Church, Religious Orders after Vatican II

[JReducation]

{Bold is mine} Brother, while I understand that the Preachers had a part in the defense of our faith throughout the reformation, I have to disagree with you on what you have said about the Dominicans saving the day. It is my understanding that the Jesuits were the tools used to counter said reformation. St. Robert Bellarmine comes to mind during this period with his work Disputationes. Of course there were other Jesuits whom had contributed to the counter-reformation throughout Europe besides St. Robert Bellarmine, but his work was by and large, the strongest refutation of Protestantism, and defense of the faith at the time. Would you agree?

What is your reasoning for saying the Dominicans “saved the day”?

This is a fascinating part of Catholic history. You probably have me at a disadvantage. I’m a theologian, not an historian.

From what I know about history,the Order of Preachers and the Society of Jesus, I’ve always come away with the impression that St. Robert and many Jesuits saved the clergy from heresy, but the Dominican Friars did more on the front lines preaching and drawing in the lay faithful. My impression has always been that St. Robert and the SJ had more influence over the inteligencia and the clergy, while the mendicants were more influential in reigning in the laity, especially the Dominican Friars who at that time were much bigger and better organized than the Franciscans and Carmelites.

The Carmelites were in the process of reform and the Franciscans were not interested in the Reformation. Franciscans have always evaded these kinds of conflicts, because of the Rule. At that point, the Franciscans decided to go on missions out of Europe. The Dominicans also went on missions, as did the Jesuits, but they also kept enough friars back in Europe who served as buffers between the heretics and the common man.

Again, I’m not a historian, but this is the impression that I get from reading the history of the time 16th century. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastre1:

 

[jwinch2]

A quote from an article on the subject

AGAINST THE REPUDIATIONS OF LUTHER

Many Dominicans defended from the pulpit Catholic teachings on the spiritual life: at Cologne, John Host von Romberg (+ ca 1533); at Ulm, Peter Hutz (+1540); at Basle, Ambrose Pelargus (+1561).

Others published scholarly refutations, such as James Hochstraten, John Mensing (+ after 1532; De Ecclesiae Christi sacerdotio, Cologne, (+1532) or Conrad Kollin (+1536) (Epithalamii Lutherani eversio, Cologne, 1627) Some plunged into popular controversy, among them Michael Vehe (+ before 1539) and Peter Sylvius (+ ca 1547) According to a specialist of the epoch, “it can be declared that in the difficult combat the Church was obliged to maintain in Germany in the 16th century, no religious congregation provided as many writers in defense of the faith, or better ones than the Order of St. Dominic (N. Paulus, Die deutschen Dominikaner in Kampfe gegen Luther, Freiburg-im Breisgau, 1903, p. VI).” Whatever could be considered good in the camp of the innovators was promptly adapted to the service of the Catholic cause. John Dietenberger (+1537) presented his translation of the Bible (Mainz, 1533) in opposition to Luther’s; John Fabri (+1558) (DS, vol. 5,col. 21-24) composed a catechism and a manual on confession; Michael Vehe, a collection of hymns. These men were not satisfied with defending their spiritual ideal by the spoken and written word, they contributed even more by the witness of their conduct, sometimes that of their blood, as in the case of St. John of Cologne, martyred at Brielle in 1572 as one of the martyrs of Gorcum.

 

[iloveangels]

This is a fascinating part of Catholic history. You probably have me at a disadvantage. I’m a theologian, not an historian.

From what I know about history,the Order of Preachers and the Society of Jesus, I’ve always come away with the impression that St. Robert and many Jesuits saved the clergy from heresy, but the Dominican Friars did more on the front lines preaching and drawing in the lay faithful. My impression has always been that St. Robert and the SJ had more influence over the inteligencia and the clergy, while the mendicants were more influential in reigning in the laity, especially the Dominican Friars who at that time were much bigger and better organized than the Franciscans and Carmelites.

