andyf
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by andyf on Feb 12, 2010 2:54:08 GMT
Hi All!: My first post and glad to be here. My welcome to your forum just so happens to come at a crossroad for me, so I will start with this problem. I am married and retired and would like to enter a 3rd order Franciscan Secular fraternity. After attending my first meeting at one fraternity, and being very happy to at last belong, I took the opportunity to learn all I can about the literature I was given. I learned about Rules(Pope Leo) and how this element is not an historically static one. I learned there are such things as factions(?) and loyalties, and several Rules. Now being quite ignorant of the order itself, I took it upon myself, and before the next meeting, to become knowledgeable about my new found order. I learned a lot about it's history, and this one just happens to be not canonically approved. On their site they list the activities of the founder and it reads like a 20 year record of rejections or falling outs by various diocesan bishops, culminating in a dead end of no progress. Not having proof yet, I sense this may have to do with biases that have a bearing on the Church politique or the turmoil we are experiencing today. His history shows he tries to establish in several cities, therefore I can't see it has a conflict with existing charisms. The arguments of the Bishops are not included...., conveniently!?. My next guess is that it's a personality thing, and he simply can't "sell" as it were. So I figure, "What are the odds that this priest would not be liked by at least one Bishop?." This fraternity adheres to the old Leo Rule which I like. The irony is they swear allegiance to the magisterium as Francis had wanted, one rule being it must be canonically approved. This makes it instantly suspect, the schism apparent to new members. I discovered later there were also 2 other fraternities in the same city that had canonical approval, but they follow the Rule of Paul VI. (FWIW: I have read the 3 rules of Paul, and basically I don't see what the fuss is all about. Paul outlines the "Spirit" of what Francis outlines in "detail" in the 14 original rules. It may have been abrogated, but I can't see where. The later Rule seems to give substance to the original 14.) So I'm basically confused. I do know I want to abide by the Church magisterium and that is a must. I do note that in all three there is more emphasis of the spiritual nature of the fraternity, and less on the action required. Am I wrong? I appreciate any help I can get. Thanks. Andy
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 12, 2010 12:24:51 GMT
I don't have any particular expertise on the Franciscans - is there anyone on this board who does? We could do with a bit more detail. The impression I get from your post is that you are in America, where the canonical scene is much more variegated, rather than in Ireland. It would also be helpful if you could tell us a bit more about the group which you mention, and about its leader. There should be some information at least available on the American Catholic blogosphere about them. A group which is not canonically approved and which is heavily reliant on a single charismatic leader who has a history of quarrelling with bishops is IMHO dangerous. Such groups easily develop cult-like tendencies, or even become cults themselves. I would avoid it if I were you.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 12, 2010 14:10:56 GMT
Hi Andy, and Very Welcome Aboard ! Our Forum is still VERY small in numbers, but our new Moderator is doing a great job ! Still much much more to improve though. Anyway, congratulation on your wise decision to join a Third Order. While i didn't understand everything you said, i would like to know which orders you contacted. I give a link to a Traditional Third Order : thetraditionalthirdorderofstfrancis.blogspot.com/However this order is linked to the SPPX, it does not belong to the Fraternity but it is a friend of it. Anyway have a look on the blog, it will give you an idea. To my knowledge it is the only Trad Third Franciscan Order... This is a quote of their presentation : We are members of the Third Order Secular of St. Francis under the authority of a Capuchin community in Morgon, France. This community chose to keep faithful to the spirit of the Franciscan Order as practiced by St. Francis of Assisi and the many blessed and saints of the same Order throughout the past eight centuries. Ever since Vatican II (1962-1965), the Franciscan Order along with many other religious orders have adopted a way of life inconsistent with the spirit of their founders; rather, they have adopted the spirit of Vatican II, which is a perversion of the Catholic Faith of all time. The Third Order Secular of St. Francis (better known today as the Secular Franciscan Order) has adopted this same spirit of Vatican II. Therefore, as the Capuchins in Morgon are a contradiction to the Vatican II Franciscan Order, we Third Order Seculars of the Fraternity of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are a contradiction to the Vatican II Third Order Seculars. As signs of contradiction, we not only fight for the sanctity of our own souls, but for the restoration of Holy Mother Church.
