Vatican: FI seminary closed, no ordinations for one year, oath accepting NO
#21
(12-11-2013, 08:09 PM)Skarga Wrote: Groups like the FFI have many crypto-SSPXers who deny infallible teachings of the Church promulgated since Vatican II. If they're going to submit to the pope they must submit to him in doctrine and teaching, not just submission by word.

Yes, this is the charge but I would like to see proof anywhere of this 'crypto'ness.  I do not accept this false accusation.

The seminary is suppressed because the young vocations wanted to follow the charism set forth by the founders and this cannot be allowed in the modern church.  NO where was it imposed on all friaries to only offer the TLM although it was the Mass of preference.  Some friaries never offered it and nothing happened to them.  All of this is destruction of a faithful, growing Order!  It is pontifical right and must be under the Holy Father. 

As someone wrote, putting the FI under a modern Capuchin is akin to putting Joan Chittister over Mother Angelica's nuns.
Reply
#22
(12-12-2013, 10:38 AM)TradCathYouth Wrote:
(12-11-2013, 08:09 PM)Skarga Wrote: Groups like the FFI have many crypto-SSPXers who deny infallible teachings of the Church promulgated since Vatican II. If they're going to submit to the pope they must submit to him in doctrine and teaching, not just submission by word.

What infallible teachings? Can you specify a few that the crypto-SSPXers deny?

I second this. I am not aware of any infallible teachings that have been promulgated since the solemn definition of the Assumption, which predates the Council.
Reply
#23
Let's hope that Bp Fellay steps in and offers shelter for those seminarians of the FI that are not able in conscience to sign their 'oath to modernism' that they are extracting from their ordinands.
Reply
#24
(12-11-2013, 08:25 PM)Cetil Wrote: Pope Paul VI, Address of the last general meeting of the Council, Dec. 7, 1965

"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."

C.

Hear, hear.

The Church has real problems to address. There are bigger fish to fry.
Reply
#25
(12-12-2013, 12:34 PM)digitalpapist Wrote:
(12-12-2013, 09:46 AM)Unum Sint Wrote: I don't have a problem with the oath it self, my problem are the actions taken and the fact that they are demanding an oath. From all the problems in the Church on THIS they move lightning fast?

The problem will be when the oath is used to suppress any further forms of traditionalist sentiment within the FFI. 

It will happen. 

I don't see how that's possible.
Reply
#26
I don't know all the facts, but assuming the worst, it sounds like something similar to what St. Teresa of Avila and her reformed Carmelites went through.  The old Carmelites didn't like what she was up to (probably for less than noble reasons), her group was forbidden to open new convents, she had to go before the Inquisition, and ultimately had to accept  forced retirement for a while (basically an exile).  But she persevered, and because it was the will of God, He changed the right hearts at the right times and her reform movement was able to rebound and flourish.
Reply
#27
(12-12-2013, 04:55 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: I don't know all the facts, but assuming the worst, it sounds like something similar to what St. Teresa of Avila and her reformed Carmelites went through.  The old Carmelites didn't like what she was up to (probably for less than noble reasons), her group was forbidden to open new convents, she had to go before the Inquisition, and ultimately had to accept  forced retirement for a while (basically an exile).  But she persevered, and because it was the will of God, He changed the right hearts at the right times and her reform movement was able to rebound and flourish.

I appreciate your supernatural outlook, SaintSebastian.  That is how we need to see it, rather than politically, ideologically, tribally, or what have you.
Reply
#28
(12-12-2013, 01:15 PM)winoblue1 Wrote: Let's hope that Bp Fellay steps in and offers shelter for those seminarians of the FI that are not able in conscience to sign their 'oath to modernism' that they are extracting from their ordinands.

You know what's really funny about this whole episode?  Its almost exactly how the SSPX got started in the first place. 
Reply
#29
(12-12-2013, 04:22 PM)Unum Sint Wrote:
(12-12-2013, 12:34 PM)digitalpapist Wrote:
(12-12-2013, 09:46 AM)Unum Sint Wrote: I don't have a problem with the oath it self, my problem are the actions taken and the fact that they are demanding an oath. From all the problems in the Church on THIS they move lightning fast?

The problem will be when the oath is used to suppress any further forms of traditionalist sentiment within the FFI. 

It will happen. 

I don't see how that's possible.

Oh, I could see something like this playing out:

Friar: "May we please celebrate the Mass using the Missal of 1962"

Superior: "Why would we do that?  We signed an oath saying the N.O. is an authentic expression of Franciscan spirit.  If it is, why would we not celebrate it?".

