Are we trying to manipulate Church teachings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JReducation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hear what you are saying, and I admire those who can live up to it. But I also have sincere sympathy for those who have suffered pain and confusion when their local bishop does things that seem incompatible with catholic principles. And there are limits to what I am willing to defend the former from criticism originating from the latter. I’ve lived too close to it.
Don’t you think that it’s time that Catholics begin to think of the Church and the diocese as they do about their family? We don’t air our family laundry.

I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember, but I was stationed in the Archdiocese of Washington when the Clinton affair broke out. What was a case of adultery suddenly became a public spectacle. It was disgusting. I remember that adults had to hide the newspaper from their children, because it gave detailed descriptions of the President’s sexual activities in the Oval Office. Many people were outraged at the fact that such dirty laundry was being aired when it was a matter of adultery and a man lying under oath. The only part that should have been public record was the legal part. He lied to a grand jury. The rest was a family issue.

Today, Catholics are doing the same thing. We are talking about our Church, our Apostolic Succession, defending our primacy among all other Churches and ecclesial community and it is Catholics, not Protestants or Jews, who accuse their bishops of all kinds of things, who claim that their bishops are conspiring against the Church, who make derogatory remarks about their bishops and the Conference of Bishops and sometimes about the popes too. We do it all over the Internet. What is posted on the Internet will never disappear, even after people change their mind.

There are procedures and systems for handling these concerns internally. Our credibility suffers when we say to a non-Catholic that the Church rests upon the bishop and by the way, the bishop is a corrupt son of a gun. That blows the mind of the non-Catholic.

If we observe Jews and Protestants, especially the high churches, they are very discrete in expressing their concerns about Rabbis and clergy. Jews, especially, have a very strong sense of family and fidelity to their Rabbis. This does not mean that Rabbis are saints or that Jews believe they are. It means that they know how to deal with problems without attracting undue attention. This is how we would handle a problem with a spouse or a child who has gone errant.

The Church is our family. All families have problems. All families have problem children. The Church has never been an exception to that rule. But today’s Catholic has made a fatal mistake that will cost him or her very dearly in his or her spiritual life. Today’s Catholic has put the spiritual masters on a shelf as one does with an expensive porcelain figure. Look at it, but don’t touch it. Instead of learning from the spiritual masters how to deal with these situations and what to say and when to say it, we make up our own rules that are often in conflict with Traditional Catholicism.

Traditional Catholicism is not just the Extraordinary Form of the mass, statues, rosaries and devotions. Traditional Catholicism is also a school of spirituality and a way of responding to the world and to sin inside the Church and outside. Traditional Catholicism has always been very attentive to the Masters. This is how the great religious families came into existence and how they made such an impact on the European world. People looked at the masters for guidance in these situations.

We have democratized Catholicism. Each of us now decides what to say, when to say it, how to say it and to hell with the damage that it can do to the Church. A St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Ignatius, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, Bl. Teresa of Calcutta or Bl. John Paul II dearly loved the Church and taught everyone who would listen to love it, to protect it, and to be discrete. They taught us when to speak, how to speak, and when to keep our own counsel.

If we want the Church to be the Church that it was, we can’t do it with the EF alone. We have to recover the great schools of Christian spirituality and Christian asceticism and apply their rules in our dealings with each other, especially in our dealings with the hierarchy. These folks did not deal with saintly popes and bishops. They dealt with worse than we have today. But who can find a single word in their writings or their teachings against these leaders?

Even the great Catherine who wrote letters to the Holy Father about many concerns always did two things. First, she ended all of her letters profession her filial devotion to the pope, whether he was right or wrong. She would end by saying that she would accept his decision. Second, she punished and even banished from her community anyone who dared to speak a negative word about the clergy or religious to anyone except her.

St. Francis would listen to the brother’s concerns and to those of the laity. He prayed over them. He would go back to the person and ask the person to pray and to offer his suffering as a penance for the sinful cleric or prelate. When he had the chance, he would speak to the cleric or prelate. It is said that his words were so kind that the person left feeling overjoyed. He was not angry or confrontational and he never shared what he was told or what he observed. That was between him and the person. There is nothing in writing by any of these people about the abuses in the Church during their time. On the contrary, their writings defend the Church and condemn those who would criticize her. That is Traditional Catholicism. You defend the Church and we do not hold her up for public scrutiny. History will do it’s job, good or bad. It always does.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The problem with obedience is that far too many see it as a choice of:

  1. * Obey without question* Question and wait for an answer before obeying* disobey

    Few realize the church calls us to use one of:
    • Obey without question* Obey immediately and ask for an explanation to follow
    Far too many forget that “Obey immediately and ask for an explanation” is the best choice for those troubled by a command of the church.
 