The Capuchin community adheres to the position of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) founded by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre; our fraternity does the same. Therefore, we accept neither the Sedevacantist position (i.e., we accept Pope Benedict XVI as the true pope) nor the conciliar position (we understand that the pope can err in his teaching and practice). We observe the Rule of Pope Leo XIII promulgated in 1883. Our fraternity is located in Toronto, Canada and based at the Church of the Transfiguration. Our Director is Fr. Freddy Mery of the SSPX. We are only one of many fraternities throughout the world under the authority of the same Capuchin community.
|
|
andyf
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by andyf on Feb 12, 2010 22:26:51 GMT
guillaume: I need to cautious being a new member. Is a conflict of interest with ...... Now you see my point and why I'm hair pulling. There can never be a choice BETWEEN the Church and their rule, because St. Francis unconditionally demanded loyalty to the Church (ie: today's Vatican II). What was different then is that St. Francis was in total spiritual harmony with the Pope. This is the point missed by the members of the fraternity in your quote. The tentacles of Cafeteria Catholicism weaves it's way even into the Fraternities. St. Francis would never approve of their Fraternity. Good. Francis would have wanted it this way. Which also contradicts St. Francis. Francis would be obedient. etc, Capuchins cannot adhere to anything but the Church primarily, secondarily to anything else. Now I know I am rehashing old ground in the SSPX conflict, but all this goes to show what a mess the fraternities are in. But there is no confusion really, loyalty is to the Church period, and they know it. Thanks, Andy
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 13, 2010 9:24:05 GMT
Saint Francis demanded loyality to the Church at a time when Vatican II didn't occur.... ! It is a bit awkard to pretend that Saint Francis would have adopted the reforms of the Council and accepted the New Mass, for example, without any problems or concerns. I cannot agree with that. I am definitly sure Saint Francis or Saint Clare would have disagree with the "religious liberty" and "oecumenism" taught by the council.
It is an error to think that Saint Francis, who is not the least of the Saints and was a true bother of Christ, was a relativist and tolerant man in matter of religion and conversion. While visiting the Sultan, Saint Francis began a dialog with the monark in order to convert him to the true God. When brought to the Sultan, Francis said, “I am sent by the Most High God, to show you and your people the way of salvation by announcing to you the truths of the Gospel”
In one of his oldest Admonitiones (“Admonitions”) to the Brothers in his Order, Saint Francis said the following regarding those who do not accept Catholic truth:
“All, who have seen Jesus in the flesh but have not seen Him after the Spirit and in His Divinity, and have not believed that He was really the Son of God, are doomed. Also those are doomed who see the Sacrament of the Body of Christ, which is consecrated with the words of the Lord on the altar and by the hand of the priest in the form of bread and wine, but do not see in it the Spirit and Divinity and have not believed that it really is Our Lord Jesus Christ’s most holy Body and Blood”
So I cannot agree that Saint Francis would have adopted the spirit of Vatican II ! And even less, the infamous "reunion" at Assisi and the so called "spirit of Assisi".
alas, you can certainly see around you how the - once so prolific - Order of Saint Francis had became....
|
|
andyf
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by andyf on Feb 13, 2010 14:27:23 GMT
guillaume: Still, there needs to be explained how such a reconciliation of principles would have unfolded if Vatican II occurred in his time. I must admit at this point that I need to do more reading before I can venture any more opinions on the matter. You seem to be well learned in Franciscan literature. There is however an issue I can opinion on, and that is attitudes and correctness displayed by today's faithful. From your quoted blog: Not in a Holy Spirit inspired Encyclical. The Catechism is clear on this. The Pope can err when venturing a personal opinion, true. So since this is dogma readily accepted by the Faithful (those who are truly Catholic), then we can assume a measure of risk by those servants of the magisterial who have taken it upon themselves to correct the Apostate, and to know the difference when they see it. (We are reminded of the bane of St. Paul, ie: the Coppersmith in Timothy who had the same premonitions. We will note that thank God he was wrong.). These launch attacks on the supposition they presume to know how the Holy Spirit works in His servants. This is risky business, as here the objector assumes that the Holy Spirit manifests the total fruits of His work in a human timeframe for all to conveniently see. The human servant is ill equipped to make such lofty evaluations as he depends on the limitations imposed on him in this exile, ie: the empirical and experiential. This why Jesus told us to place our Faith in the Foundation of His Church. The Holy Spirit, who is held to no such time-relative restrictions, may only manifest partially the works through His servant, just so appropriate for our time, but later, the total fruits pertinent to the generation to which it has been revealed reap the full benefit. In fact, such a testbed may be appropriate and may evidence what we see now, as it is meant to try a faithless generation who is not worthy of the full compliment of fruits. So we can see there is no guarantee that the desired result has played out as Divinely planned. Now I will point out evidence that these attitudes are suspect of a faithless generation. You will note these attitudes are mirrored in the question of abortion. The same presume to know the plan for the servant now being formed. When he is permitted to be born in squaller as predicted, and has planned by the Holy Spirit in order to mold the individual to his loftier future plan, the "told you so's" are ready to point out the error of his birth. Here the Holy Spirit is assumed again to have revealed His timely intent to the fullest. No, the Coppersmiths of our time are to be avoided. These know not their place and break their oath. The correct attitude and proper conduct in the eyes of God is to bow out. They cannot inspire because they have shown they have lost faith in the capabilities of the Holy Spirit, and they base their actions solely on presumption. Guillaume, mon ami, a pleasure to discuss with. Andy (Next: Vatican II was never in opposition to Leo's Rule, all part of satan's deception to throw us off).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 15, 2010 11:29:14 GMT
