Author Topic: former sede nuns (Read 20692 times)

Marlelar · « **on:** January 05, 2015, 09:58:58 AM »

Quite a leap.

Quote

She continued, “Ecuмenism is part of our charism. We have a vacation Bible school with the Methodists and Lutherans. We have a Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.”

link to full story

I don't understand how they can go from being sede to VBS with protestants. What a sad story.

Marsha

Croixalist · « **Reply #1 on:** January 05, 2015, 10:38:35 AM »

It's rare to find trad women to start and I've never even seen an SSPX nun much less a sede nun. It's much easier for men to endure isolation and I have to wonder if it wasn't a major factor for these women.

Come on Rome, wake up!

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #2 on:** January 05, 2015, 12:17:27 PM »

A) Maybe they didn't feel the position was tenable anymore. There are some aspects of the sedevacantist thesis I vehemently disagree with.

B) No sedevacantist believes the last valid pope was St. Pius X. That is where you cease being sede and become a non-Catholic.

C) People that leave the True Faith for modernist Rome and adapt their ways possibly forfeit their salvation through the sin of schism.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** January 05, 2015, 01:47:46 PM »

Quote from: JezusDeKoning

B) No sedevacantist believes the last valid pope was St. Pius X. That is where you cease being sede and become a non-Catholic.

There's no difference in principle between the two; thus the problem inherent in sedevacantism.

2Vermont · « **Reply #4 on:** January 05, 2015, 03:09:25 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: JezusDeKoning
B) No sedevacantist believes the last valid pope was St. Pius X. That is where you cease being sede and become a non-Catholic.

There's no difference in principle between the two; thus the problem inherent in sedevacantism.

How so?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** January 05, 2015, 03:13:34 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: JezusDeKoning
B) No sedevacantist believes the last valid pope was St. Pius X. That is where you cease being sede and become a non-Catholic.

There's no difference in principle between the two; thus the problem inherent in sedevacantism.

How so?

If someone would be free to consider Paul VI a non-pope based on a private judgment of heresy, then why shouldn't one be able to consider Pius XII a non-pope due based on a private judgment of heresy?

Matto · « **Reply #6 on:** January 05, 2015, 03:19:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

If someone would be free to consider Paul VI a non-pope based on a private judgment of heresy, then why shouldn't one be able to consider Pius XII a non-pope due based on a private judgment of heresy?

There is one poster on CI that thinks that Pope Pius XII became an antipope because of some of his actions. Another sedevacantist called him a schismatic and I defended him because I thought if it was ok to call Paul VI an antipope, why couldn't one call Pope Pius XII an antipope for similar reasons.

2Vermont · « **Reply #7 on:** January 05, 2015, 03:38:36 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: JezusDeKoning
B) No sedevacantist believes the last valid pope was St. Pius X. That is where you cease being sede and become a non-Catholic.

There's no difference in principle between the two; thus the problem inherent in sedevacantism.

How so?

If someone would be free to consider Paul VI a non-pope based on a private judgment of heresy, then why shouldn't one be able to consider Pius XII a non-pope due based on a private judgment of heresy?

But we've been down this road before. Generally speaking sedevacantism doesn't call them anti-popes based on their personal heresies, but on Vatican II. What happened at and after Vatican II can not be compared to anything else in Church history.

Stubborn · « **Reply #8 on:** January 05, 2015, 03:56:07 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: JezusDeKoning
B) No sedevacantist believes the last valid pope was St. Pius X. That is where you cease being sede and become a non-Catholic.

There's no difference in principle between the two; thus the problem inherent in sedevacantism.

How so?

If someone would be free to consider Paul VI a non-pope based on a private judgment of heresy, then why shouldn't one be able to consider Pius XII a non-pope due based on a private judgment of heresy?

But we've been down this road before. Generally speaking sedevacantism doesn't call them anti-popes based on their personal heresies, but on Vatican II. What happened at and after Vatican II can not be compared to anything else in Church history.

Sedevacantist Richard Ibranyi and his followers believe that all the popes from "....pope Innocent II (1130-1143) onward have been idolaters or formal heretics and thus were apostate antipopes...."

Is he wrong simply because his opinion is a minority opinion? Granted the guy is out of control and not even Catholic far as I personally am concerned, but he feels at least as strong and sure about his opinion as other sedes feel about their opinion that popes after pope pius XII "have been idolaters or formal heretics and thus were apostate antipopes."

2Vermont · « **Reply #9 on:** January 05, 2015, 04:00:25 PM »

Quote from: Marlelar

Quite a leap.

Quote
She continued, “Ecuмenism is part of our charism. We have a vacation Bible school with the Methodists and Lutherans. We have a Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.”

link to full story

I don't understand how they can go from being sede to VBS with protestants. What a sad story.

