Vatican demands reform of American nuns' leadership group [CWN]

[iloveangels]

There was an interesting incident on the 2nd day of the conference.

Quoting from Ann Carey’s article on the 2nd day of the recent LCWR conference:

*" The most dramatic incident occurred in a question-answer period after a panel discussion on the future of religious life. A sister asked the three panelists: “If you were in our shoes, what would you do?”

When panelist Tom Fox responded bluntly, “Just say, ‘No,’” audible groans could be heard from some of the 900 sisters. Fox, who is the publisher of National Catholic Reporter, seemed to be taken aback by this reaction, and he scrambled to recover."
*
Read more: ncregister.com/blog/ann-c…#ixzz23Xa4BkYs

Tom Fox was left completely confused by this, and he may still be. His view is a rather stock-&-trade very progressive view, but it’s not in line with the zeitgeist he was witnessing. It’s different from what was going on and they let him know about his mistake.

 

[KSU]

…the progressive opinions of Tom Fox and the NCR which are their opinions to which they have a right, no matter what I think of them…

iloveangels, thank you for your contributions to this thread. I think you have opened some eyes.

In that spirit, please allow me a nitpick. It is clear you are just trying to be non-confrontational towards the National Catholic Reporter crowd, but those people have no more “right”, morally or ethically (and maybe not even legally), to call themselves Catholic than do the Catholics For a Free Choice or Call to Action crowds.

I personally am way past the non-confrontational stage, and have been for decades. I believe the Vatican is, too. We have lost a generation of religious and clergy, seminarians, and generations of children and adults, not to mention our sacred music, architecture and liturgy because we have been largely non-confrontational with pseudo Catholics.

I pray that we finally are beginning to right the Barque of Peter.

 

[iloveangels]

iloveangels, thank you for your contributions to this thread. I think you have opened some eyes.

In that spirit, please allow me a nitpick. It is clear you are just trying to be non-confrontational towards the National Catholic Reporter crowd, but those people have no more “right”, morally or ethically (and maybe not even legally), to call themselves Catholic than do the Catholics For a Free Choice or Call to Action crowds.

I personally am way past the non-confrontational stage, and have been for decades. I believe the Vatican is, too. We have lost a generation of religious and clergy, seminarians, and generations of children and adults, not to mention our sacred music, architecture and liturgy because we have been largely non-confrontational with pseudo Catholics.

I pray that we finally are beginning to right the Barque of Peter.

I understand, KSU. But in this case, I really don’t think that this is the totality of the problem. I think that the far left is trying to somehow capture the backing of the LCWR business, and I think that the LCWR business has been hiding behind the far left for a long time. It’s sort of a mutual front in a way only because the two of them have the same foes, but I don’t think they’re the same thing. I think it’s some kind of uneasy partnership and in the long run they’re not on the same page at all.

 

[iloveangels]

We do have some magically disappearing links today.

If you search using google or bing and you use the phrase “whatever wishes to emerge from within to do so” just like that in quote marks just as you see it, alternate links will come up for that attribution.

[The ones labeled Catholic Answers Forum, of course, come back here (!) but there are several others. And it will be in the Google cache.]

 

[rlg94086]

Who/what are “traditionalist Catholics”?

I think that’s code for orthodox/faithful Catholics.

 

[iloveangels]

iloveangels, thank you for your contributions to this thread. I think you have opened some eyes.

In that spirit, please allow me a nitpick. It is clear you are just trying to be non-confrontational towards the National Catholic Reporter crowd, but those people have no more “right”, morally or ethically (and maybe not even legally), to call themselves Catholic than do the Catholics For a Free Choice or Call to Action crowds.

I personally am way past the non-confrontational stage, and have been for decades. I believe the Vatican is, too. We have lost a generation of religious and clergy, seminarians, and generations of children and adults, not to mention our sacred music, architecture and liturgy because we have been largely non-confrontational with pseudo Catholics.

I pray that we finally are beginning to right the Barque of Peter.

Oh,and you’re welcome. God bless you, KSU.

 

[KSU]

Oh,and you’re welcome. God bless you, KSU.

Thank you, iloveangels.

