fisheaters

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zacdecat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Melchior said:
Critical thinking is important to Dominicans. It’s not just because the Master of the Order said so, but we also examine how he came to that conclusion. We look at historical documents. Brother JR delved a bit into the contextual elements earlier. For Dominicans we will say “we obey!” then look at the whys/hows, and break it down so that it makes sense to us and to others. Other religious orders simply just say “we obey!” and leave it at that,

Like it has been said, it’s a nice image, and makes for a nice story.

Of course the founder can err, but as has been said by Brother JR & ByzCath; when in doubt, go with the founder. It’s like for everyone else; when in doubt, go with the Pope.

Nowhere did I say that the Master of the Order is God. What I, and others, are saying is that he is the successor of Holy Father Dominic. Upon my final promises I become a full member of that family, with all the rights that a family member has. The Master of the Order becomes my father, my spiritual father just as Dominic was at the founding of his order.
Click to expand...
That makes sense, but still applies to action. Say “we obey, we will do as you say” - I understand. But obviously that doesn’t make it true. One leader can contradict his successor. We obey the current successor in our actions, but one of them is wrong.

Or there is no law of non-contradiction. But if we throw that out them according to St. Thomas Aquinas we lose the foundation of all theology and without that there is no point to any religious order.

The infallibility of the Pope is different. A pope cannot contradict a Church doctrine, it’s never happened. Religious superiors have contradicted each other. (So have popes, but not in doctrine,)

Sincere apologies that I am so verbose.
 
TrueLight said:
😃

Everytime I post something about a religious, my fingers tremble, because I know you will be right there!

I will have to look up the section, but I remember reading how she had to sneak around in the beginning so that a certain person would not find out what she and some others were up to when it came to the first house. You probably know what I’m referring to.
Click to expand...
I think someone else said it. Teresa was very secretive about the opening of the Monastery of St. Joseph, because there was a problem with the laity. The local people did not want another religious house in Avila, because it meant that they would have to support it. Church law then and Church law today says that the laity must finance the apostolic works of the religious. Those folks had Carmelites, Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans and now another Carmelite house.

There was a valid concern on both sides. They were concerned that they could not finance another house and Teresa was concerned because Jesus asked her to found St. Joseph’s Monastery. That was the issue. It had nothing to do with the Carmelite authorities, the bishop or the king. She had the patent in her hands. Once you have patent, you can erect a house.

Teresa was doing them a favor by not being very public. A conflict would have erupted that would have pitted the laity against the Church and there was no law in place to address the problem. She took steps to avoid the headache. Once the house was erected and the first mass was celebrated, the house was consecrated and no one could close it.

Stop and think about it, what priest would consecrate the house without a patent, besides Luther? Luther hated the mendicants. There was not hope of getting him to celebrate any mass for them even if he had been in Spain.
EcceAgnusDei said:
And let’s not forget about St. John of the Cross, who was imprisoned by his superiors for refusing to obey their order to return to his original house and thus end the reform.
Click to expand...
St. John did not disobey. The prior ordered something that he had no right to order. St. John had permission from the General to work with Teresa. The punishment was illegal.
I think one problem in this thread is the crossover between secular and religious. It is understandable that JReducation would bring Franciscan spirituality out in his posts, but it’s important to note that most of us reading and posting are not Franciscans, Dominicans, or Benedictines. We have taken no such vows or promises. We are free to dispute what the Master General of the Dominican order says about the Rosary. The monastic/mendicant ideal of obedience does not apply to secular laity. It certainly can serve as a wonderful example for us, but in it’s extreme forms I think it can confuse laity as to whom they owe their allegiance.
Click to expand...
I believe the problem goes deeper than different vocations. American Catholics feel free to compete with religious authority. We are less inclined to challenge a secular academic, but feel perfectly free to challenge and question the Master General of the Dominican Order, who is a canonical authority, an Ordinary, and a scholar.

I’m not a Dominican nor have I a vow of obedience to the Master General of the Dominicans. However, as a Catholic I respect that he has the authority to speak for St. Dominic and I don’t. He also has years of education and expertise in Dominican studies that I do not have. I respect him as a scholar and as the final authority in all things Dominican. Anything that has to do with Dominican studies flows from his office. It makes no difference who is the Master General. The authority comes with the office.

If you go to the Holy See and sit down at a conference of theologians, as soon as the subject steers in the direction of a topic that is Carmelite, to whom does the Holy Father and the cardinals look? They look to the two Priors General of the Carmelites. They could care less if anyone else disagrees. It’s a Carmelite topic, therefore the Carmelite Generals have the last word as to what may be taught as genuinely Carmelite. The same is done for every other school of theology and spirituality.