The Carmelites were in the process of reform and the Franciscans were not interested in the Reformation. Franciscans have always evaded these kinds of conflicts, because of the Rule. At that point, the Franciscans decided to go on missions out of Europe. The Dominicans also went on missions, as did the Jesuits, but they also kept enough friars back in Europe who served as buffers between the heretics and the common man.

Again, I’m not a historian, but this is the impression that I get from reading the history of the time 16th century. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastre1:

I’ve read before that the Jesuits played a major part. But I also know that there were a lot of congregations of religious founded in that era with teaching and social apostolates. I think they played a part too. Many of the religious that people remember from school & parish life when they were children were second, third and fourth generation members from these congregations. Some of these groups have modified now, and some are gone. But once again, we are seeing the founding of many new groups–probably because of the crisis of faith we have now and all the work to be done.

 

[jwinch2]

My understanding is that some of the emphasis regarding which order did what during and immediately following the reformation changed based upon the country or area you look at. For example, the Dominicans had a very strong presence in Spain, Italy, and England at the time. The Jesuits might have had a greater role in Germany which was more or less ground zero for Luther. The Society of Jesus was a much younger order as well so I doubt if they had the numbers to be everywhere. In addition, I know that many books were written by Dominican friars during those times.

It is also my understanding, as Brother JR mentioned, that the Society of Jesus might have been turned loose to counter the theological aspects of the reformation while the Order of Preachers might have been going after the rank and file laity in an effort to keep them in communion with the Church. I have seen implications of those things in some writings, but to be fair, nothing particularly concrete.

I found a good article on this yesterday discussing the various books and papers produced by Dominicans as well as the request by the Monarchy of England specifically to the Dominicans to work in the counter-reformation in that country. However, now I can’t find the link again for some reason.

Of course, all of this needs to be tempered with the fact that one of the persons accused by Luther of selling indulgences was a Dominican friar. Something no doubt the Order is not particularly proud of. As Brother has stated more than once, every family has its problem children through the years. Thankfully the Dominicans have been stalwarts of the Faith throughout the majority of their history but I am sure that particular situation is one that gets brought up from time to time as a reminder of what the ramifications of not behaving properly can be.

While it is a bit off topic, this is a fascinating subject. If there is a text anywhere that details the actions of religious orders during and immediately following the protestant reformation, I would appreciate a heads up.

Peace,

 

[iloveangels]

My understanding is that some of the emphasis regarding which order did what during and immediately following the reformation changed based upon the country or area you look at. For example, the Dominicans had a very strong presence in Spain, Italy, and England at the time. The Jesuits might have had a greater role in Germany which was more or less ground zero for Luther. The Society of Jesus was a much younger order as well so I doubt if they had the numbers to be everywhere. In addition, I know that many books were written by Dominican friars during those times.

It is also my understanding, as Brother JR mentioned, that the Society of Jesus might have been turned loose to counter the theological aspects of the reformation while the Order of Preachers might have been going after the rank and file laity in an effort to keep them in communion with the Church. I have seen implications of those things in some writings, but to be fair, nothing particularly concrete.

I found a good article on this yesterday discussing the various books and papers produced by Dominicans as well as the request by the Monarchy of England specifically to the Dominicans to work in the counter-reformation in that country. However, now I can’t find the link again for some reason.

Of course, all of this needs to be tempered with the fact that one of the persons accused by Luther of selling indulgences was a Dominican friar. Something no doubt the Order is not particularly proud of. As Brother has stated more than once, every family has its problem children through the years. Thankfully the Dominicans have been stalwarts of the Faith throughout the majority of their history but I am sure that particular situation is one that gets brought up from time to time as a reminder of what the ramifications of not behaving properly can be.

While it is a bit off topic, this is a fascinating subject. If there is a text anywhere that details the actions of religious orders during and immediately following the protestant reformation, I would appreciate a heads up.

Peace,

Jason,
I’m sure there was plenty of blame to go around, when it came to indulgences etc. The whole thing was pretty grisly from all points of view.