Actually the reference to "the spirit of Vatican II" in the document quoted could be perfectly orthodox if what was meant was that they were not opposing the Council itself but a certain spin placed on it by aadocates of "the hermeneutic of discontinuity". Since it is the SSPX, however, it is clear that what they mean by "the faith of all time" is "the particular interpretation in vogue at Econe". Whatever one may think of Innocent III, he has never been canonised; and the Church was certainly not in a state of perfection in his time. St. Francis was told to "rebuild my church, which has fallen into decay"; the point of the famous story of the vision of Pope Innocent is that the church was in a state of imminent collapse when rescued by St. Francis and St. Dominic. To refuse to give obedience to the church as it is because it is beset with many faults runs the risk of ending up not like St. Francis but like Peter Waldo, who might have been another St. Francis if he or the church authorities had handled things a bit differently, but instead became the founder of one of the earliest protestant sects.
|
|
andyf
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by andyf on Feb 16, 2010 15:43:43 GMT
hibernicus: Thanks for the response. I think we need to try to understand what brought about this societal mindset of holding nothing has sacred. The 60's brought on a movement of young adults who desired the liberty of questioning everything in life. They experienced the power of numbers. These they would see themselves as free thinkers and intellectuals, pipe in hand and the bistros were full of this generation. A certain arrogance would emerge from all this. Coupled with a falling away from the Church and the influence of the erroneous Christian dogma of protestant religions, as well has the pull of eastern religions, they became self confident that nothing can stand in their path. There became a collective habit of indiscretion and an ideology that nothing could be sacred. It was obvious there would one day be a confrontation with the Supreme Autocracy. The media found in these a willing entity that can never be satiated with enough information of discreet dealings only reserved for higher Vatican officials. Those days spawned the Lefebvre's of our time, each with his personal trigger activated by an issue personal to him, or has spokesman for a disgruntled mass who see fit to unseat the Holy Spirit has a guide. These hold in their hands the remote to their desires, and when the channel teaches dogma which presents to him a seemingly unpalatable instruction, he clicks an attempt to change it by confrontation. It is insubordination pure and simple. Few today are the trusting and dutiful Bernadette's of those times. Today she would be cautioned by the elite 60's generation and given a Paperatzie exposee of what is going on behind Vatican walls. I think I lived and learned the old days to recognize discretion because a child lives it. That finger over the lips with an accompanying frown by an adult was common when a word of disrespect was said. It required the sign of the cross in penance and maybe a Hail Mary. I recall the days when the Church was recognized has an autocracy has Jesus intended. Some don't remember it this way because of the influence of democratic processes present in the protestant religions, with it's consensus driven election of members. These intellectuals of today now in their 50's and 60's and have taken on the mantle have then assigned democratic ideals to the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit picks the tools for change, sometimes Institutionally, sometimes externally. Collectively these form the modus for advancement and guidance. Andy "Yes, I am stupid", Bernadette "Let there be no factions; rather, be united in mind and judgement." Cor 1,10 "Brothers, I beg you to be on watch for dissension and scandal, contrary to the teaching you have received." Rom 16,17 "..as they make a pretense of religion but negate it's power." 2 Tim 3,5
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 16, 2010 15:57:30 GMT
This is overstating it a bit as well. Archbishop Lefebvre certainly was not a child of the 60s; his mindset owed more to the intransigence of sections of French Catholicism who saw the Republic and the Enlightenment as the quintessence of evil and would not compromise it even at the Pope's direction. The church is not an autocracy in the sense of having the Pope as a purely arbitrary ruler (Pius IX's "I am tradition" was an overstatement). There certainly are circumstances under which one would be justified in disobeying or resisting a Pope who commanded positive evil (this is the sort of thing Cardinal Newman referred to in his LETTER TO THE DUKE OF NORFOLK, so often misinterpreted as giving a free-for-all). There is a passage in Burke's REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE in which he complains that the French revolutionaries are citing the heroic sacrifices of ancient Roman patriots - Brutus who executed his sons because they plotted against the people's liberty and the like - and then declaring that they are even more patriotic than those ancient Romans because they do such things on a regular basis. Burke complains that the revolutionaries have forgotten that the point about the ancient Romans was that such things are and ought to be horrendous and exceptional; if under the revolution horror at such events has disappeared and they are perpetrated on a regular basis and as a matter of course, that is a sign that something has gone wrong with society. That is exactly the problem with the attitude of the SSPX and similar groups towards disobeying the Pope; they do it so much as a matter of course that they have lost all reluctance and do so with enthusiasm and every time they feel like it.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 16, 2010 21:17:04 GMT
Excellant point Hibernicus.
