H
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Because we all know what an extreme group those uber-obedient Franciscans are? As I said earlier, the suspension of critical thinking is the most logical thing to do in certain situations, where a higher level of thinking has lead one to a truth in trust of authority. Also, if you read what JR wrote, you see there is a boundry that renders the fear of extremism moot.
H
Hokomai
Guest
Hmmm. There are examples of extremism among Franciscans, although I am sure Br JR would be the first to attempt to bring any such tendencies under control. And I am sure that all examples of Christian extremism from persecutions to pogroms to crusades to wars of conquest and enslavements of peoples were done by people who believed they were respecting the “boundary” of the ten commandments. Bishop Williamson, even in his more extreme utterances, continues to attract followers. were these followers to have been trained in critical thinking, rather than in its suspension for the purposes of obedience, he might have fewer. And I feel that would be a good thing.
T
triumphguy
Guest
@Hokomai
However, because they are based on Marxist analysis they can be pushed to the extreme and lead to error.
Your question Hokomai leads to other huge questions: How do we think? How do we know what we know? How do we know other minds? What is thinking?
Choosing obedience is not “giving up thinking,” nor does it entail giving up our intellect.
“Critical thinking” and “Critical Theory” have been used by the Church for decades.
However, because they are based on Marxist analysis they can be pushed to the extreme and lead to error.
Your question Hokomai leads to other huge questions: How do we think? How do we know what we know? How do we know other minds? What is thinking?
Choosing obedience is not “giving up thinking,” nor does it entail giving up our intellect.
J
JReducation
Guest
JReducation;9777458:
Unless one is a person of faith, this is going to make no sense to him or her. However, people of faith are going to look at other people of great faith and see that these men and women obeyed without complaining, without resentment, without murmoring, precisely because they were thinking.
Reason, enlightened by faith informed them that the greatest good was to obey, because it brings us one step closer to being like Christ who obeyed.
If you look at the cross purely through critical thinking, it’s foolishness. If you look at it enlightened by faith, it is no other rational way that Jesus could have gone. The obedient person takes the same approach as Christ. He asks the question, “Is it God’s will that I obey as His son obeyed or that I follow my opinion, which is not what his Son did?” That’s very critical thinking.
The critical thinking of the secular world excludes God from the equation. It does not ask what does God want?
One of the greatest critical thinkers and most obedient men in history was St. Francis of Assisi. He and St. Dominic both approached Pope Innocent III seeking a blessing for their new orders. Pope Innocent said that he would approve the orders, but would not approve the statutes (Rule) that the two founders had written. He directed them to adopt the Rule of St. Augustine.
Dominic thought about it, asking himself what God would want. He concluded that God wanted the Order of Preachers, no matter whose statutes they followed, as long as they converted the heretics and educated the clergy. He obeyed and took the statutes of St. Augustine.
Francis did not have to think about it at all. He told Pope Innocent the following:
**And when the Lord gave me some brothers, no one showed me what I ought to do, but the Most High Himself revealed to me that I should live according to the form of the holy Gospel. And I caused it to be written in few words and simply.
**
This is critical thinking enlightened by faith. Two men, each with a mission, one to preach and the other to form a brotherhood where men live the Gospel, without any special apostolic mission.
Both men stop to hear the pope and both men communicate with the pope what God has revealed to them.
Dominic: God wants preachers. As long as the statutes of St. Augustine allow the friars to preach, he is willing to throw out the statutes that he wrote, which the pope had never even read.
Francis: God wants a brotherhood that lives according to the Gospel so that all Catholics may see it and adopt the same way of living. No one has written statutes for such a way of life. “God has revealed the statutes and I wrote them down.” The pope reads the statutes and approve of them. That’s how the Rule of St. Francis came into existence.
There is intense fidelity and a very loving obedience to the pope and the Church. Both men are willing to do what the Church asks of them. Neither refuses. They simply lay their case before the Church and they let the Church make the final call.
This requires a great deal of thought guided by faith. Critical thinking, that is not guided by faith is dangerous. Truth is eternal and flawless. Reason is only as good as man’s cognitive abilities can reach. The latter must guide the former.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I keep hearing this yet it appears that the SSPX does have a group of lay brothers as well as a third order.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
How can one be “scholarly” while denying a part of history?
M
MPat
Guest
Yes, the army where every soldier uses “critical thinking” and does not obey the orders until he finishes the full analysis of the plan is not going to be very dangerous. It is going to be very useless. For sometimes “critical thinking” is not a rational thing to do… And then you have to look what are the actual orders and who gives them, rather than condemning them without listening.
