Are we trying to manipulate Church teachings?

[po18guy]

In matters of faith and morals, who would you believe as a Catholic?

Since we generally never hear infallible proclamations, and there has been none made in my lifetime, on a personal level the point is moot. However, we are called to grant our assent to, and observe the teachings which are brought to us through the normal magisterium of the Church. These are encapsulated in the catechism. They may be considered as infallible teachings. A huge controversy arises when Catholic disciplines are confused with its teaching on faith and morals. Teachings on faith and morals are set in stone, since they represent revealed Truth, which never changes. How we apply the truth to contemporary situations does change, but the principles contained within it do not.

Short version: we obey our local ordinary, which is the Bishop, who speaks to us through our parish priest.

 

[edwest2]

John Carlton;7818506:

I must first confess that I am a man who greatly appreciates hiearchy and am often frustrated by the public relations’ branch of the Church’s lack of assertiveness. I must also confess that I would like to see a lot more of the inflexibility that characterised the Church ‘of old.’ This is not to say that I don’t value my ability to think for myself. I thought myself out of various heresies and apostasies and into the Church. I now think quite a bit about Church politics. My greatest contention with the Church publically is that we seem to have become somewhat complacent, too ready to please.

During my early adulthood I left the church, when I married I made a decision to return, one I thank God for constantly, the difference in the Church’s ‘lack of assertiveness’ from the time I left 'til returning was astonishing, I quickly became aware that there had been many changes and from my opinion very few for the better. Bring back the Church ‘of old’.

I was there for the Church of old. First, many things attributed to Vatican II were not even suggested by Vatican II:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Including the priest facing the people:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1451

These changes were encouraged by dissidents inside and outside of the Church

The biggest, most critical dissident issue was Humanae Vitae issued by Pope Paul VI in 1968. This flew in the face of the Sexual Revolution which was about sex not love. Which has led to actors on TV programs talking about their sexual encounters as ‘just sex,’ much like going to the bathroom.

Peace,
Ed

 

[InquisitorMax]

I’d guess St. Thomas Aquinas was against CITH as a matter of humility and reverence. If you have the option not to touch it, why would you want to, anyway? Especially given that the most Roman Catholics didn’t used to and were told they shouldn’t.

[sarcasm]Must’ve been quite thrilling that bright Sunday morning in Holland when those daring archeologists decided that they were now worthy to handle the King Of Kings[/sarcasm]

You know, I think a bishop could do a lot simply by stating that every Catholic in his diocese should have a copy of a cheap, traditional Catechism in his home, have read it, and learn the creed and the ten commandments off by heart?

Too much to expect?

The problem in the Roman Catholic church today is that all the changes have given many Catholics the idea that doctrine too has changed and that if they’re basically nice and have faith, they’ll be saved - The Protestant Error.

 

[thirddec]

All i am saying and saying clearly that God gave us a mind and I presume he expected us to continue to use it. And we are constantly told in the scriptures of the dangers of false doctrines and prophets so subltle that even some of the best could be led astray.

And as far as the human race being microchiped ; if you believe that its not possable and not a threat you are mistaken. But in this context I’m just pointing out that if the Pope says anything that rings all my alarm bells I’m not going to follow him. Full stop until I have investigated fully. When I stand in front of Christ I don’t expect to have the Pope holding my hand; it will be just me. So i’m sorry if i’m prepared to take responsablity for my own soul with my hope and prayers to Christ and his Mother to help me.

I have not said the Pope is anything bad but I will not become a blind slave to any human being who is a sinner like the rest of us. But I should be fine If I am to believe some of the things i’ve heard under the umbrella of ecumenism. where the real risk to maipulating our teachings may be. How would St Paul have spoken to a Pope Kissing the Koran a book that deny’s the crucifiction. Or a shrine to Bhudda on a christian alter with priests nearby watching and present at the ceremony. Or how would Peter wonder what keys he had when every Tom ; Dick or Harry can get in the Back door

I will get the thread going but I want to find a way of phrasing it that can keep it focused.

 

[thirddec]

Ok I’ve done it tried to start the Ecumenism debate.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=557757

 

[TrueLight]

I have not said the Pope is anything bad but I will not become a blind slave to any human being who is a sinner like the rest of us. But I should be fine If I am to believe some of the things i’ve heard under the umbrella of ecumenism. where the real risk to maipulating our teachings may be. How would St Paul have spoken to a Pope Kissing the Koran a book that deny’s the crucifiction. Or a shrine to Bhudda on a christian alter with priests nearby watching and present at the ceremony. Or how would Peter wonder what keys he had when every Tom ; Dick or Harry can get in the Back door

I will get the thread going but I want to find a way of phrasing it that can keep it focused.