A few years ago, I had to go to the Netherlands on business, and got a chance to look around a little bit in Amsterdam. The history of the reformation as it hit that city was fascinating. There are “hidden” Catholic chapels in some of those houses, and at least one was open as a museum when I was there, and I went up in it. The houses there are long and narrow and adjoining. They had hollowed out an area between the two houses to construct a church, complete with altar and reredo, seating and choir loft, big paintings on the walls, the works. I just walked up a winding stairs, and through a little doorway and the whole thing just opened up on me! Amazing. The house even had a “priest hole” which was a hiding place for a priest to live between floors so it was difficult to detect from outside. I don’t know if the priests who had been there were religious order priests or what.

As an aside, I always wondered how Ann Frank could hide in a house for years undetected in Amsterdam. As soon as I saw that I knew. In fact, her apartment in another part of town was set up very similarly. It’s a feature of Dutch architecture that such things are possible, unlike here.

 

[JReducation]

Jason,
I’m sure there was plenty of blame to go around, when it came to indulgences etc. The whole thing was pretty grisly from all points of view.

A few years ago, I had to go to the Netherlands on business, and got a chance to look around a little bit in Amsterdam. The history of the reformation as it hit that city was fascinating. There are “hidden” Catholic chapels in some of those houses, and at least one was open as a museum when I was there, and I went up in it. The houses there are long and narrow and adjoining. They had hollowed out an area between the two houses to construct a church, complete with altar and reredo, seating and choir loft, big paintings on the walls, the works. I just walked up a winding stairs, and through a little doorway and the whole thing just opened up on me! Amazing. The house even had a “priest hole” which was a hiding place for a priest to live between floors so it was difficult to detect from outside. I don’t know if the priests who had been there were religious order priests or what.

As an aside, I always wondered how Ann Frank could hide in a house for years undetected in Amsterdam. As soon as I saw that I knew. In fact, her apartment in another part of town was set up very similarly. It’s a feature of Dutch architecture that such things are possible, unlike here.

The Dominican Friars were very big in Holland and still are. They’re probably the largest religious community there. Those who set out for those hidden chapels often took their lives in their hands.

In Germany, the Franciscans were very big among the common people, but they retired to Bavaria, which was much more Catholic. There were not as many of them on the front lines as there were Dominicans and Jesuits. For religious life in the Catholic Church, the two biggest blessings to come out of this mess were the Capuchin Franciscan Friars and the Discalced Carmelites.

These were not new orders, but they were reforms of two old orders. The Capuchins were a merger of friars from the Conventual and Observant provinces. We all know that the Discalced Carmelites were a splinter from the Castillian Carmelite province, which was St. Teresa’s province.

With each explosive era in history there have emerged great religious communities. The suppression of the Church by the French Revolution gave birth to the religious congregation and the societies of apostolic life, starting with the Congregation of the Mission, the Daughters of Charity and the De la Salle Christian Brothers.

Today, we’re seeing the emergence of new congregations and the renewal of the Franciscans around the world.

It’s almost as if the Church goes through labor pains every 200 years or so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TimothyH]

The secular orders of the two families call for the members of live the spirit of the founders, but within their state in life and context. No one will ask a Secular Franciscan or a Lay Dominican to sell their house and do X. It does not work that way. The constitutions impose duties that are appropriate for their state in life, be they secular priests, married men or women, parents, grandparents, etc.

This is something I have been seeking recently, and looking for resources to understand how lay associates apply their particular rule to everyday life. I’m looking for more than just “We bring the spirituality of order X into the secular world” and such things.

I have found a book titled “The Oblate Life” relative to Benedictine monasticism, a collection of essays by lay associates, each about a particular topic and how they live the rule in the secular world. Essay titles include “Cyberspace, Community, and the Oblate”, “Silence”, “Moderation: They Key to Permanence”, and “The Single Oblate.”

I wish there were more practical resources like this, or perhapse I have not looked enough. It is one of my goals for 2012, to learn more about the various orders and how lay associates live the rule in very specific ways, what the obligations of the associates are, etc. Any thoughts by anyone would be welcomed.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

This is something I have been seeking recently, and looking for resources to understand how lay associates apply their particular rule to everyday life. I’m looking for more than just “We bring the spirituality of order X into the secular world” and such things.