Likewise, it is true that much of the structure of the CPSU looks as it had been copied from the Catholic Church (well, maybe it was). For example, Congress of CPSU might look like an Ecumenical council, General Secretary - like a Pope, Central Committee or Politburo - like the College of Cardinals, writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin - like Bible, branches of Marxism-Leninism - like branches of Theology… But that only makes it clearer, that, while the doctrine of Catholic church developed without contradictions, the “general line of the party” of CPSU often changed to the contrary, resulting in political jokes like “‘Can a snake break its backbone?’ - ‘It can, if it will crawl along the general line of the party.’” (ru.wikisource.org/wiki/1001_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%82/1, “1001 политический анекдот” - “1001 political joke”, Nr. 73)… Whatever you think about the Catholic doctrine, you will have to agree that such jokes about it are not very common…
J
JReducation
Guest
They do have a community of brothers, but it’s not part of the Society of priests. The SSPX brothers are truly religious, while their priests are not.
One of two things will probably happen, if they come back.
The brothers may be elevated from lay brothers to religious brothers, making them equal to the priests, in which case they can manage their own formation and they are no longer bound to serve the priests.
Currently, their statutes say
In the Society of St. Pius X, the brothers are “in the service of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, cooperators of the priests and of their apostolate”. “Let them be the guardian angels of our communities”. That’s the vocation of the lay brother. But you can’t be a lay brother if you don’t have a religious community of clerics. The Dominicans, Carmelites, Jesuits, Carthusians and Selesians have lay brothers, because they are clerical religious institutes.
Unlike Franciscans, Benedictines, Cistercians, Salesians, Missionaries of Charity, and Missionaries of the Poor which are brotherhoods and it makes little or no difference if you’re ordained or not, because the vocation is not to do priestly ministry, but to live a particular way of life.
That’s what they did with Opus Dei. The Brothers of the Holy Cross are an independent institute. They are part of the prelature, but they are a religious congregation of religious brothers, not lay brothers. The Fathers of the Holy Cross are a clerical society of apostolic life.
The other possibility is to keep the brothers and the priests under one government, as you guys have, but press for the priests and brothers to live by the same statutes and constitutions like you guys do. Just as there are not two O’Carm constitutions, there would not be two SSPX constitutions.
All of this is something for the Sacred Congregation on Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life to rule on. The CDF has no jurisdiction in that area.
The SOLT have a similar arrangement. They are a society of apostolic life. The brothers are consecrated religious, the priests are secular. They work side by side, but the brothers are not at the service of the priests. Roman ordered them to take that out of their constitutions. They are at the service of God and Church.
Their third order is a little more tricky, because it’s not a true third order. The term is being used as it is used in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, not as it is used by the mendicants. The Code of 1983 defines them as a society of laymen who share in the spirit of a religious community.
- The SSPX is not a religious community
- The definition in the Code of 1983 is not the definition given to the third order by St. Francis, who founded the first third order. A third order is a real order. It is secular, not lay; therefore, it can have deacons, priests, bishops and even popes.
- It is governed by it’s own superior general and general council or by the superior general and general council of the order, but never by the individual friars. The Dominican, Franciscan and Carmelite third orders are third because they came third in the order of chronology, not because they were invented.
The SSPX is not an actual third order, but an association of the lay faithful. This was created by Vatican II and ratified by Pope John Paul II in the Code of 1983. It never existed before. The SSPX is probably more Vatican II than are the Franciscans or Carmelites. Go figure.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
P
pnewton
Guest
If this is going to turn into an understanding of the Crusades, then all I can say is that it is a new area better suited to the apologetics section where all such misconceptions are discussed.
I think your understanding of how Catholics think is mistaken, but it is hardly the first time this idea has come up that somehow faith involves a lack of critical thinking.
I
i_am_a_Catholic
Guest
You are confusing things here. The point I am saying is that SSPX could choose to call Mormon’s not part of SSPX if they wanted to. How a group that is not in communion with Rome decides membership is NOT part of Canon law or Doctrine.
I
i_am_a_Catholic
Guest
Brother, I think it will save both of our time if you can do the following.
**
Could you point out a single Canon or piece of Doctrine of the church that deals with how a group that is NOT in communion with Rome should determine membership in that said group?**
If you can do so, I admit I am incorrect on this matter. But if you cannot do so, I am afraid that you would have to admit that you were simply mistaken.
T
triumphguy
Guest
M
Moore11
Guest
This is a losing battle my friend. I think Brother’s view is that if they take action without following protocol of Rome then they are adding disobedience upon disobedience.
Who knows if that is true or not but I can tell you that calling Brother out is a losing battle. Even if you are right
The man is a Fransican and could sell an icemaker to an Eskimo. he is like that fu man chued man in Kung Fu movies. You may hate your training but he is the master and we are the students.
Ahhhh young grasshopper, someday the student will become the master, but not today.
S
Stylites
Guest
Hope the popcorn isn’t stale.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Far be it for me to speak for Brother JR, but you are mistaken about the situation of the sspx. Pope Benedict has said that the sspx are not in “full communion;” he has never declared that they are “NOT in communion.” Though their communion is imperfect and the fact that they are legitimate bishops and priests AND the fact that they are a priestly society means that they ARE subject to the pope and Canon law. As Brother has said, as a Superior this is his business…this is what he does and this is what he knows.