Marsha

Not sure I can explain it. I agree. Quite a leap. I did find the letter by Bishop Pivarunas on the CMRI site. It sounds like he made it clear that they shouldn't remain with the CMRI.

http://www.cmri.org/02-sisters-letter.html

2Vermont · « **Reply #10 on:** January 05, 2015, 04:04:44 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: JezusDeKoning
B) No sedevacantist believes the last valid pope was St. Pius X. That is where you cease being sede and become a non-Catholic.

There's no difference in principle between the two; thus the problem inherent in sedevacantism.

How so?

If someone would be free to consider Paul VI a non-pope based on a private judgment of heresy, then why shouldn't one be able to consider Pius XII a non-pope due based on a private judgment of heresy?

But we've been down this road before. Generally speaking sedevacantism doesn't call them anti-popes based on their personal heresies, but on Vatican II. What happened at and after Vatican II can not be compared to anything else in Church history.

Sedevacantist Richard Ibranyi and his followers believe that all the popes from "....pope Innocent II (1130-1143) onward have been idolaters or formal heretics and thus were apostate antipopes...."

Is he wrong simply because his opinion is a minority opinion? Granted the guy is out of control and not even Catholic far as I personally am concerned, but he feels at least as strong and sure about his opinion as other sedes feel about their opinion that popes after pope pius XII "have been idolaters or formal heretics and thus were apostate antipopes."

Again, he based his conclusions on personal heresies, not on the teachings of a Church Council.

So, not the same.

Mabel · « **Reply #11 on:** January 05, 2015, 04:23:57 PM »

The whole situation with the nuns, you know what this thread is supposed to be about, was unfortunate.

The number one factor was emotion and feelings. Pictures, images, situations etc. made the nuns feel a certain way. The nuns who left were mostly the touchy-feely types.

Another factor was that there had never been a problem of this type before, so there were really no rules or boundaries regarding theological positions, as differences in the ranks were very peaceful before this fracture. The nuns grew up, as many of our own children might, in a Catholic bubble. Many had not really had much experience with the Novus Ordo and they were unaware of how traditionalism was perceived outside that bubble, mainly by the Novus Ordo sect. This is not necessarily the fault of the order but as result of their parents not understanding the issues or educating them regarding the situation in the Church. Talk to any traditionalist child or young adult who did not grow up in the Novus Ordo, or outside of it, and you will see a difference between "converts" and cradle "traditionalists."

Sometimes, I think that many mistakes or friendly errors (regarding policy, trust, non-doctrinal choices) are made within traditionalism by clergy and religious because they had a different upbringing and they don't have the cynicism? Or maybe experience? which many of us who searched and searched for the truth might have. I see it in my own children and so do my friends, what many of us have known as Catholics, the struggle, is foreign to them.

I think that they should not have met in secret with the Novus Ordo authorities. It was false and conniving. They wonder why they lost the trust of their former sisters? They were completely two-faced. If they were going to leave, their departure might have been more amiicable but it should have been conducted in an up-front manner. They have also made it clear that their intent, in all communications with the current sisters, would be to convert them to the conciliar sect, not to keep up friendships or maintain some odd form of unity as Catholics.

Histrionics · « **Reply #12 on:** January 05, 2015, 05:33:37 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: JezusDeKoning
B) No sedevacantist believes the last valid pope was St. Pius X. That is where you cease being sede and become a non-Catholic.

There's no difference in principle between the two; thus the problem inherent in sedevacantism.

This is a good point, and one of my greatest struggles with the position. "Yes but this is different!" Others in the past could lament the same whether rightly or wrongly. Admittedly R&R has greater problems, but as you've repeatedly reiterated both positions have weaknesses, and people often get too emotionally involved to see this.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** January 05, 2015, 07:06:28 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Again, he based his conclusions on personal heresies, not on the teachings of a Church Council.

So, not the same.

Yeah, that's Ibranyi, but others I know do squarely base their opinions on the Church's Magisterium. I know one guy who even crossed out St. Pius X because St. Pius X reformed the breviary and made it "worse" or "defective".

One can make a case that Pius XII contradicted Pius XI's Casti Conubii on the question of NFP.

One can make a case that Pius XII corrupted the Holy Week Liturgy by the changes he introduced; many sedevacantists in fact claim that they cannot use the Pius XII Holy Week Liturgy in good conscience. So if you apply the disciplinary infallibility of the Church as a major and the allegation of liturgical defect as the minor, you could argue a vacancy under Pius XII.

One cane make against Pius XII for his (at least implied) support for evolution.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** January 05, 2015, 07:07:29 PM »

Quote from: Histrionics

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: JezusDeKoning
B) No sedevacantist believes the last valid pope was St. Pius X. That is where you cease being sede and become a non-Catholic.

There's no difference in principle between the two; thus the problem inherent in sedevacantism.

This is a good point, and one of my greatest struggles with the position. "Yes but this is different!" Others in the past could lament the same whether rightly or wrongly. Admittedly R&R has greater problems, but as you've repeatedly reiterated both positions have weaknesses, and people often get too emotionally involved to see this.

Wow, you have no idea how refreshing that is to hear. Thanks for making my day.