The problem with obedience is that far too many see it as a choice of:

  1. * Obey without question* Question and wait for an answer before obeying* disobey

    Few realize the church calls us to use one of:
    • Obey without question* Obey immediately and ask for an explanation to follow
    Far too many forget that “Obey immediately and ask for an explanation” is the best choice for those troubled by a command of the church.

  1. I believe that people don’t quite understand the concept of culpability. Let me see if I can help.
    1. If you know that something is a sin, you have a moral duty to decline. However, you also have a moral duty to remain faithful to the person in authority. You decline to do the sinful action. You don’t throw out the baby and water.
    2. If you don’t know, you may ask for a clarification. Then you act on the word of the person in authority. If there is an objective sin, the only person subjectively culpable is the person who gave the command. You did what you could to try to find out the truth and then acted in good faith. One does not have to run home and look things up in the Catholic Encyclopedia or the Vatican Web Site. One has a moral obligation to make a reasonable inquiry. Expressing your moral concern to the person in authority is reasonable, if time permits, one may consult with one’s spiritual director. If there is no time, then one acts in good faith and the person in authority has to take the fall if they knowingly misled you.
    3. Something is not a sin, because I don’t like it or because I disagree. Therefore, I have no legitimate excuse.
    4. A bishop need not be infallible to command the people of his diocese on any matter. This is interesting. This is part of Traditional Catholicism. Bishops are ordained to govern as well. We forget that part. Their sphere of government is not limited to the canonical. It includes the temporal. It always has. We see it in the Acts of the Apostles where the early Christians brought what they had and laid it at the feet of the Apostles for them to distribute. The Apostles actually managed the financial and temporal affairs of their followers. When a bishop says “Current immigration law is immoral because A, B, and C.” He is not trying to rewrite the Constitution of the USA. However, he is using his power to teach and to govern. He is teaching morality and he is dictating to the Catholic population that it has a duty to use its rights as citizens to push for change in an immoral system or an immoral law. It may be one line of the law that is immoral. The rest may be fine. The bishop has the authority to command Catholics to get that line fixed. The Church has always exercised this authority. The most recent case was Bl. John Paul II and Communist Poland. He impressed upon the Catholic population that they had a moral obligation to change an immoral system. That’s using temporal authority or authority over temporal matters. Paul used it very frequently as did the other Apostles when they founded the different Churches.
    We have to understand the difference between objective and subjective culpability. We have to understand that we have a moral duty to make reasonable inquiry about the morality of a request. We must understand that we have a moral duty to decline an immoral request, but remain faithful to the person in authority. We must understand that Church authority goes beyond pius practices and canons. It reaches out into the temporal affairs of mankind, because those temporal affairs cannot be separated form our spiritual lives and our moral duties and obligations to Church and country. The Church has the right to govern our moral lives. Otherwise, we may as well become democratic Protestants. I mean democratic, not the Democratic Party . . . two different concepts. 😃

    Fraternally,

    Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
This view supposes that thet like God you know good and evil, and can tell what is God’s will and what is the Church’s will.

We are not so perfect, there are many many ifs buts and maybes in our life.
Well, actually, God’s will and the Church’s will would be the same. (I almost said "will be the same’ but that would sound confusing.)
 
Well, actually, God’s will and the Church’s will would be the same. (I almost said "will be the same’ but that would sound confusing.)
How about saying it this way.

The Church does not contradict God nor does God contradict his Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation

St Francis of Assisi once told his monks that if they were in the midst of the Beatific Vision and a tramp knocked at their door asking for a cup of cold water, turning away from the heavenly vision to help the tramp would be the real heaven, and turning away from the tramp to keep the blissful vision would be turning from God’s face.

The study of rules is a study in great humility.

And much more.

