Author Topic: CTK Abbey - A Tale of Reconciliation (Read 3412 times)

Penitent · « **on:** May 27, 2011, 09:05:58 PM »

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #1 on:** May 27, 2011, 09:51:40 PM »

A Tale of Treason is more like it.

Many around the country and the world wish all the good folks in AL well.

Caminus · « **Reply #2 on:** May 27, 2011, 10:08:41 PM »

Quote

“You see how the Holy Spirit works in the life of the Church,” Father Phillips said. “Ten or 20 years ago we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Thanks to the generosity of the Holy Father and of the bishops in obedience to the Holy Father, many people are reconciled in the faith.”

What is the cause of their joy? It has nothing to do with their salvation obviously. This statement proves that they were not "schismatic" yet they use the term without attaching its inherent meaning. There is no such thing as a "return" if the matter is intra-ecclesial. Yet, this language is reserved only for traditional Catholics. True heretics and schismatics are our "brothers in the Lord" who may merely develop their faith and manifest externally what already exists internally.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #3 on:** May 27, 2011, 10:54:42 PM »

Quote from: AbbottLeonardsfriend

I am/was the senior Oblate at CTK Abbey. I have been a member for 20 yrs. I cannot tell you the anguish I have been thru since right after Christmas.

Dear friend:

The holy Patriarch of Western monks, St. Benedict, will not suffer his true children, who have fought so hard to maintain the holy faith, to be abandoned.

The wretched lies that the monks have said are really astounding, but not astonishing.

Abbot Leonard would have never consented to such a thing. If he had made such a decision, he would have left a hand-written testimony thereof. Would not these monks have already presented such a docuмent in their desperate attempt to validate their betrayal as being "blessed" by the late Abbot? But that docuмent does not exist, because there was no such "blessing," no such decision on the late Abbot's part.

They have abused the Holy Rule's chapters on obedience and humility in trampling upon their own Father Abbot's authority and in causing their fellow brethren to leave. They are unworthy of their habits, of Saint Benedict, of the Holy Rule, and of the late Abbot.

Another evil they have perpetrated: they had closed the Abbey against the Oblates, who are really members of the monastic community and have a strict right to the Abbey Church, and thus showing what disdain they had for the Benedictine Order, which has ever shewed paternal solicitude for the lay Oblates.

But don't give up, as Lighthouse replied. The monastic community can be restored, and the work of Abbot Leonard will go on. He would not care so much for the physical property of Christ the King Abbey, but would dedicate his entire energy in providing for the Monks, Sisters, lay Oblates, and the faithful in general, another Chapel for Mass and the Sacraments, and to re-establish the monastic community.

Please be assured of my prayers.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #4 on:** May 27, 2011, 11:58:45 PM »

I posted this somewhere else, but here it is again as an incentive for hope: the promises made to St. Benedict regarding his Order.

This is taken from A Manual of Devotions to Our Holy Father Saint Benedict, Abbot and Patriarch of the Western Monks, to His Sister Saint Scholastica, Virgin and Abbess, and to All Saints of His Holy Order, printed at London by the Catholic Publishing & Bookselling Company, Ltd, in 1861, with an undated Imprimatur given by the Right Rev. Richard Placid Burchell, Abbot of Westminster and Abbot President of the English Congregation of the Order of Saint Benedict.

The pertinent text is demarcated with red ink (digitally made, it's not in the actual text).

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #5 on:** May 28, 2011, 12:05:06 AM »

Quote from: AbbottLeonardsfriend

Hobbyhoy, THANK YOU!!!!!!

Any chance you know where to get another copy?

Isn't it Providential that we posted the same thing at almost the same time?

I have been looking for another copy of this book for a long, long time. It is incredibly rare. I was so blessed to have found this book after years of searching.

I'll keep an eye out for you. If I do find one, I will notify you as soon as possible.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #6 on:** May 28, 2011, 12:26:32 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

What is the cause of their joy? It has nothing to do with their salvation obviously. This statement proves that they were not "schismatic" yet they use the term without attaching its inherent meaning. There is no such thing as a "return" if the matter is intra-ecclesial. Yet, this language is reserved only for traditional Catholics. True heretics and schismatics are our "brothers in the Lord" who may merely develop their faith and manifest externally what already exists internally.