More reason why we must confront the so-called Catholic Left:
catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=384

 

[Tigg]

A little off topic here, but I must receive solicitations from every orthodox order there is! I opened my little packet from the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles this morning, and there they were, a pix of them praying the rosary in full habit in front of the Blessed Sacrament. I crushed that little picture to my heart and thanked the Lord for them all.

The LCWR will be blessed whether they want it or not…surely these holy nuns, every single one, are praying for them.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wr40QTymJ...Ls/Wbp8PiqxjmA/s320/benedictinescomtemplative

 

[jwinch2]

Who/what are “traditionalist Catholics”?

In common usage here on CAF, “traditionalist Catholics” are those who prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, etc. Most are great people just trying to be faithful in a world stacked against them, but once and a while you get some that take it too far. Examples can be seen all over the forum but one would be someone who claims that the OF of the Mass is invalid or inferior in some way. There are others, but there is really no reason to go into it.

 

[jwinch2]

A little off topic here, but I must receive solicitations from every orthodox order there is! I opened my little packet from the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles this morning, and there they were, a pix of them praying the rosary in full habit in front of the Blessed Sacrament. I crushed that little picture to my heart and thanked the Lord for them all.

The LCWR will be blessed whether they want it or not…surely these holy nuns, every single one, are praying for them.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wr40QTymJ...Ls/Wbp8PiqxjmA/s320/benedictinescomtemplative

Great Stuff!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=696248&highlight=Benedictines+of+Mary%2C+Queen+of+Apostles

 

[KSU]

In common usage here on CAF, “traditionalist Catholics” are those who prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, etc. Most are great people just trying to be faithful in a world stacked against them, but once and a while you get some that take it too far. Examples can be seen all over the forum but one would be someone who claims that the OF of the Mass is invalid or inferior in some way. There are others, but there is really no reason to go into it.

Thank you, Jason. That is the answer I would expect from a charitable, knowledgeable Catholic such as you who doesn’t know whether or not I am a Traditionalist (I am not, but how can you tell sometimes). rig94086 hit the nail on the head: “I think that’s code for orthodox/faithful Catholics.”

My question was an attempt to elicit a clarification from Alan55, the author of the term “traditionalist Catholics” in his post #977. Alan55, in another post, described himself “As a card-carrying, Rachel Maddow-watching Democrat.”

To each his own, but it’s not surprising, therefore, that on this thread, in an attempt to throw a cloak of orthodoxy over LCWR-supporters, he would invent the small t term “traditionalist” Catholics to describe LCWR critics who actually are Vatican-supporting orthodox (i.e.,“traditional”) Catholics. I don’t want to let that charge stand uncontested because “Traditionalist” Catholics, as you know and implied in your response, are not Catholics in good standing; the term most often refers to the Traditionalist movement started by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvr-- the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

BTW, thanks to both you and Tigg for the info in re the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles. They are typical of the grace-filled, obedient-to-God women religious who formed me and a few million other mush-headed kids, and who were the glue which held the Church together in the last century. They are the women portrayed by the anti-Catholic secular and anti-Catholic Catholic media as the “nuns” being viciously attacked by the heartless, thankless Vatican. They are the reason for the joy in the heats of traditional Catholics.

 

[jwinch2]

Thank you, Jason. That is the answer I would expect from a charitable, knowledgeable Catholic such as you who doesn’t know whether or not I am a Traditionalist (I am not, but how can you tell sometimes). rig94086 hit the nail on the head: “I think that’s code for orthodox/faithful Catholics.”

My question was an attempt to elicit a clarification from Alan55, the author of the term “traditionalist Catholics” in his post #977. Alan55, in another post, described himself “As a card-carrying, Rachel Maddow-watching Democrat.”

To each his own, but it’s not surprising, therefore, that on this thread, in an attempt to throw a cloak of orthodoxy over LCWR-supporters, he would invent the small t term “traditionalist” Catholics to describe LCWR critics who actually are Vatican-supporting orthodox (i.e.,“traditional”) Catholics. I don’t want to let that charge stand uncontested because “Traditionalist” Catholics, as you know and implied in your response, are not Catholics in good standing; the term most often refers to the Traditionalist movement started by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvr-- the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