Wow really? And some Catholics say Protestants are heretics? And muslims are not Why the kissing of the Koran?

 

[thirddec]

deceptioninthechurch.com/popekiss.html

if you dont believe JPII kissed the QURAN here.

 

[po18guy]

All i am saying and saying clearly that God gave us a mind and I presume he expected us to continue to use it. And we are constantly told in the scriptures of the dangers of false doctrines and prophets so subltle that even some of the best could be led astray.

And as far as the human race being microchiped ; if you believe that its not possable and not a threat you are mistaken. But in this context I’m just pointing out that if the Pope says anything that rings all my alarm bells I’m not going to follow him. Full stop until I have investigated fully. When I stand in front of Christ I don’t expect to have the Pope holding my hand; it will be just me. So i’m sorry if i’m prepared to take responsablity for my own soul with my hope and prayers to Christ and his Mother to help me.

I have not said the Pope is anything bad but I will not become a blind slave to any human being who is a sinner like the rest of us. But I should be fine If I am to believe some of the things i’ve heard under the umbrella of ecumenism. where the real risk to maipulating our teachings may be. How would St Paul have spoken to a Pope Kissing the Koran a book that deny’s the crucifiction. Or a shrine to Bhudda on a christian alter with priests nearby watching and present at the ceremony. Or how would Peter wonder what keys he had when every Tom ; Dick or Harry can get in the Back door

I will get the thread going but I want to find a way of phrasing it that can keep it focused.

Methinks you are a little too suspicious. Do you not think that even one other of the 1.2 billion Catholics, especially the College of Cardinals, will examine all that the holy father teaches? Do you suppose that he does not consult with them before, during and after each statement he makes? Do you think that the Pope is some sort of raving lunatic that declares doctrine randomly? The Pope has far less power than you seem to think, from the tenor of your post. As Fr. John Corapi says: You don’t want to stand before the throne of God one day, saying “I did it my way!”

Honestly, do you trust God to place an inspired shepherd over His flock? It does not matter one bit about the infamous sinful Popes, which began with Peter and have included every single one since. Your suspicions might be justified if (big “if”) you could demonstrably show where any Pope has officially taught error. Can’t, because they didn’t. Did they sin? Big time. Some may not even have inherited eternal life - but that is because of their personal sins.

Tell us your motivations for doubt, if you would please.

 

[MikeDunphy]

In any case, the Church never stopped deacons from distributing communion, nor did she start to consecrate deacons’ hands. However, she has always said that the deacon is one of the Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Deacons were formerly extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion:

Canon 845 of the 1917 code of canon law:§1. The ordinary minister of Holy Communion is only a priest.
§2. A deacon is an extraordinary [minister], authorized by the local Ordinary or a pastor, granted for grave cause, which in case of legitimate necessity is presumed.
[source: Dr. Edwards N. Peters, *The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, page 302 (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2001)]

 

[thirddec]

Methinks you are a little too suspicious. Do you not think that even one other of the 1.2 billion Catholics, especially the College of Cardinals, will examine all that the holy father teaches? Do you suppose that he does not consult with them before, during and after each statement he makes? Do you think that the Pope is some sort of raving lunatic that declares doctrine randomly? The Pope has far less power than you seem to think, from the tenor of your post. As Fr. John Corapi says: You don’t want to stand before the throne of God one day, saying “I did it my way!”

Honestly, do you trust God to place an inspired shepherd over His flock? It does not matter one bit about the infamous sinful Popes, which began with Peter and have included every single one since. Your suspicions might be justified if (big “if”) you could demonstrably show where any Pope has officially taught error. Can’t, because they didn’t. Did they sin? Big time. Some may not even have inherited eternal life - but that is because of their personal sins.

Tell us your motivations for doubt, if you would please.