Now that I think about it, this is a very important point. Not just the use of "schismatic" as a "power word" against traditionalists (never, never to be used against the Orthodox, Vatican II forbid!), but the fact that these monks have assented to the use of this word and the way it is used in their particular case.

By "admitting" they were schismatics and having the joy of "coming back into the Church, going to confession," they spit upon of the work the late Abbot did and they destroy their own credibility. They talk about how they were "discussing" these issues all along, yet they still operated as Priests and Monks of Christ the King. Were they deceiving the faithful all along (or at least since their "conversion")? Were they accepting stipends for Masses all along knowing that they were doing something "schismatic"?

What kind of men are these? Have they been acting in bad faith all along?

Misappropriation of Mass stipends is a grave crime. They ought to restore those monies to the faithful who submitted them for Masses and who did not get these Masses said. Failure to do so will only further the certainty that these men are ultimately autolatrous: the cult of self, disguised as "humility" and "obedience."

So many things wrong with this!

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #7 on:** May 28, 2011, 01:02:49 AM »

I believe CTK was sort of agnostic on the pope question. They didn't really take a position and said they prayer for him regardless. It seems they wanted to keep out of all the debate.

So now they are sort of the equivalent of FSSP? Will anything really change on the ground level there? If they are allowed to keep Tradition 100% and technically be regularized, so be it. That's the goal. If they have to compromise that's another story. They are unique in that they only have to deal with the Bishop there. If he lets them do their own thing and doesn't interfere they could have gotten a sweet deal.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #8 on:** May 28, 2011, 01:15:43 AM »

The article said Abbot Leonard authorized looking into reconciliation with Rome.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #9 on:** May 28, 2011, 07:19:24 AM »

Did anyone provide proof for this claim?

If there is no evidence, I am sure you could find as many, if not more, who claim he did NOT authorize any such move.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #10 on:** May 28, 2011, 07:25:54 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

I believe CTK was sort of agnostic on the pope question. They didn't really take a position and said they prayer for him regardless. It seems they wanted to keep out of all the debate.

Wanting to avoid the endless, public squabbles and being 'agnostic' are not to be equated, stevie.

Abbot Leonard, as all the monks, took a position -- and freely told those he knew were not just being curious sht*t stirrers. However, unlike many on both sides of the fence in Traddieland, the monks were not dogmatic about the issue.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #11 on:** May 28, 2011, 08:46:51 AM »

Really? And you know this how? He personally said they do not take a position. Was he lying? He is reported in the article to have authorized looking into reconciliation. All available evidence shows, if anything, he did end up taking a position and it was not Sede-ism.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #12 on:** May 28, 2011, 08:49:45 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Did anyone provide proof for this claim?

If there is no evidence, I am sure you could find as many, if not more, who claim he did NOT authorize any such move.

Ahh selective skepticism. Do you provide proof for any claim you make?

You are "sure"? What is the basis for this? Ah yes, because you already came to a conclusion and you only look for "evidence" to confirm it while ignoring any evidence in the meantime which refutes it.

LordPhan · « **Reply #13 on:** May 28, 2011, 09:10:30 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Really? And you know this how? He personally said they do not take a position. Was he lying? He is reported in the article to have authorized looking into reconciliation. All available evidence shows, if anything, he did end up taking a position and it was not Sede-ism.

And the article you believe because? How many articles about what the vatican says are not true? How many articles in general can you prove are not true?

I can prove many articles to be fallacious.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #14 on:** May 28, 2011, 09:15:52 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Really? And you know this how? He personally said they do not take a position. Was he lying?

While there was no official, public stance, they all took positions on a personal level. Surely you, the master of distinctions, can understand the difference.

I know because I visited there several times, staying in their guest quarters, eating in their refectory, and visiting with Abbot Leonard and others for hours at a time.

I had an open-ended invitation to visit whenever I wanted to do so -- and Abbot Leonard made sure I knew that he appreciated my spirt. We spoke from time to time on the telephone, too, although not as often as I would have liked.