The virtues are one great tapestry of holiness: lift one part the others follow, closely woven into the fabric of our relationship with God. Saints are Practitioners of Heroic Virtue
The goal of a virtuous life is to become like God (“be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect” - Matthew 5:48). [CCC #1803].
“What I am in the eyes of God that I am, and no more” St Francis of Assisi. Saints are not the opposite of sinners. There are no opposites of sinners in this world. There are only saved sinners and unsaved sinners. Thus holy does not mean “sinless” but “set-apart:” called out of the world to the destiny of eternal ecstasy with God.
 
But our faith is in Christ and that the Holy Spirit can and will work through the Church and her bishops, not in the individual bishops themselves. It is the office of bishop that demands our respect and at a certain level obedience. But holding the office does not remove the free will of the office holder.

To your previous analogy, I recall well the Clinton scandal and salacious details that occupied so many. I agree it was an unhealthy prurience on the public’s part to a great degree. But it would have been as bad or worse for the media and the public to simply ignore or gloss over his reprensible behavior, as was the case in ages past (i.e. JFK). When people give over the assent of their wills to the unexamined desires of those in authority, we INVITE corruption. We may owe obedience, but they owe the Church faithfulness.

Again, I’ve seen what widespread damage can be done by a relative few with ambition and positions of authority. I’m not a reactionary TLM guy (never been to one, in fact), nor do I harbor suspicions that Vatican 2 itself somehow weakened the Church (though I’ve met some like that!). But I have had a family member attend seminary in a diocese with a long time leader who subsribed to the “Hermeneutic of Rupture” view of Vatican 2. That place was a hotbed of opposition to and attempts to undermine Humanae Vitae, to reorganize the liturgy to make it a “community meal” instead of THE Holy Sacrifice, and seminarians showing signs of “rigidness” (practically defined as disapproving of sins) were frequently ostracized until they left. (Which is why they had only single digits of new priests over a 10 year period at the worst).

I don’t dispute that the faithful owe their respect and, when push comes to shove, obedience. But I draw the line at unquestioning compliance with the will and desires of the local ordinary on matters in which the Church throughout history clearly has other ideas. God made them leaders, but did not make the rest of us brainless drones. Even in the military, those of lower ranks are expected to use their training and resourcefulness to carry out their mission even when that mission is sometimes burdened by a less than competent commander. Sergeants in particular are famous for protecting their lieutenants from their own foolishness…

Until recently, if the bishop said “No TLM” that was the answer (didn’t affect me much). But if the bishop’s personal liturgical bent was towards yanking kneelers, using crumbly bread as hosts and inviting laymen (and women) as homilists, I refuse to apologize for shopping until I found a parish with the guts to resist him.
 
=Iotaunum;7852526]( IT SEEMS MY POST IS TOO LONG - I WILL SPLIT IT INTO TWO PARTS)
I haven’t commented on this forum in a while since many of the issues are at the core the same old - same old. It all really boils down to the issues being discussed here - i.e. what one considers to be authoritative and the “correct” interpretation of a particular ruling or statement from the Holy See and Church Councils.
One of the things I have noticed many Catholics today saying is; “where is that in the Bible?” when talking about certain issues - even the most basic beliefs of the faith (Mass, Purgatory, indulgences etc). This is obviously annoying since even most protestants know that Catholics do not hold Sola Scriptura and many beliefs come from Tradition. It can also therefore be frustrating, as the original poster mentioned, when Catholics question certain laws, customs and traditional theology on the grounds that they cannot find it explicitly stated in a solemn Papal declaration/pronouncement. On the other hand we have many more Catholics - and I find this is the larger of the categories - who say:* “Pope ……… Said …………. Therefore the matter is finished”* - in a sort of twisted and misunderstood interpretation of “Rome has spoken the matter is finished”. So on one hand we have those who do/believe what they want until the Pope infallibly states otherwise, and on the other we have those who will do/believe almost anything that the Pope says as Gospel truth and infallible. Both positions run contrary to those held by the vast majority of saints, theologians and even Popes throughout the entire history of the Church.
My dear friend in Christ, if I understand your position correctly you accept the Bible as being a valid source for Teaching and Learning Faith. My confusion stems from this very belief.

Nowhere in the entire Bible, in Tradition or Teaching of the early Catholic fathers can one point to even a single instance where Yaheh, Jesus, or the Inspired Authors of the Bible has ever stated either a desire or grant permission for more than "One God; One Faith [set of faith-beliefs to be held], and the NT alone has 100+ references to this fact.