Well don’t laugh too loud but assuming that at the end of the World there will be some push to some great attempt get a synthasis of world religions together under some new age umbrella ; under one leadership that can then be hijacked by the antichrist then certain doctrines in the Catholic Faith would have to be manipulated also. A religious leader who by definition is infallable would be an ideal target to try to upsurp. I have noticed certain ideas creeping in that in my opinion could start to slide us that way.
Already in another thread someone tried to get the discussion on Christ Consciousness running which I nailed I think and the moderator pulled. Also I have a great faith in The Blessed Virgin the Queen of Heaven but I worry about those who would for all the best reasons start a process of Pushing her way beyond this with a few simple steps that they would never have imagined. Of course I’m a bit paranoid about this one as I never got over the shock “of even the very elect ( if possible ) would be led astray” so I am always on the look out. I’m sorry if all you guys are suffering for my paranoia but the picture of the Pope kissing the Quran really threw me

 

[po18guy]

Well don’t laugh too loud but assuming that at the end of the World there will be some push to some great attempt get a synthasis of world religions together under some new age umbrella ; under one leadership that can then be hijacked by the antichrist then certain doctrines in the Catholic Faith would have to be manipulated also. A religious leader who by definition is infallable would be an ideal target to try to upsurp. I have noticed certain ideas creeping in that in my opinion could start to slide us that way.
Already in another thread someone tried to get the discussion on Christ Consciousness running which I nailed I think and the moderator pulled. Also I have a great faith in The Blessed Virgin the Queen of Heaven but I worry about those who would for all the best reasons start a process of Pushing her way beyond this with a few simple steps that they would never have imagined. Of course I’m a bit paranoid about this one as I never got over the shock “of even the very elect ( if possible ) would be led astray” so I am always on the look out. I’m sorry if all you guys are suffering for my paranoia but the picture of the Pope kissing the Quran really threw me

Hypotheticals are the devil’s questions. “Surely you won’t die! (supposing that you eat the fruit) You will be like gods”

 

[po18guy]

Of course I’m a bit paranoid about this one as I never got over the shock “of even the very elect ( if possible ) would be led astray” so I am always on the look out. I’m sorry if all you guys are suffering for my paranoia but the picture of the Pope kissing the Quran really threw me

An organization does not endure for 2,000 years unless there is a Divine promise of protection throughout those years. Did the Pope, or the Church, teach that we should, or must kiss the Quran? No. Do you know his purpose in doing so? No. Google it up and relax.

 

[JReducation]

Deacons were formerly extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion:

Canon 845 of the 1917 code of canon law:§1. The ordinary minister of Holy Communion is only a priest.
§2. A deacon is an extraordinary [minister], authorized by the local Ordinary or a pastor, granted for grave cause, which in case of legitimate necessity is presumed.
[source: Dr. Edwards N. Peters, *The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law

, page 302 (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2001)]

There are two important points here.

1. Look at the date that this code was promulgated . . . 1917. This was not the code in existence in the 13th century. We know that the mendicants had permanent deacons and that they distributed Holy Communion. The Dominicans are a clerical order and they had permanent deacons in during their early years.
2. The Code of 1917 reflects prevailing attitude of that time. In the Latin Church, the diaconate had become a transitional step to the priesthood. We had very few, if any, permanent deacons. When the permanent diaconate is restored in the Latin Church, the old law, which was in effect hundreds of years ago is recovered. That’s why in 1983, the Code is rewritten to say that Deacons, Priests and Bishops are the Ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. It was not something new, it was something old that had been lost. There were reasons why the permanent diaconate was lost in the Latin Church, but that’s more appropriate for a thread on Church history.

Just to give you an example, the Franciscans would ordain men deacons for this sole purpose, because they had very few priests. Two years before his death, Francis himself was ordained a deacon, after being a non-clerical brother for almost 15-years. When they traveled, they took the Eucharist with them, since they had no priests. Itinerant priests were only common to the Dominicans and later to the Carmelites.

However, there were the Cartheris who insisted that there was no need for a priest. Francis, Dominica, Anthony, Thomas and Bonaventure wrote ferociously against their position. It is assumed by many Dominican scholars that this is what Thomas was addressing. The mendicants made use of the deacons and acolytes, but never said that there was no need for a priest. That thought would not have cross their minds.

With the declericalization of the religious life, the permanent deacon became a thing of the past, in the Latin Church. It was at Vatican II that two decisions were made.

1. The religious orders had to return to their roots. This meant that non clerical religious orders were to promote their way of life, not the priesthood. The priesthood is a vocation within a vocation for some members of non-clerical orders, not for all members as had become the practice.
2. The religious orders had to go back to their original apostolic work. This meant that they stopped taking on as many parishes and as many duties that required priests. They went back to doing whatever they were founded to do.