We don’t appeal to Jesuits or to seculars to explain to us the theology of St. Augustine if there are Augustinians to do so. It’s the other way around. Everyone else who studies Augustine, checks their stuff against the backdrop of the Augustinian scholars.

It often happens, that a theologian from outside of the school may find something that a Dominican, Franciscan, Augustinian, etc did not see. When he does, he shares it. The theologians of that particular school incorporate it into what they already have.

In this case, what has been shared with the Dominican Master cannot be substantiated by Dominican history. Who better than the Master to know this? I’m not about to question him and I’m not about to embark on some mission to prove that the Blessed Mother gave Dominic a rosary, just because the story has been passed down for generations. Many stories are passed down for generations and they are embellished. It’s called hagiography.

Pope Benedict recently said something about St.Francis that was rather interesting. He said that to use the Francis of history instead of the Francis of faith is a waste of time. The Francis of history does not match the Francis of faith. They’re two very different people. This happens with the great spiritual fathers. The Dominic of history will never match the Dominic of faith.

In this case, the Dominic of history never received the Rosary from the Blessed Mother. However, the Dominic of faith did. How? We don’t know, because there is much to the Dominic of faith that we still don’t know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
newyorkcatholic said:
That makes sense, but still applies to action. Say “we obey, we will do as you say” - I understand. But obviously that doesn’t make it true. One leader can contradict his successor. We obey the current successor in our actions, but one of them is wrong.
Click to expand...
Giving the Superior the benefit of the doubt is what’s really happening. The benefit of being a Dominican is learning/studying is a part of the charism, so we can examine why the Superior says what he says. Through study and prayer, we can eventually determine he’s been right all along. But our default reaction and instinct; follow what he says. We trust that as the Successor of Holy Father Dominic, and as our Spiritual Father, he’ll guide us accordingly.

Here’s a small example of Lay Dominican obedience; if the Master of the Order were in my chapter and says “I assigned you this role in this ministry, you’re now doing this role in this ministry” I’m not to ask questions UNLESS:
  1. It’s going to cause me to sin.
  2. It impacts my marriage poorly, because vows trump promises.
In the case of the first and second order folks, they don;t worry about #2 for the obvious reasons.
newyorkcatholic said:
The infallibility of the Pope is different. A pope cannot contradict a Church doctrine, it’s never happened. Religious superiors have contradicted each other. (So have popes, but not in doctrine,)
Click to expand...
They have yes, but Brother JR gave a pretty clear example of can happen when contradictions happen.
newyorkcatholic said:
Sincere apologies that I am so verbose.
Click to expand...
It’s all good! To me, this is a simple issue, but it’s because God has set this on my heart as something I desire. To me, being I long to join the Order, this makes perfect sense. But to someone else, I can totally see how it would be difficult.

And make no mistake; I am thoroughly enjoying this conversation and this thread!!
 
newyorkcatholic said:
For harmony and obedience don’t outwardly disagree - I see that in the rules posted. But to actually think the founder cannot err, I don’t see that anywhere.
Click to expand...
That’s not quite what we’re taught or what we teach those who come behind us. The teaching is that you agree inwardly and outwardly. You must do whatever is necessary to change your position to that of the superior. You must obey as Christ obeyed. That’s what’s called a communion of governance.
I certainly don’t see anywhere the idea that lay Dominicans have to think the Master can do no wrong. You can have allegiane to him without actually thinking he is God.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that Melchior meant that the Master is a god. I think that Melchior is trying to explain what I just stated above. You do not think outside that box once the superior says “This conversation is over and you will put distance between yourself and that opinion.”

There are two parts to this statement.

“This conversation is over.”

This means that you cannot say another word.

“You will put distance between you and that opinion or that idea.”

This takes it to the next level. You will stop thinking that way. This is where penance enters the picture. Only through self-mortification can you move away from your personal ideas and inclinations. This is not achieved in 24 hours. This can be a lifetime’s work. However, it is a command that authority has the right to make, if authority chooses to do so. I believe that I pointed out how Pope Benedict played this card on Bishop Williamson. From what I heard, it got Bishop Felay to put Bishop Williamson in time out to avoid further conflict with Pope Benedict. This card can be played and has been played many times.