Here is just THREE of them.

Phil.2: 2 “complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.”

Eph. 4: 1-7 “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body [WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH] and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, [Meaning only One set of beliefs] one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

**Eph. 2: 18-22 “ for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;"

I can certianly understand one getting tired of the message 😃 Imagine how we feel repeating and repeating it; while praying that the Holy Spirit will GRANT someone RIGHT understanding.

The Singular TRUTHS can’t change so we seek differnt and perhaps more interestering ways to present them? So we tolerate each others positions Knowing God is in Charge!

How can their be such CLAIRTY of Teaching and so little understanding:confused:

OH, I KNOW: 😊

**2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 ** “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

**ACTS 8: 29-32 **“And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: "As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.”

Eph.3: 9 to 12 “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [SINGULAR: THEE CATHOLIC Church] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him. “

May God continue to Grant US patience and UNDERSTANDING:rolleyes:

God Bless,
Pat
 
Christ is risen!
I don’t dispute that the faithful owe their respect and, when push comes to shove, obedience. But I draw the line at unquestioning compliance with the will and desires of the local ordinary on matters in which the Church throughout history clearly has other ideas. God made them leaders, but did not make the rest of us brainless drones. Even in the military, those of lower ranks are expected to use their training and resourcefulness to carry out their mission even when that mission is sometimes burdened by a less than competent commander. Sergeants in particular are famous for protecting their lieutenants from their own foolishness…
Amen.

There is a direct correlation between the military and many of those who uphold traditional teachings in the church, many of the lay people who do so are former veterans or have some connection or experience with military. Both the military and monasticism can potentially offer the discipline and guidance to that make us spiritually healthy. (for others they are also offer potential to be too strict or corrupt in their actions.)

As I’ve said before…many who are in the hierarchy of the church themselves manipulate the church teaching, but they probably would try to not call it that, therefore it is harder expect lay people to be held to higher standards.

While the SSPX talks about the deconstruction of Catholic tradition, their detractors dismiss them as disobedient rebels. With the possible exception of Benedict XVI and a minority of Church leaders, there seems to be little genuine interest to reincorporate the FSSPX. The rest of the hierarchy just wants them to go away.

It seems, come what may, those on the left are more committed to the new secular culture than to the proper interpretation of Vatican-2. The Council documents were written in an ambiguous fashion. The interpretation of the ambiguous texts have continued apace ever since. They call the basis for the distortions the Spirit of the Council. In reality, the Spirit of Vatican-2 is the Spirit of the Age, the basis for the emerging secular culture. When one side insists on dogma and the other side insists on nuanced interpretations there is no room for compromise much less agreement .

The new culture has no use for Catholic Tradition let alone for such strong advocates of Catholic identity as the SSPX. I pray God will show us the way out of this mess.

Consider St. Paul’s words in Galatians 1:8-10 . But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

I think that JR reductions intention here was good, but also one that may be a bit naive and different people question teachings for different reasons. Some good, some evil.

Thats my last post for this thread.
 
But if the bishop’s personal liturgical bent was towards yanking kneelers, using crumbly bread as hosts and inviting laymen (and women) as homilists, I refuse to apologize for shopping until I found a parish with the guts to resist him.
CNS Story:

AUSTRALIA-MORRIS (CORRECTED) May-13-2011

Vatican asked Australian bishop to resign six times before his removal

By Anthony Barich

Catholic News Service

Cardinal Re again asked for Bishop Morris’ resignation in a July 9, 2009, letter, prompting him to write to the pope clarifying his position that “in conscience he could not resign from office.”

Pope Benedict replied Dec. 22, 2009, requesting that Bishop Morris resign from office, reminding him there is no appeal from papal decisions.

In their May letter, the Australian bishops said they appreciated that "Bishop Morris’ human qualities were never in question; nor is there any doubt about the contribution he has made to the life of the church in Toowoomba and beyond. The pope’s decision was not a denial of the personal and pastoral gifts that Bishop Morris has brought to the episcopal ministry. Rather, it was judged that there were problems of doctrine and discipline, and we regret that these could not be resolved.

“We are hopeful that Bishop Morris will continue to serve the church in other ways in the years ahead,” they added
 
Are we trying to manipulate Church teachings?
We shouldn’t.