BTW, thanks to both you and Tigg for the info in re the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles. They are typical of the grace-filled, obedient-to-God women religious who formed me and a few million other mush-headed kids, and who were the glue which held the Church together in the last century. They are the women portrayed by the anti-Catholic secular and anti-Catholic Catholic media as the “nuns” being viciously attacked by the heartless, thankless Vatican. They are the reason for the joy in the heats of traditional Catholics.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

I would put myself into the category of someone who is trying very hard to be completely faithful (and I fail at it miserably on a regular basis), and traditional, but not necessarily 'traditionalist". I have been to only one Celebration of the EF Mass and while I found it beautiful and reverent, it did not meet my spiritual needs the way that a properly celebrated OF Mass in English does. In addition, I deliberately am looking at Monasteries to affiliate with as a potential Oblate, who use English and the OF rather than Latin and the EF despite the fact that there is a very traditional and beautiful monastery within reasonable driving distance who celebrates the EF and who chants the Hours in Latin. I’m also a big fan of Vatican II, providing it is interpreted within the living Tradition of the Church and not used as justification for clown Masses or MASS-THE MUSICAL!!!, etc.

Having said all of that, I am completely in support of the actions taken by the Holy See regarding the LCWR and consider it well past time that it happened.

So, if Alan’s intent was to generalize those who are supportive of the CDF towards the LCWR as traditionalist who are anti-Vatican II in some way, then it is not true at all.

Peace,

 

[KSU]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification…

So, if Alan’s intent was to generalize those who are supportive of the CDF towards the LCWR as traditionalist who are anti-Vatican II in some way, then it is not true at all.

Peace,

So, if Alan’s intent was to generalize those who are supportive of the CDF towards the LCWR as traditionalist who are anti-Vatican II in some way, then it is not true at all.

Peace,

I am assuming (a dangerous thing) that that was Alan’s intent. He has chosen not to clarify, so we will never know for sure.

A point to keep in mind: Not all faithful, orthodox Catholics may object to being called “traditionalist” v. “traditional”, but from my observations they are very few in number. If you can’t fall asleep some night, and would care to learn what they said a few years ago about VC II, read this: fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Sister Mary Hughes of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) spoke at a National Press Club luncheon about the LCWR’s changing relations with the Vatican.

c-span.org/Events/US-Nun-Questions-Recent-Vatican-Report/10737433165/

 

[zz912]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

I would put myself into the category of someone who is trying very hard to be completely faithful (and I fail at it miserably on a regular basis), and traditional, but not necessarily 'traditionalist". I have been to only one Celebration of the EF Mass and while I found it beautiful and reverent, it did not meet my spiritual needs the way that a properly celebrated OF Mass in English does. In addition, I deliberately am looking at Monasteries to affiliate with as a potential Oblate, who use English and the OF rather than Latin and the EF despite the fact that there is a very traditional and beautiful monastery within reasonable driving distance who celebrates the EF and who chants the Hours in Latin. I’m also a big fan of Vatican II, providing it is interpreted within the living Tradition of the Church and not used as justification for clown Masses or MASS-THE MUSICAL!!!, etc.

Having said all of that, I am completely in support of the actions taken by the Holy See regarding the LCWR and consider it well past time that it happened.

So, if Alan’s intent was to generalize those who are supportive of the CDF towards the LCWR as traditionalist who are anti-Vatican II in some way, then it is not true at all.

Peace,

You’re a traditionalist in their eyes too. (You’re faithful to the Church and the Magisterium.)

 

[jwinch2]

Sister Mary Hughes of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) spoke at a National Press Club luncheon about the LCWR’s changing relations with the Vatican.

c-span.org/Events/US-Nun-Questions-Recent-Vatican-Report/10737433165/

That’s one of the things they need to consider. If they decide to go non-Canonical, I would not be shocked to see their invitations dry up to events like this in short order. If the organization no longer has standing in the Church, it gives less political cover to those who wish to use their relationship with the Church for political advantage.

Of course, they will still be religious, but they would be forced to only speak as representatives of their congregation instead of “all” women religious in America. In addition, if they were to go non-Canonical, I would expect many of the more faithful communities who have been trying to work from within for change would cease their membership.

Peace,

 

[jwinch2]

You’re a traditionalist in their eyes too.

Perhaps, but I doubt that most on here would label me as such. I’ve been pretty up front for my preference for the OF of the Mass and English.