As a result of these two decisions, it became clear that the diocesan clergy needed the deacons again. They could no longer count on religious orders ordaining hundreds of men to supply the dioceses with priests. Even religious orders that were traditionally clerical orders, such as the Dominicans and Jesuits, were not founded to run parishes. These priests were founded to preach and teach. The Dominicans are mendicants and the Jesuits are missionaries. Superiors could no longer force their younger members to stay put in a parish for years, as had been the custom since the 1800s.

The fact that the canons changed back and forth is an indicator that the Thomas’ position was never accepted as doctrine. However, his love for the Eucharist and his protection of the Eucharist from abuse is still very much at the forefront of the Catholic mind. He was not the only one to write on this subject. It was a subject that concerned many spiritual writers.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Well don’t laugh too loud but assuming that at the end of the World there will be some push to some great attempt get a synthasis of world religions together under some new age umbrella ; under one leadership that can then be hijacked by the antichrist then certain doctrines in the Catholic Faith would have to be manipulated also. A religious leader who by definition is infallable would be an ideal target to try to upsurp. I have noticed certain ideas creeping in that in my opinion could start to slide us that way.
Already in another thread someone tried to get the discussion on Christ Consciousness running which I nailed I think and the moderator pulled. Also I have a great faith in The Blessed Virgin the Queen of Heaven but I worry about those who would for all the best reasons start a process of Pushing her way beyond this with a few simple steps that they would never have imagined. Of course I’m a bit paranoid about this one as I never got over the shock “of even the very elect ( if possible ) would be led astray” so I am always on the look out. I’m sorry if all you guys are suffering for my paranoia but the picture of the Pope kissing the Quran really threw me

Let’s take this in bite size pieces.

First:

Did Pope John Paul kiss the Qur’an? It looks like he did. Did he commit a grave sin? No. Did he commit a little sin? No. He is in a foreign culture where the custom of kissing gifts is very common as a sign of gratitude and respect for the gift-giver.

Second:

Do we, the faithful, need to belabor this point any further? No. I am sure that this was already analyzed when the thousands of pages on Pope John Paul were studied prior to his being declared Venerable. The answers satisfied the Defender of the Faith (formerly called the Devil’s Advocate), Congregation for the Causes on the Saints, the Cardinal theologians who then read the report, and the Holy Father who reads it again. This goes through layers and layers of scrutiny.

Third:

In about four hours, he will be one of the new Blesseds in the Church and incorporated into the liturgy in various dioceses: Rome and all of the dioceses in Poland and several around the world that have already asked for permission to celebrate his feast day.

If the Church is satisfied with the answers to their questions on this matter, why belabor the point? It may be time to move on.

The Church does not beatify heretics.

It’s also important to note here that in a recent publication, we find out that Pope Benedict considered skipping the whole process and proceeding to canonization. That’s how sure he is that Pope John Paul II is a saint. Five cardinals asked him to reconsider and he finally compromised with them. He would not skip the process, but he would speed it up. If the Holy Father, who lived and worked with this man for more than 25-years is so convinced that he is a saint, there is no room for us to doubt it. Ultimately, it is the pope who infallibly declares that someone is a saint. Whether it’s Pope Benedict who ultimately canonizes Pope John Paul II or a future pope does it, we know that Pope Benedict’s insight into Pope John Paul’s holiness is going to weigh very heavily.

It will be the first time that a pope beatifies his immediate predecessor. It is not the first time that a pope proceeds contrary to the opinions of the many. I know that this was the case with Francis of Assisi, Clare of Assisi, Anthony of Padua and Dominic. The Cardinals were very upset, because there was no study allowed and no beatification allowed. Gregory IX proceeded to canonize three people on his personal conviction that they were truly saints. Of St. Dominic, he said that he was as sure that Dominic was a saint as he was of Peter and Paul. Of Francis and Anthony, he said that they were his friends and his spiritual sons and no one knew of their sanctity better than he did.

In reality, Pope Benedict has made a concession that he does not have to make. However, he has made his opinion well known. I would not make a big issue about the kissing of the Qur’an if Pope Benedict does not make an issue of it. Like Pope Gregory IX, Pope Benedict has not given us any reason to doubt his holiness and his wisdom. In this case, wisdom and insight are more important. You don’t have to be a saint to recognize one. You do have to be wise.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Kelley_Green]

Are we willing to obey their authority or do we set ourselves up as authorities evaluating everything they say or ask of us? I think that we have to remember that the only thing that we are not bound to obey is a command to sin.