I think Church teaching is protected by the Deposit of Faith which was received from the Apostles.
 
I think that JR reductions intention here was good, but also one that may be a bit naive and different people question teachings for different reasons.
I think in this day and age a touch of naivete would do us all good. In fact, I think it is essential and core to Christianity. As the Master said, unless we become as children we shall not enter the kingdom. Our modern democracy and the even greater influence of the information age has lead us to esteem our own opinions a little too much, I think. I doubt we will be judged much on how correct our doctrine as much as how much we have the heart of the child and behave as good sheep. This is backwards and counter-intuitive to our culture, therefore hard to do. In fact, I would say it is impossible with a healthy dose of Grace.
 
I know someone who seems to resent the authority of the church…I told them about the UK going meatless on Fri and they got mad

They said the bishops need to get a life…I am afraid that some want to only obey what they find pleasing, and if anything more is asked of them, they become mad and complain saying it is nothing but clericalism …
 
JReducation

St Francis of Assisi once told his monks that if they were in the midst of the Beatific Vision and a tramp knocked at their door asking for a cup of cold water, turning away from the heavenly vision to help the tramp would be the real heaven, and turning away from the tramp to keep the blissful vision would be turning from God’s face.

The study of rules is a study in great humility.

And much more.
By today’s standards men like Francis of Assisi would be considered naive men. Yet, how many of today’s wise men can measure up to his almost perfect imitation of Jesus? These are the kinds of questions that we must ask ourselves along the journey.

This is why God has given us the Masters. God has raised them up, not for their own good, there are many silent saints. God has raised them for the good of the Body.
But our faith is in Christ and that the Holy Spirit can and will work through the Church and her bishops, not in the individual bishops themselves. It is the office of bishop that demands our respect and at a certain level obedience. But holding the office does not remove the free will of the office holder.

We may owe obedience, but they owe the Church faithfulness.

Again, I’ve seen what widespread damage can be done by a relative few with ambition and positions of authority. I’m not a reactionary TLM guy (never been to one, in fact), nor do I harbor suspicions that Vatican 2 itself somehow weakened the Church (though I’ve met some like that!). But I have had a family member attend seminary in a diocese with a long time leader who subsribed to the “Hermeneutic of Rupture” view of Vatican 2. That place was a hotbed of opposition to and attempts to undermine Humanae Vitae, to reorganize the liturgy to make it a “community meal” instead of THE Holy Sacrifice, and seminarians showing signs of “rigidness” (practically defined as disapproving of sins) were frequently ostracized until they left. (Which is why they had only single digits of new priests over a 10 year period at the worst).

I don’t dispute that the faithful owe their respect and, when push comes to shove, obedience. But I draw the line at unquestioning compliance with the will and desires of the local ordinary on matters in which the Church throughout history clearly has other ideas. God made them leaders, but did not make the rest of us brainless drones. Even in the military, those of lower ranks are expected to use their training and resourcefulness to carry out their mission even when that mission is sometimes burdened by a less than competent commander. Sergeants in particular are famous for protecting their lieutenants from their own foolishness…

Until recently, if the bishop said “No TLM” that was the answer (didn’t affect me much). But if the bishop’s personal liturgical bent was towards yanking kneelers, using crumbly bread as hosts and inviting laymen (and women) as homilists, I refuse to apologize for shopping until I found a parish with the guts to resist him.
We’re talking about different things here. No one has ever said that one should obey when commanded to sin. No one has ever said that bishops and other ecclesial authorities are free of sin and non sinful errors. The call here is a call to recover the whole of our Catholic Tradition, not just parts of it.

I’m reminded of the death of one my good friends, Teresa of Avila. Teresa lived during one of the most chaotic periods in Church history. She found herself in the midst of the Protestant Reformation and the Inquisition. If we look at the Catholic side of the coin, we have to say like Bl. John Paul II. “Both sides were wrong and both sides sinned.”

Thousands of people flew into the hands of the Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans because of the corruption of the bishops, the lack of formation of the secular clergy, the abuse of the state in the name of religion or against religion, depending on the country and the sexual abuses of the clergy. They sexually abused children, young girls and boys, and adult women as if they were objects. The monasteries had become havens for the rich to while away the hours entertained by monks and cloistered nuns who should have been praying and working; instead they spent hours in the parlor entertaining the wealthy for a few gold coins to pay their bills.

