.

JMHO.
Click to expand...
Where is the evidence most of the laity support the LCWR in their spreading of heretical teaching?

LCWR’s numbers are dwindling, there are many faithful sisters like the Sisters of Life whose numbers are growing. The faithful Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious is another organisation of religious women, their membership is younger than LCWR, 46% of CMSWR members have 5 novices or more. Only 9% of LCWR have 5 novices or more.
 
Corki said:
I disagree. The rank and file laity of in the US hasn’t seen a sister in years and wouldn’t know a member of the LCWR from Sister Bertrile. Unless you are “:inside the beltway” of the Church, it will be a non-issue.
Click to expand...
And I would also like to add that many of the young women who are discerning becoming a nun are looking into the more traditional Catholic groups. The ones that wear their habits, etcc. And they are very happy!. You just have to know where to look!.

Check video out first.

youtu.be/ZLeomOG3bN8

Nuns

institute-christ-king.org/vocations/sisters/

religious-vocation.com/media_links.html

Nuns from Anglican Ordinariates in full communion with the Holy Father

theanglocatholic.com/2011/11/all-saints-sister-profess-vows/

SSPX

sspx.org/Vocations/dominicans_in_the_usa.htm

sspx.org/Vocations/franciscans_in_the_usa.htm
 
Don’t get your knickers in a twist yet. Those of you who are so quick to even remotely imply the OFM is acting in a heretical manner are a bigger threat to the church than those they are so quick to condemn here. I will pray for both sides of the argument, rather than give in to the evil one by even unintentionally promoting a schism.

Peace and all things good.
 
Tobias2 said:
I think the Vatican is on the losing side here.

The rank and file laity in the US generally support to LCWR as do many/most co-religious.

.
Click to expand...
Wrong (with all due respect). The rank and file is becoming more orthodox by the day. Most, at least the Mass attending ones, side firmly with the Vatican.
 
Even I have sympathies with our beloved sisters and nuns. They are the ones who cared for me as I grew up. I was born in Mercy Hospital and educated by the Sisters of Mercy through eighth grade. Perhaps I was too young to perceive heresy or liberalism - to be sure, I grew up singing Haugen & Haas, Carey Landry, and the St. Louis Jesuits, but they never steered us wrong in school, we attended Mass frequently, were encouraged to celebrate Reconciliation, and I was an altar server for a brief time. I received good religious formation there, and no regrets. I think there are many faithful women doing good work on the ground in the US.

But the culture of dissent, the Magisterium of Nuns, the belief by some leaders that they are more important than the Gospel or the bishops, must be kept in check. If they choose schism, it will not be Rome’s fault. Let them take Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Kathleen Sebelius with them. Let them ‘ordain’ women and ‘marry’ gays to their heart’s content. I know where the Church’s treasure lies, I have faith in her sacraments, and I trust in her bishops to lead us to Truth, guided by the Holy Spirit.
 
Schism doesn’t come from rebellious lay people or even renegade convents or monasteries. It can only really happen if bishops split from Rome. Heard of any bishops denouncing the Vatican censure of LCWR? Me neither. Sleep sound, the liberation theology clique of the church is on its deathbed. These are its death throes.
 
manualman said:
Schism doesn’t come from rebellious lay people or even renegade convents or monasteries. It can only really happen if bishops split from Rome. Heard of any bishops denouncing the Vatican censure of LCWR? Me neither. Sleep sound, the liberation theology clique of the church is on its deathbed. These are its death throes.
Click to expand...
Agree.
 
Though I believe that the Provincial Ministers of the Order of Friars Minor of the Observance (OFM) acted prematurely, it is very clear that what they are being accused of here is not what was in their statement.

No where in their statement do they lend support for any heresy or any dissent from the teachings of the Church. Their statement is very simple. Unfortunately, it’s clouded by the usual ecclesial verbage that we tend to use when Catholics speak.

They are saying that given the evidence that was presented to the CDF the response of the CDF was over the top. It’s that simple. They’re not saying that the LCWR’s positions on this or that matter is right or wrong.

They are also saying that the media does not seem to make a distinction between assent on principle and difference of opinion on the application. The latter is not a rejection of Church teaching is actually true. One can agree on a moral principle and disagree on how we’re going to proceed with this. The disagreement on procedure is not disagreement on the content.

The brothers are taking a preventive position, which in my mind is premature. They are reminding everyone that there is a law in place that says that conflicts between religious and bishops must be resolved in a committee of superiors and bishops.

Many lay people don’t know this, but bishops have no doctrinal or moral authority over religious . . . only the major superior does. Above the major superior would be the Holy Father. But the bishops themselves do not. That’s why the law provides for a council. When that does not work, then the Holy Father is asked to resolve the problem. The brothers don’t explain this in their letter. My guess is that the letter is meant to the LCWR and they figure that they should already know about these laws.

I see it as premature, because the bishops have not overstepped their authority. I don’t believe it’s necessary to remind anyone about the ruling of the Council of Trent that prohibits the intervention of bishops in affairs of religious. Bishops are not even allowed to set foot in religious houses without asking for permission from the religious. But all of this is very premature. Unless they know something that we don’t know, I don’t get the impression that bishops are getting involved in the affairs of the sisters.

It is important to recall that the LCWR is not the same as a religious community. Therefore, the involvement of one bishop with the LCWR does not constitute direct involvement of bishops with religious, which is the part that is not allowed. Until this happens, if it ever happens, I believe that this letter should have been put on hold.

But it is important that people know the truth. The Observants (OFM) are not endorsing anything that the LCWR has done or not done. They are speaking about two points and two points only.
  1. The reaction of the CDF is over the top (a matter of dispute)
Moreover, we are concerned that the tone and direction set forth in the Doctrinal Assessment of LCWR are excessive, given the evidence raised.
  1. The bishops must remember the conflicts must be resolved in a council (too early to bring this out, since no one has overstepped their authority).
We trust that CDF was attempting to follow their counsel from Mutuae Relationes; however, we fear that in today’s public media world their action easily could be misunderstood. ***

The rest of their statement is pretty much repeating what the Holy Father himself said last week. The sisters have made a great contribution to the Church in America that we can never repay and should never forget. I believe that most people with common sense know this and don’t need to be reminded.

There are hot button issues that will lead to conflicts when discussed. We know that too. No need to remind us of that either.

Part of living out our faith is to discern how to address those hot issues. Another thing that we know.

In essence, they’re not saying anything other than the two points that I made above. My personal opinion, it’s too early to have made such a statement. We need to wait until the sisters go to the Vatican to meet with Cardinal Levada and then see what happens.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Thank you very much for your clarifications, Br. JR. I also got a vague feeling from actually reading the quotes that the article title was misleading. It is heartening and reassuring and altogether unsurprising that the Franciscans have taken this position.

And I’ll note on the side that it only takes one bishop for schism. It only took two at Écône - and even if zero bishops wanted to part with Rome over the LCWR controversy, I’m sure that a splinter of Old Catholics would be glad to welcome them.

Yes, it makes me sad to predict a schism, but some seed fell on rocky ground, and is not bearing fruit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top