How many times did Jesus have to correct the disciples who needed just as much correction (if not MORE) as the flock they were tending?

Jesus is the truth and the way. I do not obey authority per se, I obey the mission taught to me. I do my level best to obey the truth and the way, to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. I am not above reproach, but then again, neither are most. The best service we can ever do one another is to be an honest critic & enable one another to take meaningful possession of their free will.

How many wars (secular and religious) can be declared in succession before the enemy within (ourselves) is identified first and foremost? Jesus warned the flock to shield their ears from false teachings in the Temple. These things can only be gleaned by scrutiny, critical thinking, and questioning with the mind and the heart. This is an expression of healthy dissent- a check and balance of the Church.

Blind obedience is not the way to Jesus. There is congruence among adept, laity, and the Holy See when our vision is fixed upon that common upward gaze. When there is resistance from the flock, theologians, or even from a schism, it’s a call to all parties concerned that a lesson went lacking. Identifying that lesson is the reconciliation of truth. View all of the above as an opportunity to teach. Not a war. Lacking answers need not be a source of embarrassment, but call for a conscious direction of our intellect to explore.

The Vatican tends to view all these schisms & ‘enemies of the church’ as a field of tares and expects a different outcome. It would be more productive to retrieve the kernel of truth in each. To discern the truthful critics from the untruthful ones. You’re strong when you walk in truth. The tumor is what the critics point at, not grievances about the truth.

Moral theology and logic have never said that we are free to disobey unless something is declared infallibly. We must be very careful not to put more restrictions on ecclesial authority than we put on our parents, our government, our military leaders and other authority figures in our lives. Sometimes it seems that this is what we do. We want ecclesial authority to come from the pope, to be infallible, to be commanded, not just encouraged, and we don’t want it to say things differently from how they were said in the past.

I view this desire as a childish state in adults demanding deity powers from the Papacy. The problem is that over the centuries the Papacy has projected this image to the masses, setting up irrational expectations, and creating dissent among Protestants who viewed the Papacy as men misrepresenting and abusing authority. Yes, there are many mean spirited irrelevant criticisms leveled at the Vatican from other denominations & atheists carrying on in present tense. They’ve taken to embellishing the truth often, unfortunately. BUT beneath the pile of hay making is the needle.

Sometimes, things have to be said differently, because the way they were said in the past is being misunderstood in the present or the situations and audience was different or simply put, what was said is not binding on the reigning pontiff. A change in position is not a claim that the past was wrong. A change in position simply means that those conditions that existed back then do not exist today. Similar, but new ones exist.

I’m unclear what you’re talking about with this change in position. Is this in reference to the new Roman Missal or about other policies?

Once upon a time it was believed that tomatoes were poisonous. Nothing in the Bible claimed it so but it became a universal policy to forbid them. A tomato interacting with pewter is poisonous, not the tomato. We know better now. I expect that the Vatican does need to keep up with new information in a world moving at light speed because that same information is what bombards the flock. When it comes to reinterpretation of scripture, it becomes a much more difficult discussion. Truth must prevail.

I’d like to invite everyone to search their souls and their consciences and to ask ourselves, are our questions and demands for authoritative statements always reasonable or even honest or are we just looking to find a loophole to support our position? In other words, when we ask for authoritative proof, is it possible that some may be trying to manipulate Church teachings?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Demands for authoritative statements, or a response to authoritative statements declared long ago that defy intuitive flock? In the opinion of some, the Church teachings have already been manipulated from the beginning. In the opinion of yet others, they were manipulated along the way creating schisms.

I do see what you mean in light of Father Pfleger of St Sabinas. Is he in the business of telling them what they want to hear, or what they need to hear? I’m certain no sincere Catholic really wants that situation.

Evangelical youth are challenging evangelicals. It’s quite hilarious. Take a look see:
youtube.com/watch?v=Yb9DF16Fx8k
youtube.com/watch?v=n4QFKS4LzS4
youtube.com/watch?v=ZDqRheBu2cg
Catholics in the pews would do well to laugh at their own folly. Are we a pill & 1/2? In the year of the Priest I must declare in their defense, YES we ARE!