However, Teresa never mentions any of this in her writings. Nor did she ever mention even noticing any of this to her nuns and friars. She taught them that they had to recover the contemplative life of the early Carmelites. However, she never said that they had to get away from a monastery that was falling apart or a diocese that had lost its way. In fact, she never founded a single house without the bishop’s permission. When one of her nuns voice a comment about one of the priests who was living in sin with a teenage girl, Teresa’s answer was very simple and to the point: “Are you his superior? Did you speak to him? Did you speak to his superior?” When the nuns responded that she had done none of the above, Teresa responded: “Then I order you not to speak of it here. For such comments do nothing for us or for the person of whom you speak.”

Despite all of this, as she was laying dying, bleeding to death her last words were, “I am a daughter of the Church.” She was truly a daughter of the Church. She protected her mother from public ridicule and scorn, even when she had to take on her own nuns. This is the spirit that we have to study and recover. Teresa never aided anyone in sin. She never denied the existence of the sins around her. She worked for reform without ever saying why. This was a secret that she took with her to her grave. We still don’t’ know what she thought of the Church around her. Yet, we know that she was neither naive nor blind.
 
I know someone who seems to resent the authority of the church…I told them about the UK going meatless on Fri and they got mad

They said the bishops need to get a life…I am afraid that some want to only obey what they find pleasing, and if anything more is asked of them, they become mad and complain saying it is nothing but clericalism …
St. Charles Borromeo once said that the greatest sign of love is to obey man while trusting in God.
I think in this day and age a touch of naivete would do us all good. In fact, I think it is essential and core to Christianity. As the Master said, unless we become as children we shall not enter the kingdom. Our modern democracy and the even greater influence of the information age has lead us to esteem our own opinions a little too much, I think. I doubt we will be judged much on how correct our doctrine as much as how much we have the heart of the child and behave as good sheep. This is backwards and counter-intuitive to our culture, therefore hard to do. In fact, I would say it is impossible with a healthy dose of Grace.
I’d like to go back to Francis’ “naiveté”. Which I don’t think was so naive. Francis dearly loved liturgy. He was a big pusher of daily Holy Communion during an era when this was not the custom. He loved priests and had great respect for them. Despite this love for liturgy and priests, he did two very interesting things.

I remember that a woman came to the friars asking for food. They didn’t have enough food. Francis took the missal and gave it to the woman. He told her to trade it for food. The brothers were in shock. How would they have daily mass without a missal? Francis responded, “The Lord has come knocking at the door. How can we turn him away hungry and then ask to feed us at the Eucharist?”

The other thing that he did was to equalize the brothers. He loved the priests. Many priests felt attracted to follow him. They left their parishes and bishops to follow him. Some, like Anthony of Padua even left their religious orders to follow Francis. Francis made three demands of them. 1) That they celebrate the mass with great love. 2) That they put aside their priestly privileges and become one among many brothers (ordained and non ordained), beginning by dropping the title, Father, and becoming Brother. 3) That they vow to obey the pope, the bishop, him and his canonically elected superiors without question. Hundreds of these men went on to become great saints, popes and a number of Doctors:
  • Br. Anthony of Padua,
  • Br. Bonaventure,
  • Br. Lawrence of Brindisi;
  • Br. Fidelis,
  • Br. Francis Osuna,
  • Br. John Duns Scotus,
  • Br. Pio of Pietrelcina,
  • Br. Maximilian Kolbe and many others.
These are the traditions that we must recover, the asceticism and spirituality that made these men and women saints.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I know someone who seems to resent the authority of the church…I told them about the UK going meatless on Fri and they got mad

They said the bishops need to get a life…I am afraid that some want to only obey what they find pleasing, and if anything more is asked of them, they become mad and complain saying it is nothing but clericalism …
I agree with the bishops and wish the same here in Norway. Simply im tired of what is adviced and should-be-done. I want it to be expected and required. Each friday, each holy day (easter, christmas++).

Honestly im leaning towards the traditional traditional catholicism and maybe SSPX do got some good points.
 
Thank you brother JR. You’ve given good food for thought.

Sometimes when we get cynical, we tend to mislabel innocence as naivite. That’s a caution I’ll take to heart. I’ll agree at least this far with you: it is far better to live virtuously and faithfully to the gospel than to complain about how others aren’t.