I have found a book titled “The Oblate Life” relative to Benedictine monasticism, a collection of essays by lay associates, each about a particular topic and how they live the rule in the secular world. Essay titles include “Cyberspace, Community, and the Oblate”, “Silence”, “Moderation: They Key to Permanence”, and “The Single Oblate.”

I wish there were more practical resources like this, or perhapse I have not looked enough. It is one of my goals for 2012, to learn more about the various orders and how lay associates live the rule in very specific ways, what the obligations of the associates are, etc. Any thoughts by anyone would be welcomed.

-Tim-

Let’s sort through this. There are lay associates and there are secular orders. A lay associate is a lay person, man or woman who lives the spirituality of the community in the secular world. A secular order is a religious order, with its own rule, constitutions, government, property, profession, formation program, spirituality, mission and vision approved by the Holy See. Secular orders are not just for lay people, they also include secular clergy: deacons, priests and bishops, including popes. Pope John Paul II was a Discalced Carmelite. Every pope from Leo XIII to John XXIII was a Secular Franciscan. These men were real Carmelites and real Franciscans. For example, John XXIII is in the Franciscan liturgical calendar.

The first secular order in history was Francis’ third order, which he called the Order of Penitents. In 1978, Pope Paul VI changed it’s name to Secular Franciscan Order (SFO). They are not associated with the friars, nuns, or sisters. Each of these has a different rule, government and way of life. Each is autonomous. My Secular Franciscan brothers and sisters are not associated to me in any way. I have no jurisdiction over them, nor involvement in their life, except when they invite me over to do a formation talk retreat for them.

An oblate is a creature with different stripes. He is not part of an order. He is a layman or a secular cleric who is attached to a particular monastery. He lives his life according to the tradition of that monastery.

Lay associates make no formal commitment to the community with which they associate. Secular brothers and sisters go through a very long formation program. At the end, they make a public profession to live according to the rule and constitutions of their order until death.

This is the current formation program for the Secular Franciscan Order.

franciscan-sfo.org/NowIntro.html

This page has some good information too.

rhinoweb.org/gospel-life/this-test-2

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TimothyH]

Let’s sort through this.

I kinda saw this coming as I typed my comment and used the terms oblate, lay assocate, etc as synonyms out of ignorance. Thank you for the information.

It seems to me, given your explanation, that some Benedictine communities have oblates which call themselves “Lay associates” so I’m still a little confused, but again, your information is warmly welcomed.

I don’t mean to veer off topic.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

I kinda saw this coming as I typed my comment and used the terms oblate, lay assocate, etc as synonyms out of ignorance. Thank you for the information.

It seems to me, given your explanation, that some Benedictine communities have oblates which call themselves “Lay associates” so I’m still a little confused, but again, your information is warmly welcomed.

I don’t mean to veer off topic.

-Tim-

They may have both, Oblates and Lay Associates. Remember, the Benedictines are not one religious order. Each congregation is made up of autonomous abbeys.

They are congregations for the sake of coordinating things like having one breviary and one missal. But aside from that, each Abbot is like a little pope. Actually, he has more power than a pope. Popes don’t have as much power over the Vatican as Abbots have over their abbeys. An abbot can choose to have Lay Associates or Oblates or both.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

Another group that has a good reputation for obedience to popes are the Dominicans. I don’t know what percentage of the bishops are OP. I don’t think that Pope Benedict has ordained any OP bishops. But I may be wrong. Pope John Paul did, several of them. They are all very well liked and very respected in the Vatican.

Well, if he hadn’t before, he did today!

cantateop.org/another-for-st-dominic/

 

[JReducation]

Well, if he hadn’t before, he did today!

cantateop.org/another-for-st-dominic/

I’m happy for the Dominicans, but not too happy. Fr. Charles Morerod is an awesome professor and rector. Couldn’t they pick some Dominican who not as talented? There has to be at least one Dominican who’s not too busy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

I’m happy for the Dominicans, but not too happy. Fr. Charles Morerod is an awesome professor and rector. Couldn’t they pick some Dominican who not as talented? There has to be at least one Dominican who’s not too busy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Ha! I’m sure there had to be a friar sitting around somewhere with a bit spare time on his hands.