|
|
andyf
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by andyf on Feb 17, 2010 16:35:12 GMT
hibernicus: It would interesting to see a citation in scripture of the justification of this act. I am assuming that we are in agreement on the base Catholic principle that Christ "IS" the Church, " and on this rock(Peter) I will build my Church", holy and Apostolic. One thing to consider also is the vow Lefebvre took in his priesthood. He can report what the people are saying, but can not take their stance. His vows left him in contradiction to the Church, therefore, he could withdraw his vow and still make his case this time has a lay person, and only use the chain of command. He serves the Church. Striking out on his own to bend the Church to the Secular was a conflict of interest. His capacity comes from the authority of the Church. He no longer represents the Church if he is in contradiction to it. Even in our imperfect human judicial systems this behavior is seen as an intrinsic faux pa. The right thing to do is to write a letter of withdrawal from vows then proceed. (We are reminded by the treatments of Benedict Arnold(US) and Adolph Himmler(Britain). In these their dealings left a nasty taste in the mouths of those who had every reason to benefit from them.) Again, if Christ is the Church, and his Apostate is built on the foundation of the Church which is Peter, then I see your posit as an antinomy. I do nor recall any time when the Apostles lost Faith with Jesus where they decided to vote the issue for a consensus to present to Jesus. If it isn't an encyclical/bull, certainly. The indictable word is Cardinal. See previous paragraph. Citizen Newman in lay capacity has the option to vent his disapproval and obtain Pastoral care at his diocese, and so do we. Options for the faithful are: ... in De Fide Heirarchies of Truth, one is allowed Sententia Pia and Opinio Tolerata, provided it is a pious perspective, and that is as far as it goes.* Launching a concerted attack on De Fide has the potential to bring the charge of heresy. Andy *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 18, 2010 11:52:39 GMT
First of all, andy I should make it clear I am not a SSPX supporter.
Secondly, I am inclined to think that you are overstating the extent to which obedience is obligatory. There are degrees of obedience. St. Catherine of Siena, for example, voiced some extremely harsh criticisms of the Pope for remaining in Avignon rather than taking up residence in Rome, and she has been declared not only a saint but a Doctor of the Church - i.e. someone from whose teaching the Church as a whole has learned.
I might add that when Newman wrote the LETTER TO THE DUKE OF NORFOLK he was not a Cardinal but a private theologian expressing a theological opinion; the fact that Rome has by and large adopted his interpretation lends it weight.
Your understanding of Holy Orders seems to be defective - Archbishop Lefebvre could not resign and then voice criticisms "as a lay person" because orders cannot be forfeited once conferred. I presume you mean he could express his views as a private person but should not have ordained illicitly or acted as a bishop. The exact circumstances surrounding the falling out between Rome and the SSPX are matter for dispute, but I do not think the fault was all on his side.
You also refer to "Citizen Newman obaining pastoral care at his diocese". Newman was a priest in good standing ordained for the Congregation of the Oratory which had been instituted in the diocese of Birmingham and that gave him a degree of authority which he exercised for what it is worth. You speak as if the Pope was everything and those under him nothing, but authority in the Church is supposed to operate by grades and inferiors have rights as against their superiors which cannot be arbitrarily set aside. Benedict Arnold is not a good comparison because he actually transferred his allegiance to the enemy. When you talk about "Adolph Himmler" (Britain) I assume you mean William Joyce alias Lord Haw Haw who was in the same position. The SSPX and others would claim that they have not gone over to 'the other side' but that they are whistleblowers who distinguish between the permanent interests of the Church and the mistakes of those who happen to be in charge of it at present. I think this is a reasonable point to make; i just don't think it applies to the SSPX.