I believe that this is what Mechior was pointing to.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I don’t think that Melchior meant that the Master is a god. I think that Melchior is trying to explain what I just stated above. You do not think outside that box once the superior says “This conversation is over and you will put distance between yourself and that opinion.”

There are two parts to this statement.

“This conversation is over.”

This means that you cannot say another word.

“You will put distance between you and that opinion or that idea.”

This takes it to the next level. You will stop thinking that way. This is where penance enters the picture. Only through self-mortification can you move away from your personal ideas and inclinations. This is not achieved in 24 hours. This can be a lifetime’s work. However, it is a command that authority has the right to make, if authority chooses to do so. I believe that I pointed out how Pope Benedict played this card on Bishop Williamson. From what I heard, it got Bishop Felay to put Bishop Williamson in time out to avoid further conflict with Pope Benedict. This card can be played and has been played many times.

I believe that this is what Mechior was pointing to.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
This sums it up nicely, thank you Brother! 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I think someone else said it. Teresa was very secretive about the opening of the Monastery of St. Joseph, because there was a problem with the laity. The local people did not want another religious house in Avila, because it meant that they would have to support it. Church law then and Church law today says that the laity must finance the apostolic works of the religious. Those folks had Carmelites, Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans and now another Carmelite house.

There was a valid concern on both sides. They were concerned that they could not finance another house and Teresa was concerned because Jesus asked her to found St. Joseph’s Monastery. That was the issue. It had nothing to do with the Carmelite authorities, the bishop or the king. She had the patent in her hands. Once you have patent, you can erect a house.

Teresa was doing them a favor by not being very public. A conflict would have erupted that would have pitted the laity against the Church and there was no law in place to address the problem. She took steps to avoid the headache. Once the house was erected and the first mass was celebrated, the house was consecrated and no one could close it.

Stop and think about it, what priest would consecrate the house without a patent, besides Luther? Luther hated the mendicants. There was not hope of getting him to celebrate any mass for them even if he had been in Spain.

St. John did not disobey. The prior ordered something that he had no right to order. St. John had permission from the General to work with Teresa. The punishment was illegal.

I believe the problem goes deeper than different vocations. American Catholics feel free to compete with religious authority. We are less inclined to challenge a secular academic, but feel perfectly free to challenge and question the Master General of the Dominican Order, who is a canonical authority, an Ordinary, and a scholar.

I’m not a Dominican nor have I a vow of obedience to the Master General of the Dominicans. However, as a Catholic I respect that he has the authority to speak for St. Dominic and I don’t. He also has years of education and expertise in Dominican studies that I do not have. I respect him as a scholar and as the final authority in all things Dominican. Anything that has to do with Dominican studies flows from his office. It makes no difference who is the Master General. The authority comes with the office.

If you go to the Holy See and sit down at a conference of theologians, as soon as the subject steers in the direction of a topic that is Carmelite, to whom does the Holy Father and the cardinals look? They look to the two Priors General of the Carmelites. They could care less if anyone else disagrees. It’s a Carmelite topic, therefore the Carmelite Generals have the last word as to what may be taught as genuinely Carmelite. The same is done for every other school of theology and spirituality.

We don’t appeal to Jesuits or to seculars to explain to us the theology of St. Augustine if there are Augustinians to do so. It’s the other way around. Everyone else who studies Augustine, checks their stuff against the backdrop of the Augustinian scholars.

It often happens, that a theologian from outside of the school may find something that a Dominican, Franciscan, Augustinian, etc did not see. When he does, he shares it. The theologians of that particular school incorporate it into what they already have.

In this case, what has been shared with the Dominican Master cannot be substantiated by Dominican history. Who better than the Master to know this? I’m not about to question him and I’m not about to embark on some mission to prove that the Blessed Mother gave Dominic a rosary, just because the story has been passed down for generations. Many stories are passed down for generations and they are embellished. It’s called hagiography.

Pope Benedict recently said something about St.Francis that was rather interesting. He said that to use the Francis of history instead of the Francis of faith is a waste of time. The Francis of history does not match the Francis of faith. They’re two very different people. This happens with the great spiritual fathers. The Dominic of history will never match the Dominic of faith.

In this case, the Dominic of history never received the Rosary from the Blessed Mother. However, the Dominic of faith did. How? We don’t know, because there is much to the Dominic of faith that we still don’t know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Sorry but I am even more confused. I understand scholars would consider the Carmelite Priors views on something Carmelite but would still feel free to disagree of someone else offered a view in better harmony with the evidence. Regardless of secular vs religious or what kind of religious, we are after Truth.