From the sounds of everything I read, fr Charles is a very impressive man and should make a great Bishop and I would imagine the Order will be able to scrape someone up to replace him at the Angelicum.

Something else which will be interesting is that we are down several Cardinals between deaths and retirements. I will be curious to see if the Holy Father appoints religious to fill those positions as well. Finally, I read a rumor that there have been a greater than normal number of priests refusing to serve as Bishops in recent years. If, and I repeat, IF that is true, that might be a contributing factor to our previous question.

Peace,

 

[JReducation]

Ha! I’m sure there had to be a friar sitting around somewhere with a bit spare time on his hands.

From the sounds of everything I read, fr Charles is a very impressive man and should make a great Bishop and I would imagine the Order will be able to scrape someone up to replace him at the Angelicum.

Something else which will be interesting is that we are down several Cardinals between deaths and retirements. I will be curious to see if the Holy Father appoints religious to fill those positions as well. Finally, I read a rumor that there have been a greater than normal number of priests refusing to serve as Bishops in recent years. If, and I repeat, IF that is true, that might be a contributing factor to our previous question.

Peace,

Another friar was made bishop today. That makes four in North America, this year alone. I know of three in Oceania. This one is Fr. Gaetan Proulx O.S.M. will be ordained in Quebec. Fr. Gaetan is a Servite Friar. They’re kissing cousins with the Franciscans and Dominicans. They’re mendicants founded in the 13th century. Originally, they thought that they should be a branch of the Third Order of St. Francis and took the Rule of Penance. Then the Blessed Mother intervened and asked them to take the Rule of St. Augustine and serve her. They became the Order of Friars Servants of Mary (OSM).

On the other point, I have wondered if it’s that less secular priests are accepting the election to the episcopal state, which they are free to do or is it that there is a real shift toward the religious. I’m noticing a patter in the Holy Father’s selection of religious. The majority of the religious whom he has selected to be bishop seem to be friars and monks. These are the very old order with very strict rules about submission to authority.

This is going to make like very interesting for groups to the right and to the left who are critical of the Holy Father and Vatican II for going too fast or too slow, too far or not far enough. These men are very kind, very fraternal, but they will always answer the same thing, “We (lay, clergy and religious) will do as we’re told to do, end of story.”

They also have a very strong sense of community, because they come from religious families where community is a core value. They still wear the habits of their religious orders. They still spend their free time with their orders. They deal with their clergy and their laity as superior deals with his religious community. They listen, they think about things, they consult and then they decide. The faithful have a voice in the local Church, but do not have any more authority than a friar or a monk has in his community.

This may be a good thing. The Church believes that religious communities, especially the orders, were founded to be models of how to live the Gospel. These models are to be imitated by all, not just religious.

In a world as large as our own, which is much larger than the world of 1,000 years ago, the best place to do that from would be from the chair of a bishop who belongs to one of these orders. He brings to the chair the charism. It kind of reminds me of the ancient days when the local abbots governed in place of bishops and the lay faithful and secular clergy built their lives around the abbey. The abbey was almost like City Hall and the mayor was like a bishop and a mayor all rolled into one.

Obviously, we can’t do that today. The world has changed. However, we can place monks and friars in positions of great influence… The ideal would be to place them either in places hit by a crisis or a place that has not yet been struck by a crisis.

It has been my observation that monks and friars do not deal well with crises in progress. They are formed to avoid conflicts at all costs. However, they are very good at the ministry of healing, after it’s all over. They are also very good at rallying the troops around them before the storm hits. It has something to do with that fraternal air that they exude.

Just look at the dioceses run by monks and friars in the USA. They are either places that had a crisis and needed healing or places that had not been struck and needed protection. Where healing was needed, it began and is on-going. I don’t think that you ever heal overnight. It doesn’t work that way. But you begin to heal as trust grows, even if you have to accept some things that you don’t like. Later, you look at it again and you realize that it worked out for the good.