If I take nothing else from this thread, I’ll accept the reminder that I could always do with more of the former and less of the latter.
 
I agree with the bishops and wish the same here in Norway. Simply im tired of what is adviced and should-be-done. I want it to be expected and required. Each friday, each holy day (easter, christmas++).

Honestly im leaning towards the traditional traditional catholicism and maybe SSPX do got some good points.
Remember the saints. If you are leaning toward Catholic Tradition, the saints never left the side of their bishops, not matter how weak they were. They often strengthened their bishops.

I remember one afternoon when Francis and Cardinal Hugolino were taking a walk. Pope Honorius had appointed Cardinal Hugolino as the protector of the Franciscans. For those who don’t know, the Dominicans and the Franciscans have a tradition of having Cardinals assigned to protect them from the influence of the laity and the control of the bishops and the state. This is what is called “an exempt status”. Everyone must support them, but no one may interfere with them. The Cardinal Protectors exist to enforce this in the name of the pope.

Back to our story . . . Cardinal Hugolino was very impressed by Francis and his brothers. However, he was also a man of power and wealthy. Francis invited him to become one of his brothers. The next time that the Cardinal visited Assisi he told Francis that he had thought about his invitation and wanted to give it a try. Francis provided him with a tunic down to his knees, not trousers, a chord and no shoes. However, he did allow him to wear the pectoral cross and the ring of his office. For several days Hugolino visited and lived as the poorest of the poor.

At the end of his visit, he donned his royal robes again. He told Francis that he was not called to live this life of austerity, but that he was leaving with a great sense of peace, joy and a sense that he had a mission to fulfill. Francis looked at him and said, “My Lord, God will lead you where you do not want to go and everyone shall call you Father. It is good that you have first tried to live as a son.” Later that year, Pope Honorius died and Cardinal Hugolino was elected Pope Gregory IX.

Catherine of Siena wrote letters to the Holy Father encouraging him to return to Rome and reclaim the See of Peter. However, her closing was very interesting. She always closed her letters with, “I remain your obedient daughter and will do whatever seems pleasant to you.”

The point is that the great saints never departed from the side of their bishops and popes, even when they were weak. They did not place demands on them. They gently and respectfully shared with them what they discovered along their journey.

It’s not necessary for the Church to mandate something in order for us to be saints. The saints did not respond to mandates. They responded to grace. What they did was to verify with the Church to make sure that what they believed was a grace from God or a call from God, was truly such a call. When the Church said no, they dropped it.

Bl. Mother Teresa was asked about Communion on the hand. Her response has been misquoted all over the place. She said that if this is what the Church allowed, then she would not forbid it to her sisters, because her wisdom was insignificant to that of the Church. However, she preferred Communion on the tongue, because for HER, not for her sisters, it would be a horrible thing not to do it that way. Observe, how this holy woman, whom most of us can never measure up to, sees her wisdom as insignificant and how she accepts whatever the Church says is acceptable or permissible. Yet, she does not do it, because the Church never said that she had to receive Communion on the hand.

On another occasion, we wanted to start a congregation of brothers. She gathered the men for the new congregation. The first one was a former Jesuit priest. She asked Father Andrew to design a habit for the brothers. When all was said and done, the new constitutions and the design for the habit were sent to Rome. Pope Paul VI rejected the plan. He told them that they must not call anyone Father. All the Missionaries of Charity men were to be called Brother, whether they were priests or not. He also told them that they were not to wear any kind of distinctive habit, because Christ wanted an Indian congregation and habits were a European custom. Mother Teresa was not disappointed. She deleted the titles from the new constitutions and deleted the habits. Today there are several thousand male Missionaries of Charity that no one sees, because they are not recognizable. However, Paul VI was right. God provided the vocations and their way of life imitates that of the Indian Franciscans, but without habits.

Sometimes part of being a saint requires that we obey with trust as St. Philip Neri said.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
St Dominic also comes from that time, and was, traditionally, considered to have been friends with St. Francis. His rule was different, and one that also calls for obedience and personal poverty… but in a different light. One of questioning, of learning why, and of being able to explain the why behind the how. And one of living, working, and travelling always in community.

Dominican tradition includes that the two, St. Francis and St. Dominic, both were influenced by each other. Their orders are siblings.