(You’re faithful to the Church and the Magisterium.)

I’m trying, but that’s about as far as I would go.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Hi, Jason. I think when most people say “faithful to the Church and the Magisterium” they are not referring to personal moral behavior (sin/virtue) so much as sincerity of intent to regard the Magisterium as the authority. The reverse would be to assume that the individual is the authority who asserts a privilege of regularly evaluating the Magisterium: the individual is the Absolute or primary authority; the Magisterium is the subordinate authority. This is what it seems is the slight majority reality in the laity at present.

So I consider (because I think the church does!) any Catholic who refers first to Church as moral authority, conforming to that intellectually and trying to conform to that practically, is a Catholic “faithful to the Church and the Magisterium.”

To clarify terms, fidelity (assent and intention) is not to be confused with a style of accepted practice. There are various accepted practices in the Roman Church: devotions are not mandated; they are recommended as spiritual aids; Masses --OF/EF, etc. are offered as optional forms of worship. A “traditional” Catholic more often indicates style preferences; a “faithful” Catholic would indicate adherence to belief and a respect for Church authority as the source of the corpus of belief. It would not indicate any attained level of spirituality.

Within traditional Catholicism, there are subsets, such as what is sometimes referred to as “radical traditionalists.” That’s not an epithet by any means; it is merely a term to indicate that these people are fervent in their interpretation of the core traditions and how they choose to practice those. Normally that includes preference for the Latin Mass, and it can mean affiliation with certain clergy & movements in the Church which similarly prioritize traditional practices.

P.S. I consider myself largely traditional, but not radically so. I love both the English and the Latin Mass, but generally for practical reasons and the immediacy of it, attend English Masses. It is, rather, the reverent atmosphere of that Mas that is more important to me than the language in which it is spoken. I have little use for informal, noisy liturgies which are litle more than chats, as if the presence of the Blessed Sacrament is an afterthought. Silence is essential to me as an aspect of any liturgy.

I also consider myself orthodox, but deifnitely a “struggler” like the vast majority of Catholics both traditional and not. That is, I not only struggle against daily sinful tendencies and attractions, I also struggle (internally) with some of the doctrine. However, I do not assume personal authority which exceeds the Magisterium. Therefore, I am by that definition “faithful.”

 

[KSU]

Sister Mary Hughes of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) spoke at a National Press Club luncheon about the LCWR’s changing relations with the Vatican.

c-span.org/Events/US-Nun-Questions-Recent-Vatican-Report/10737433165/

“And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son.”

Don’t know for sure why that popped into my head as I watched the video, but it did.

 

[KSU]

Perhaps, but I doubt that most on here would label me as such. I’ve been pretty up front for my preference for the OF of the Mass and English.

Jason, I believe that zz912 and Elizabeth502 are correct; because you are an orthodox believer, in the eyes of the Progressives you’re a “traditionalist”. That has little or nothing to do with one’s opinion of the EF of the Mass, and it has nothing at all to do with the fact that we ALL struggle with something or other–even the best of us, i.e., Mother Teresa and Mother Angelica. (Personally, I still struggle with hanging up on Pamela Anderson when she calls me for dates).

Seriously, I love the EF not at all because it’s in Latin, but because it is the most beautiful, reverent, awe-inspiring Liturgy and music ever devised by the Holy Spirit-guided mind of man. VC II did not proscribe it or our music or architecture even though we were lied to about that. Progressives GREATLY dislike the EF because it’s traditional (i.e., pre-VC II) rather than some modernist, flexible, huggy-kissy community meal which they almost pulled off. They tried (and still try) with all their misguided and disobedient might to deny it to the people. My Latin is very poor so I never followed the “old” Liturgy in Latin; always in English–but what beautiful, angelic-like English meant for speaking with God Himself, not the person next to me in the pew. The OF is getting much better and will continue to do so. Someday there will be no need for the EF.

This matter is just one of many that make me cringe when I read about the Progressive LCWR/NETWORK and their supporters, including coven-like “liturgy”. It’s my traditional Church they have to destroy to fulfill what they see as their mission to the “poor” and the “outsiders.” If that offends some in the LCWR/NETWORK, so be it. Just how much damage to the Church do they think they can get away with before traditional Catholics and the Vatican stop the (to be charitable) “nonsense”?