In the diocese that were not involved in crisis, the leadership of these bishops has served to focus the people on building the Church, rather than avoiding a crisis. Crisis prevention is not real prevention. It only forestalls the crisis. On the other hand, when you build and strengthen your house, you won’t have to worry about the big bad wolf. Remember the third little pig.

Just for the record, I’m not saying that these bishops are porkers.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[jwinch2]

Another friar was made bishop today. That makes four in North America, this year alone. I know of three in Oceania. This one is Fr. Gaetan Proulx O.S.M. will be ordained in Quebec. Fr. Gaetan is a Servite Friar. They’re kissing cousins with the Franciscans and Dominicans. They’re mendicants founded in the 13th century. Originally, they thought that they should be a branch of the Third Order of St. Francis and took the Rule of Penance. Then the Blessed Mother intervened and asked them to take the Rule of St. Augustine and serve her. They became the Order of Friars Servants of Mary (OSM).

On the other point, I have wondered if it’s that less secular priests are accepting the election to the episcopal state, which they are free to do or is it that there is a real shift toward the religious. I’m noticing a patter in the Holy Father’s selection of religious. The majority of the religious whom he has selected to be bishop seem to be friars and monks. These are the very old order with very strict rules about submission to authority.

This is going to make like very interesting for groups to the right and to the left who are critical of the Holy Father and Vatican II for going too fast or too slow, too far or not far enough. These men are very kind, very fraternal, but they will always answer the same thing, “We (lay, clergy and religious) will do as we’re told to do, end of story.”

They also have a very strong sense of community, because they come from religious families where community is a core value. They still wear the habits of their religious orders. They still spend their free time with their orders. They deal with their clergy and their laity as superior deals with his religious community. They listen, they think about things, they consult and then they decide. The faithful have a voice in the local Church, but do not have any more authority than a friar or a monk has in his community.

This may be a good thing. The Church believes that religious communities, especially the orders, were founded to be models of how to live the Gospel. These models are to be imitated by all, not just religious.

In a world as large as our own, which is much larger than the world of 1,000 years ago, the best place to do that from would be from the chair of a bishop who belongs to one of these orders. He brings to the chair the charism. It kind of reminds me of the ancient days when the local abbots governed in place of bishops and the lay faithful and secular clergy built their lives around the abbey. The abbey was almost like City Hall and the mayor was like a bishop and a mayor all rolled into one.

Obviously, we can’t do that today. The world has changed. However, we can place monks and friars in positions of great influence… The ideal would be to place them either in places hit by a crisis or a place that has not yet been struck by a crisis.

It has been my observation that monks and friars do not deal well with crises in progress. They are formed to avoid conflicts at all costs. However, they are very good at the ministry of healing, after it’s all over. They are also very good at rallying the troops around them before the storm hits. It has something to do with that fraternal air that they exude.

Just look at the dioceses run by monks and friars in the USA. They are either places that had a crisis and needed healing or places that had not been struck and needed protection. Where healing was needed, it began and is on-going. I don’t think that you ever heal overnight. It doesn’t work that way. But you begin to heal as trust grows, even if you have to accept some things that you don’t like. Later, you look at it again and you realize that it worked out for the good.

In the diocese that were not involved in crisis, the leadership of these bishops has served to focus the people on building the Church, rather than avoiding a crisis. Crisis prevention is not real prevention. It only forestalls the crisis. On the other hand, when you build and strengthen your house, you won’t have to worry about the big bad wolf. Remember the third little pig.

Just for the record, I’m not saying that these bishops are porkers.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

Fantastic news Brother, thanks for sharing that! I looked into the Servites when I was exploring lay vocations and was very impressed with what I saw. They seem like amazing friars.

I agree with your analysis above and am happy to see this trend taking place. There are thousands of wonderful secular priests who would, I am sure, make fantastic Bishops as well. I think the issues of obedience and the Rule are important to this conversation.