Together, their two rules highlight different sides of the church… a lesson shown clearly on their feasts, when both orders jointly celebrate.

Both emphasize obedience to lawful authority, even when it’s in the wrong… hence the Domincan submission to the Baltimore Council’s ban on missals other than the Roman within the US, even tho it contradicted the Counicil of Trent and their exempt status! (And was, eventually, overturned.)

But the kind of obedience St. Francis called for is hard for the general layman; even St. Dominic’s “Obey and then ask for an explanation” is hard.

We do have a right to shape the church’s minor teachings… but not in the way most people try to do it.
_ We have a right, (and in the Catholic East, a duty,) to inform the bishop of our needs.
__•_We have a duty to inform authority when we think our leaders are wrongly following the rubrics or are teaching error (per BXVI’s RS), but not a right to enforce change, nor to be a spectacle in that.
__•_We have a right to authentic liturgy… but no authority to determine what is or is not an authentic liturgy… that is our bishop’s job.
__•_We have the right to appeal our bishop’s decisions to our patriarchs and metropolitans, but a duty to not make spectacle of so doing.

Friars lose some of those rights by their vows, but still, out duty includes not giving rise to scandal in shaping the teachings of the church in the slow and subtle way that we have a right to use.
 
St Dominic also comes from that time, and was, traditionally, considered to have been friends with St. Francis. His rule was different, and one that also calls for obedience and personal poverty… but in a different light. One of questioning, of learning why, and of being able to explain the why behind the how. And one of living, working, and travelling always in community.

Dominican tradition includes that the two, St. Francis and St. Dominic, both were influenced by each other. Their orders are siblings.

Together, their two rules highlight different sides of the church… a lesson shown clearly on their feasts, when both orders jointly celebrate.

Both emphasize obedience to lawful authority, even when it’s in the wrong… hence the Domincan submission to the Baltimore Council’s ban on missals other than the Roman within the US, even tho it contradicted the Counicil of Trent and their exempt status! (And was, eventually, overturned.)

But the kind of obedience St. Francis called for is hard for the general layman; even St. Dominic’s “Obey and then ask for an explanation” is hard.

We do have a right to shape the church’s minor teachings… but not in the way most people try to do it.
_ We have a right, (and in the Catholic East, a duty,) to inform the bishop of our needs.
__•_We have a duty to inform authority when we think our leaders are wrongly following the rubrics or are teaching error (per BXVI’s RS), but not a right to enforce change, nor to be a spectacle in that.
__•_We have a right to authentic liturgy… but no authority to determine what is or is not an authentic liturgy… that is our bishop’s job.
__•_We have the right to appeal our bishop’s decisions to our patriarchs and metropolitans, but a duty to not make spectacle of so doing.

Friars lose some of those rights by their vows, but still, out duty includes not giving rise to scandal in shaping the teachings of the church in the slow and subtle way that we have a right to use.
This is excellently and clearly put. This is what I’ve been trying to say. We have the right to dialog with our pastors, but not the right to smear the Church.

I would only make one historical correction, if you will, no offense intended. St. Dominic never wrote a rule. The Dominican rule was denied by Pope Honorius. He gave Dominic the Rule of St. Augustine. Dominicans are really part of the Augustinian family. Dominic, being very clever, wrote a series of statutes and admonitions . . . sort of like the amendments that we make to the constitution of the USA. Anything that Augustine didn’t address, Dominic explained and some things that Augustine does address, Dominic highlights and even builds on. The difference between Dominic’s writings and those of Francis and Augustine is that Dominic’s do not have the force of law. The Dominicans follow them voluntarily. They can dispense with them, rewrite them or edit them. The rules of Benedict, Augustine, Albert, Francis and Basil cannot be amended, edited or rewritten by anyone except a pope.

The explanation that you have given of the two great Fathers of the Mendicant movement is quite accurate. We don’t know if they ever met. They were both at the Lateran Council. That much we do know. However, Francis always shied away from meeting scholars, because he felt beneath them. Even though he was one of the most powerful religious superiors at the time. By the time of the Council in 1215, Francis had over 3,000 friars. However, Francis considered himself to be simple minded. Would that we were all so simple minded. We’re still unraveling his Mystical Theology.

Fraternally,

Br. Jr, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top