BTW, “doctrine” is what we believe as Catholics, not what guides religious orders. Brother JR is a religious superior who knows the rules and regulations like the back of his hand. What are YOUR credentials?
M
Melchior_1
Guest
No Canon Law is actually required for this. The SSPX is, as their adherents are quick to point out, at the very least in partial communion with Rome. Failure to be in communion with Rome is either due to schism or excommunication (either kind).
The SSPX are have communion with Rome, despite a couple schismatic acts and illicit and/or invalid activities. They have never been declared fully separated from the Church. They have this communion, but they had privileges and faculties taken away from them. Losing those doesn’t remove them from the Church, rather it removes them from ministry within the Church.
Because they still have this union, they are bound by Canon Law and all that entails.
Knowing how Orders & Societies work is the man’s job. And by all accounts I have seen, he’s does a great job at it.
This is a losing battle my friend. I think Brother’s view is that if they take action without following protocol of Rome then they are adding disobedience upon disobedience.
Who knows if that is true or not but I can tell you that calling Brother out is a losing battle. Even if you are right
The man is a Fransican and could sell an icemaker to an Eskimo. he is like that fu man chued man in Kung Fu movies. You may hate your training but he is the master and we are the students.
Ahhhh young grasshopper, someday the student will become the master, but not today.
T
triumphguy
Guest
You need a steady supply on this siteHope the popcorn isn’t stale.
M
Moore11
Guest
Yes he does. I have learned much about this specific situation from him
J
JReducation
Guest
I’ll start by pointing out that your comment that I’m mistaken is quite bold. You do realize that one does not tell a major superior that he does not know how to govern, much less how government of a community works. It’s considered disrespectful and presumptuous. Were I you, I would never say that to any major superior again. It’s not polite.
To understand how and why Canon Law applies to the SSPX, one has to understand the SSPX’s place in the Church. That is not going to be found in Canon Law, since there was no precedent when the Code of 1983 was written. However, since it is the Pontiff who makes law, he need not go seeking in the canons to say what he says and do what he does. He is outside of the law. Here are parts of the story related to the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops.
First, only the bishops were excommunicated. The rest of the SSPX clergy and religious were suspended. A suspended cleric or religious remains in communion with the Catholic Church, even an imperfect communion, unless he apostatizes. This never happened with the clergy and religious of the SSPX. Actually, they are in a better state than a priest who is suspended for sexual or having a mistress. Even that priest is still in full communion with the Church, despite his crime. Why? Because he’s not excommunicated, nor an apostate, nor in schism.
**The clergy of the SSPX and their religious were never outside of the Church. ** They were disobedient. That does not place you outside of the Church, unless the law says so. Bishop Lefebvre and the four disobeyed. The law said that the penalty was excommunication. The disobedience of the others, was no penalized by excommunication.
Second, observe the scenario at the time that the excommunications are lifted.
The Vatican decree indicates that Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication in response to a plea from the SSPX bishops
[/quote]
The SSPX asked for the remission of the excommunication. This implies that they submit to the law. Why bother, if one is not seeking communion or if one sees himself in perfect communion with the Church? But if you submit to the law that remits the excommunication, then logic says that you indeed acknowledge the authority of the law.
To understand how and why Canon Law applies to the SSPX, one has to understand the SSPX’s place in the Church. That is not going to be found in Canon Law, since there was no precedent when the Code of 1983 was written. However, since it is the Pontiff who makes law, he need not go seeking in the canons to say what he says and do what he does. He is outside of the law. Here are parts of the story related to the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops.
First, only the bishops were excommunicated. The rest of the SSPX clergy and religious were suspended. A suspended cleric or religious remains in communion with the Catholic Church, even an imperfect communion, unless he apostatizes. This never happened with the clergy and religious of the SSPX. Actually, they are in a better state than a priest who is suspended for sexual or having a mistress. Even that priest is still in full communion with the Church, despite his crime. Why? Because he’s not excommunicated, nor an apostate, nor in schism.
**The clergy of the SSPX and their religious were never outside of the Church. ** They were disobedient. That does not place you outside of the Church, unless the law says so. Bishop Lefebvre and the four disobeyed. The law said that the penalty was excommunication. The disobedience of the others, was no penalized by excommunication.
Second, observe the scenario at the time that the excommunications are lifted.
They are free of the penalty. They accepted the lifting of the excommunication. By accepting it, they place themselves under the law. If one has been penalized by a law that one does not acknowledge, then one does not acknowledge the remission of the penalty either. Obvioiusly, the leadership of the SSPX acknowledges the authority of Canon Law. They have always used the law to argue their case.
In case you want to look for it.
The Vatican decree indicates that Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication in response to a plea from the SSPX bishops
[/quote]
The SSPX asked for the remission of the excommunication. This implies that they submit to the law. Why bother, if one is not seeking communion or if one sees himself in perfect communion with the Church? But if you submit to the law that remits the excommunication, then logic says that you indeed acknowledge the authority of the law.
- Status