Per our previous discussions, you mentioned that with the 6 Rules, the Church’s position was that those Rules represented 6 different ways of living the Gospel. I would be curious to know if there is some sort of dispersion of the 6 different Rules in the Episcopate in something of an effort to balance that out. Of course, that would require something of a “master plan” on the part of the Holy Father if that is indeed the goal.

Peace,

 

[iloveangels]

Another friar was made bishop today. That makes four in North America, this year alone. I know of three in Oceania. This one is Fr. Gaetan Proulx O.S.M. will be ordained in Quebec. Fr. Gaetan is a Servite Friar. They’re kissing cousins with the Franciscans and Dominicans. They’re mendicants founded in the 13th century. Originally, they thought that they should be a branch of the Third Order of St. Francis and took the Rule of Penance. Then the Blessed Mother intervened and asked them to take the Rule of St. Augustine and serve her. They became the Order of Friars Servants of Mary (OSM).

On the other point, I have wondered if it’s that less secular priests are accepting the election to the episcopal state, which they are free to do or is it that there is a real shift toward the religious. I’m noticing a patter in the Holy Father’s selection of religious. The majority of the religious whom he has selected to be bishop seem to be friars and monks. These are the very old order with very strict rules about submission to authority.

This is going to make like very interesting for groups to the right and to the left who are critical of the Holy Father and Vatican II for going too fast or too slow, too far or not far enough. These men are very kind, very fraternal, but they will always answer the same thing, “We (lay, clergy and religious) will do as we’re told to do, end of story.”

They also have a very strong sense of community, because they come from religious families where community is a core value. They still wear the habits of their religious orders. They still spend their free time with their orders. They deal with their clergy and their laity as superior deals with his religious community. They listen, they think about things, they consult and then they decide. The faithful have a voice in the local Church, but do not have any more authority than a friar or a monk has in his community.

This may be a good thing. The Church believes that religious communities, especially the orders, were founded to be models of how to live the Gospel. These models are to be imitated by all, not just religious.

In a world as large as our own, which is much larger than the world of 1,000 years ago, the best place to do that from would be from the chair of a bishop who belongs to one of these orders. He brings to the chair the charism. It kind of reminds me of the ancient days when the local abbots governed in place of bishops and the lay faithful and secular clergy built their lives around the abbey. The abbey was almost like City Hall and the mayor was like a bishop and a mayor all rolled into one.

Obviously, we can’t do that today. The world has changed. However, we can place monks and friars in positions of great influence… The ideal would be to place them either in places hit by a crisis or a place that has not yet been struck by a crisis.

It has been my observation that monks and friars do not deal well with crises in progress. They are formed to avoid conflicts at all costs. However, they are very good at the ministry of healing, after it’s all over. They are also very good at rallying the troops around them before the storm hits. It has something to do with that fraternal air that they exude.

Just look at the dioceses run by monks and friars in the USA. They are either places that had a crisis and needed healing or places that had not been struck and needed protection. Where healing was needed, it began and is on-going. I don’t think that you ever heal overnight. It doesn’t work that way. But you begin to heal as trust grows, even if you have to accept some things that you don’t like. Later, you look at it again and you realize that it worked out for the good.

In the diocese that were not involved in crisis, the leadership of these bishops has served to focus the people on building the Church, rather than avoiding a crisis. Crisis prevention is not real prevention. It only forestalls the crisis. On the other hand, when you build and strengthen your house, you won’t have to worry about the big bad wolf. Remember the third little pig.

Just for the record, I’m not saying that these bishops are porkers.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

It may be that PBXVI is trying to stabilize the church, and it may be that he’s readying us for the long haul, since religious behavior is down in Europe and still dropping here. I know he’s talked in the past about the role the religious orders have played in times of crisis before.

My own personal opinion: That this, rather than any of the other reasons I’ve seen, is responsible for the choices PBXVI has made in the matter of liturgy. People like to attribute their own personal political or devotional flavor to his choices, but I think they are not the reasons for what he’s done. He’s not playing politics–he’s going to do what’s best for the Church, no matter what his other reasons might be.