Voluntarily binding yourself by religious obedience to a schismatic religious order, especially one heavily reliant on a single charismatic figure, raises other problems. The vow of obedience involves heavier obligations than normal obedience and by the same token it is dangerous to incur the obligation rashly.
|
|
andyf
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by andyf on Feb 19, 2010 14:53:44 GMT
First of all, andy I should make it clear I am not a SSPX supporter. Actually, neither am I taking the sides on the issues of the two opponents. I am as I see it a referee of sorts. I am interested in acceptable form in the approach. If I were overseeing a boxing match, I would need to assume each agrees to the rule of no punching below the belt, otherwise I would bow out and let someone else referee. And so it goes in the Church issues, which again is (practically a oxymoron), I can only do this if each has base principles in common, and here I am making assumptions based on who professes to be Catholic (who claims to follow boxing rules). Their declaration allows me to assume they have these principles in common. If all is in accord to this point, and getting to the meat of the problem, you will note no one addresses the issue I presented. Since some take issue with Holy Spirit inspired works, and they tell us their goal is to correct error, (this being an issue in itself on the previous agreement in principle), then we are left with the following question if they are not to commit other errors: How do they determine who among these has the credentials to ascertain that they are not witnessing and critiquing a milestone in the plan of the Holy Spirit, but a manifestation of a completed work?
In order for me to answer, I need to know if you believe the Catholic believes in dogmatic absolutes as it pertains to an infallible Church. I am being cautious since Catholics, (again real Catholics), are to steer clear of Relativistic ideas. I don't know her story or what Article she took issue with. There are even more serious extremes that you site here. And these happy endings are an example of the benevolence of the Church, where even those who lost communion with the Church have the option of reinstatement. Even St. Augustine wandered in and out of Faith on his journey. I don't dispute what you say. Again his option was to state his concerns, and that is all Christ expected of him. The remainder is his personal cross to bare. Personal crusades are not an option. Well in this we can at least agree as Catholics there is no contest and it's an exercise in futility. Theological opinions are welcome, otherwise we would not have Catholic theologians, however articles of Faith are signed and sealed and can no longer be debated. As stated....... *Fides Ecclesiastica - Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiatica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.Open for discussion are... Sententia Ad Fidem Pertinens - A teaching pertaining to the Faith is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions). (Example: An all male priesthood. Some may disagree and suggest that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an infallible pronouncement on this issue.)
Sententia Fidei Proxima - A teaching proximate to Faith is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church. (Example: Mary as Co-Mediaterix)
Sententia Communis - Common teaching is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally. (Example: Christ's soul possessed infused knowledge.)
Sententia Probabablis - Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded. Those which are regarded as being in a agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church. (Example: Rigorist (strict) view of "No Salvation Outside the Church", or the existence of Limbo.) The people take issue with Sententia Ad Fidem Pertinens, which is out of their jurisdiction. Incidentally, the Pope has a group of Cardinals who are already assigned has his advisers. The subordinate ministers are to see these, their respective authority above them. How is this special grace employed that has the ability to weight the Truth made by the Holy Spirit? Can you cite where Christ conferred this privilege on the people.? I made no such assertion. I came into this thread seeking help on which fraternity to choose and cited the problem areas which gave me misgivings. The thread deviated into the problem area, which most posters don't like to see happen to their threads, but it doesn't bother me really, as long as the sequence and evolution is understood between everyone. The shock wave this dispute causes into the fraternities made up of devout and sincere people is predictable, and scripture states that sin, and in our case insubordination and dissention, will compound. These reformists will eventually need to answer to the initial schism, as well has the compounding effects. This too, is true Catholicism. Andy "We are able to give the exact doctrine of Christ, and Christ said, "My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me." The Catholic Church also says, "My doctrine is not mine, but that of Christ who sent me." One who has the infallible Catholic Church as a guide to save him from mistakes is the best fitted of all men to speak about religion." Msgr. Card. F.J. Sheen
|
|
andyf
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by andyf on Feb 19, 2010 16:44:02 GMT
I will now continue my previous post on the topic of compounding which I introduced there.
Satan presents to us the seemingly innocent matter of venting our disapproval of the work of the Holy Spirit. The reformists say to themselves, "I really care for my Church, so much so that I will get it back on tract."
The devil at this time presents a false positive, and he does not want it to occur to us that we make a statement when doing so.
If the Pope, Holy Spirit inspired has he is, can be corrected because we know when an error is being made by the Holy Spirit, then conversely we qualify for the post because we are saying in principle we can effect True edicts on the principle we are capable of knowing when something is not in error, because if nothing alerts us to error then it must be True.
Here a danger looms. The reformist bandwagon waits for this enticing news, and the Cardinals need no longer elect a Pontiff, since a Pope can be got from the masses proper, those who have found a new "grace" of "wisdom".... from whatever authority.
I would be willing to wager this is the next step.
Andy
|
|