 

[JReducation]

I believe that we over estimate critical thinking and place it over faith. In reality, the saints have taught us that faith must guide critical thinking. We have to make a choice. Do we want to be saints or independent thinkers? One can certainly be an intelligent saint. We have had many of them. What we have never had is a dissident saint.

I thought we might get some profit reading from some of greatest spiritual masters how they view authority in the Church and what they teach on obedience.

Here is what St. Francis has to say. Who would dare question this man’s holiness and wisdom or compare himself to him?

That man leaves all he possesses and loses his body and his soul who abandons himself wholly to obedience in the hands of his superior, and whatever he does and says—provided he himself knows that what he does is good and not contrary to his [the superior’s] will—is true obedience. And if at times a subject sees things which would be better or more useful to his soul than those which the superior commands him, let him sacrifice his will to God, let him strive to fulfill the work enjoined by the superior. This is true and charitable obedience, which is pleasing to God and to one’s neighbor.

The Lord reveals true obedience to Catherine of Siena. She in turn communicates it to the Church for our benefit, not to be ignored.

No one at all can reach eternal life if he be not obedient, for the door was unlocked by the key of obedience, which had been fastened by the disobedience of Adam.

This virtue has a nurse who feeds her, that is, true humility; therefore a soul is obedient in proportion to her humility, and humble in proportion to her obedience.

**I tell you that disobedience comes from pride, which issues from self-love depriving the soul of humility. The sister given by self-love to disobedience is impatience, and pride, her foster-mother, feeds her with the darkness of infidelity, so she hastens along the way of darkness, which leads her to eternal death. **

God help us should we begin to ignore the great spiritual masters or worse, if we should try to take them on and prove them wrong.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[po18guy]

I believe that we over estimate critical thinking and place it over faith. In reality, the saints have taught us that faith must guide critical thinking. We have to make a choice. Do we want to be saints or independent thinkers?

There is one opinion in heaven. There are countless in hell.

God help us should we begin to ignore the great spiritual masters or worse, if we should try to take them on and prove them wrong.

The Church has recognized that they reside in heaven. Conversely, the Church offers us the Sacrament of reconciliation. There is an intended lesson in humility here.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

St. Benedict has a great deal to teach us about obedience to the Church and her authority. It’s interesting to study the great patriarch of Western Monasticism. St. Benedict sums things up viery clearly. At the end of the day, authority has its rights and we have our duty to obey, take it or leave it, but you can’t have both, the Church and your church. It is very important to remember that we are part of the Church, we are not the Church. Unless one is a bishop or a major superior of a male religious order, one is not part of the hierarchy of the Church either, since these are the only people who have Ordinary authority in the Church. But let’s look at what the Benedictine Tradition teaches us about obedience to the Church.

But this very obedience
will be acceptable to God and pleasing to all
only if what is commanded is done
without hesitation, delay, lukewarmness, grumbling, or objection.

I’ve always found this part of St. Benedict’s writings to be very important, because he stresses the importance of not hesitating. This is an important message for our world where we tend to second guess the popes and the Church. I think we forget that the only reason that we can get away with it, is because the Church does not give out citations. Certainly we would not get away with this were we try the same thing with the State or even our boss at work. It’s also interesting that Benedict first, and Francis later, were very clear on the importance of pleasing God AND man. They understand obedience in light of the great Commandment. “Love God above all things, and your neighbor as yourself.” Obedience becomes an act of love for God and man.

**
For the obedience given to Superiors is given to God,
since He Himself has said,
“He who hears you, hears Me” (Luke 10:16).
And the disciples should offer their obedience with a good will,
for “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7).**

This is a key idea that we have forgotten. Christ words to the Apostles are not just for their hearing, but for the whole Church. It’s call to humility.

**
For if the disciple obeys with an ill will
and murmurs,
not necessarily with his lips but simply in his heart,
then even though he fulfill the command
yet his work will not be acceptable to God,
who sees that his heart is murmuring.
And, far from gaining a reward for such work as this,
he will incur the punishment due to murmurers,
unless he amend and make satisfaction.**

I believe that this warning from St. Benedict is worth taking to heart. Obedience with reluctance is not obedience at all. It’s no wonder that it’s not acceptable to God or man. As I’m watching the beatification ceremony of Bl. John Paul II I’m thinking about those who reluctantly accept this decision by the Holy Father. When the rubber meets the road, beatification is the pope’s call.