 

[iloveangels]

In other words, in my own personal opinion, he’s in “preservation mode.” He’s shoring up the structures to make us stronger for what MIGHT be coming. If something does come, we will be able to endure it by the grace of God and some prudence; if not, then nothing has been lost. Either way, it’s best for the church, and he has to think about these things because it’s his responsibility. This pope is awesome.

 

[passer_by]

In Germany, the Franciscans were very big among the common people, but they retired to Bavaria, which was much more Catholic. There were not as many of them on the front lines as there were Dominicans and Jesuits. For religious life in the Catholic Church, the two biggest blessings to come out of this mess were the Capuchin Franciscan Friars and the Discalced Carmelites.

I don’t mean to sound insensitive. But I think if the Franciscans stayed, they would probably have decided to call in a truce, decided to even educate the Reformers on their own theology and writings of Luther while performing charity work in those areas, no?

I am just saying by extrapolating their approach in the Holy Land with Islam etc. In my eyes, Franciscans seem to have been heading toward an era where they consider attracting people merely by compassion. Not that is a bad thing. But I feel that compassion must always be preceded and followed by words that utter the truth. Often the phrase “Preach the gospel at all times – If necessary, use words.” gets mentioned to make it look like words aren’t that important. But if we look at Christianity, it is based and shared for generations through the word of God. Not merely the acts of God.

In my humble opinion, I think this is where the methods of the Franciscans fail. For their method of kind and compassionate acts can be carried out by even an atheist, muslim or Protestant. Perhaps it is why we are starting to loose many faithful as the church becomes more “Franciscan” in its approach toward non-Catholic faiths or lack of faith. The truth can be proclaimed by only those who have the truth. Compassion can be shown by anyone. So I think it is by proclaiming the truth with words that we can win the battle against any heresy, schism, or crisis in the church.

In a sense, it is in doing so that we will show true compassion toward our neighbor.

 

[iloveangels]

I don’t mean to sound insensitive. But I think if the Franciscans stayed, they would probably have decided to call in a truce, decided to even educate the Reformers on their own theology and writings of Luther while performing charity work in those areas, no?

I am just saying by extrapolating their approach in the Holy Land with Islam etc. In my eyes, Franciscans seem to have been heading toward an era where they consider attracting people merely by compassion. Not that is a bad thing. But I feel that compassion must always be preceded and followed by words that utter the truth. Often the phrase “Preach the gospel at all times – If necessary, use words.” gets mentioned to make it look like words aren’t that important. But if we look at Christianity, it is based and shared for generations through the word of God. Not merely the acts of God.

In my humble opinion, I think this is where the methods of the Franciscans fail. For their method of kind and compassionate acts can be carried out by even an atheist, muslim or Protestant. Perhaps it is why we are starting to loose many faithful as the church becomes more “Franciscan” in its approach toward non-Catholic faiths or lack of faith. The truth can be proclaimed by only those who have the truth. Compassion can be shown by anyone. So I think it is by proclaiming the truth with words that we can win the battle against any heresy, schism, or crisis in the church.

In a sense, it is in doing so that we will show true compassion toward our neighbor.

Passer by, you can proclaim the truth without punching somebody in the nose. Just saying.

 

[passer_by]

Passer by, you can proclaim the truth without punching somebody in the nose. Just saying.

Certainly agree!

Its just that the impression in the church today seems to be either

1. We punch people in the face (I assume you meant this figuratively to using only words?)
2. Show compassion and other works of kindness and attract them

Since (1) seems obviously bad, they resort to all out only (2). When ever someone objects to (2), they bring up (1) and say why its bad. Or they say that they are waiting for the right moment to proclaim.

My point is that there is a middle ground between the two which is the most effective. This fine line requires the use of words. Lots of words and focus on discussing differences NOT similarities. Discussion of similarities should just be the opener. Not the main course. Instead, many just want to delve in the opening stage for eternity.

So (1) is certainly bad. (2) alone is just as bad as (1). Therefore abandon both for a better combined approach. Not one in which (1) precedes (2) or (2) precedes (1) but both work together simultaneously.