Considering all that has happened, can we honestly say that by declaring that Friars must affirm the authenticity of the N.O., they leave themselves with virtually no room to critique it or to retrieve previous liturgical traditions?
Reply
#30
(12-11-2013, 08:31 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote:
(12-11-2013, 08:09 PM)Skarga Wrote: The Bishops have exercised their infallible teaching power in an ordinary manner in their dioceses, in moral unity with the pope, by unanimously and universally promulgating the same teachings on faith and morals for over half a century regarding these issues.

Skarga, you seem to be arguing that the teachings of Vatican II are infallible because they have become part of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

That might be a good argument, but how do you address the fact that some of these teachings appear to conflict with the ordinary and universal magisterium as it was before Vatican II?  This is the essential problem. If you push your point too far, it leads people to a loss of faith in the irreformability of infallible teaching, and from there, to a loss of faith in Catholicism. Do you acknowledge this?  Do you see that many traditionalists love the Church and want to preserve their faith in Her?

Eastern Orthodox tend to make the claim that the Roman Church has changed or misinterpreted dogma. I don't see how that can be an issue for laymen. In the old days the parish priest was practically a god, whatever he said you believed. Nowadays people disobey their parish priests, diocesan bishops, and the pope! Trads are just as guilty of "church shopping" as any protestant.

Vatican II is irrelevant to this discussion. Let us pretend Vatican II never happened but everything in history happened as it did today. In this reality, things like ecumenism and religious liberty are still infallible because, I said before, "The Bishops have exercised their infallible teaching power in an ordinary manner in their dioceses, in moral unity with the pope, by unanimously and universally promulgating the same teachings on faith and morals for over half a century regarding these issues." Practically every diocese in every continent (including "conservative" Africa and Poland) have ecumenical meetings, just like the popes for the last 40+ years. They all have interfaith dialogues, just like JPII and Benedict XVI. The CCC teaches these teachings as being part of the authentic Catholic faith. Seminaries all around the world teach these things.  The worlds bishops proposing definitively, dispersed, but in unison, in union with Pope, teach infallibly.

Vatican II isn't the issue here. The issue here is that there is an unanimous and universal agreement with the worlds bishops, in union with the pope, about these moral matters. This is scientifically provable by reading the CCC, pastoral letters, approved literature, etc. of the worlds bishops and popes since around 1970. These teachings are undoubtedly covered by the infallibility given to us by the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church.

I'm not trying to destroy anyone's faith. I just don't want people to be schismatics who claim to be in union (or irregular union) on one hand and then on the other reject teachings (e.g. religious liberty, the Church of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church, etc.) that are undoubtedly covered by the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church for over half a century. The truth is the truth. If this is a hard saying then there can only be a few logical solutions to the crisis:

1. Accept the New Order in humble obedience. Remember that Christ established the Church and we must obey our pastors. Don't let your selfish needs and preferences seperate you from your Church and your brethren.. Focus on your relationship with God instead of being an arm chair theologian (aka the Russian Roulette of the Soul). In times of confusion we must cling to the barque of Peter. Just because the Church suffers doesn't mean we must amputate ourselves from it. We must pray for understanding if we don't understand points of doctrine that are seemingly different than that of old. In times of doubt we must humbly pray and be obedient in order to sail the storm.

2. Accept the sedevacantist thesis. This way you can keep the "old ways" without living a double life of hypocrisy. The Church cannot promulgate an "evil" form of worship that kills your faith, like the SSPX or crypto-SSPXers believe, or "evil" doctrines which are universally taught by the pope in unison with the worlds bishops. To believe this while simultaneously believing the pope is the pope is absurd and blasphemous. Sedevacantism may be openly schismatic but at least it's a logical conclusion to holding "traditionalist ideas" (New Mass is evil, Ecumenism is evil, Religious Liberty is evil, Assisi meetings are evil, etc.) and it doesn't outrageously blaspheme the office of the pope or the universal magisterium of the Church. It's infinitely worse to believe that the Church can universally teach and promulgate evil than it is to become a schismatic sedevacantist.

3. Believe that the seat of Peter is occupied by Peter Pan. This way you can make the pope whoever you want him to be. You don't have to follow the words of Pope Benedict XVI and look at the collective whole instead of dissecting the particular (paraphrase), you can dissect and ignore the pope until he becomes who you want him to be! Anybody wanna read me some Francis through Benedict? Anyone? Maybe some 72 ways of understanding what Francis said about insert controversial statement on moral issue or dogma here?

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)