I remember when Pope Gregory IX canonized Francis of Assisi and Anthony of Padua. Pope Gregory had canonized Francis of Assisi behind the Cardinal’s back in 1228, 18 months after his death. He had gone to Assisi for the General Chapter of the Order and asked for have the body exumed and canonized him, to everyone’s suprise. From hindsight, it looks like it was carefully planned by Pope Gregory.

In 1231, 11 months after Anthony’s death, Pope Gregory called off the study of Anthony’s life. The Cardinals were furious. Once again, Pope Gregory reminded the Cardinals and history, that this is his call to make, no one else’s. He became very angry with them. There is a famous statement that is recorded in history books. “The pope knows all there is to know.”

When Pope Benedict came to power he said that he would not do any beatifications. He would delegate those to the bishops and he would do the canonizaitons. However, he has turned his rule around twice now, Bl. John Cardinal Newman and now Bl. John Paul II. In both cases, he has said that he is doing it, because these were his friends, very similar to Pope Gregory IX.

Many people have moaned that we lack a papacy that puts its foot down. Now we have it. Pope Benedict has put his foot down on this point.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

St. Benedict has a great deal to teach us about obedience to the Church and her authority. It’s interesting to study the great patriarch of Western Monasticism. St. Benedict sums things up viery clearly. At the end of the day, authority has its rights and we have our duty to obey, take it or leave it, but you can’t have both, the Church and your church. It is very important to remember that we are part of the Church, we are not the Church. Unless one is a bishop or a major superior of a male religious order, one is not part of the hierarchy of the Church either, since these are the only people who have Ordinary authority in the Church. But let’s look at what the Benedictine Tradition teaches us about obedience to the Church.

But this very obedience
will be acceptable to God and pleasing to all
only if what is commanded is done
without hesitation, delay, lukewarmness, grumbling, or objection.

I’ve always found this part of St. Benedict’s writings to be very important, because he stresses the importance of not hesitating. This is an important message for our world where we tend to second guess the popes and the Church. I think we forget that the only reason that we can get away with it, is because the Church does not give out citations. Certainly we would not get away with this were we try the same thing with the State or even our boss at work. It’s also interesting that Benedict first, and Francis later, were very clear on the importance of pleasing God AND man. They understand obedience in light of the great Commandment. “Love God above all things, and your neighbor as yourself.” Obedience becomes an act of love for God and man.

For the obedience given to Superiors is given to God,
since He Himself has said,
“He who hears you, hears Me” (Luke 10:16).
And the disciples should offer their obedience with a good will,
for “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7).

This is a key idea that we have forgotten. Christ words to the Apostles are not just for their hearing, but for the whole Church. It’s call to humility.

For if the disciple obeys with an ill will
and murmurs,
not necessarily with his lips but simply in his heart,
then even though he fulfill the command
yet his work will not be acceptable to God,
who sees that his heart is murmuring.
And, far from gaining a reward for such work as this,
he will incur the punishment due to murmurers,
unless he amend and make satisfaction.

I believe that this warning from St. Benedict is worth taking to heart. Obedience with reluctance is not obedience at all. It’s no wonder that it’s not acceptable to God or man. As I’m watching the beatification ceremony of Bl. John Paul II I’m thinking about those who reluctantly accept this decision by the Holy Father. When the rubber meets the road, beatification is the pope’s call.

I remember when Pope Gregory IX canonized Francis of Assisi and Anthony of Padua. Pope Gregory had canonized Francis of Assisi behind the Cardinal’s back in 1228, 18 months after his death. He had gone to Assisi for the General Chapter of the Order and asked for have the body exumed and canonized him, to everyone’s suprise. From hindsight, it looks like it was carefully planned by Pope Gregory.

In 1231, 11 months after Anthony’s death, Pope Gregory called off the study of Anthony’s life. The Cardinals were furious. Once again, Pope Gregory reminded the Cardinals and history, that this is his call to make, no one else’s. He became very angry with them. There is a famous statement that is recorded in history books. “The pope knows all there is to know.”

When Pope Benedict came to power he said that he would not do any beatifications. He would delegate those to the bishops and he would do the canonizaitons. However, he has turned his rule around twice now, Bl. John Cardinal Newman and now Bl. John Paul II. In both cases, he has said that he is doing it, because these were his friends, very similar to Pope Gregory IX.

Many people have moaned that we lack a papacy that puts its foot down. Now we have it. Pope Benedict has put his foot down on this point.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[valentino]

Jreduction:Thanks for replying.