It is completely legitimate for Catholic historians and theologians to do their work even while disagreeing wih the current views of the current superiors of the relevant orders.

With recent founders it may be a bit different but I think you are especially off with the example of St. Augustine. Catholic scholars study him all the time without reference to the order. The Augustinians don’t own his legacy.

It sounds as if for religious you are saying there is a second Magisterium
In addition to that of the Pope and bishops. Except this would be one without a charism of infallibility.
 
newyorkcatholic said:
Sorry but I am even more confused. I understand scholars would consider the Carmelite Priors views on something Carmelite but would still feel free to disagree of someone else offered a view in better harmony with the evidence. Regardless of secular vs religious or what kind of religious, we are after Truth.
Click to expand...
As I said, if someone offers something that has not been considered by a scholar of the particular school, it’s incorporated.
It is completely legitimate for Catholic historians and theologians to do their work even while disagreeing wih the current views of the current superiors of the relevant orders.
Click to expand...
Yes they do.
With recent founders it may be a bit different but I think you are especially off with the example of St. Augustine. Catholic scholars study him all the time without reference to the order. The Augustinians don’t own his legacy.
Click to expand...
It sounds as if for religious you are saying there is a second Magisterium
In addition to that of the Pope and bishops. Except this would be one without a charism of infallibility.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Maybe I’m not explaining myself clearly. We certainly don’t have our own Magisterium. It’s not about Magisterium, it’s about authority.

Let me see if this helps to clarify what I’m trying to say. Be patient with me. I’m the superior of my community. This is actually true. You can write my community, if you have doubts.

I have the power and authority to speak for Francis of Assisi. If someone comes in and says that Francis flew on two wings, because tradition says so and I find that there is no historical proof to support it, I have the power to order the brothers to put distance between them and that opinion and they have no recourse but to do so.

On the flip side, if someone walks in and says that they found historical evidence that he did fly on two wings, it is my duty to incorporate that into our teachings on St. Francis, because it’s a proven fact.

Regardless of what an outside source says, the friars, monks religious of any community cannot hold any position that the major superior says is contrary to what the school knows. The Church (Canon Law and the Sacred Congregation) uphold the major superior’s right to make such a requirement until the legend is proven to be true.

Most superiors do not bother with such things, because they’re not important enough. There are more important issues. Whether Dominic received the Rosary from the hands of Our Lady or not, is not an important issue. It’s much more important to cultivate prayer. Therefore, I can’t imagine a major superior of one of the Dominican provinces making this a priority, either to defend it or to abrogate it.

I believe that’s part of the problem here. What people outside see as important, to most superiors, bishops and theologians, it’s not important. We want people to pray. We don’t care if they believe that Dominic received the Rosary from Our Lady or not. At the end of the day, it’s not important to the faith or to the life of prayer. It’s only important to Dominican historians.

To get away from the Rosary for a moment, I’ll use a Franciscan example. There is a myth that has been perpetuated that St. Anthony of Padua took on and defeated heretics left and right. The truth is that it never happened. Anthony conquered heresy by preaching against their errors and teaching truth. When he encountered a heretic, he was a model of kindness and friendliness. He never engaged in arguments with heretics, because Francis forbade argumentation.

I don’t care if people want to believe that Anthony took on every heretic in Europe. I’m more interested in having people read what Anthony taught. His teachings are what is going to help people get closer to God, not his battles or in this case, non battles.

If the friars come to me, I will command them to put distance between them and that image of Anthony; but to focus on his writings, which are well worth reading. Don’t worry about his reputation as an apologist, which he was not. He was a scripture scholar and his instrument for teaching was the Scripture, not apologetics. Franciscans never engage in apologetics. There is no reason to believe that Anthony would do so. But if someone wants to believe it, it’s not a big deal as long as that someone is not one of my friars.

I’m not sure if that helps clarify what I’m trying to say. I hope so. 😃

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Folks, you’re way off topic. Please get back to the topic or let the thread die.

Thanks
 
JReducation said:
Most of the orders in the Latin Church take the model of obedience from St. Benedict. The Carmelites are a different creature, because of its origins as a brotherhood of hermits. Hermits were much more autonomous than monks. The Carmelites went from being hermits to being mendicants. That’s quite a leap. They never really went through the Benedictine or Augustinian influence. Benedict and Augustine founded monastic brotherhoods where the voice of Christ and the voice of the superior are one and the same.
Click to expand...
Of the Abbot, the Rule of St. Benedict states:

For he is believed to hold the place of Christ in the monastery. (RB 2:2)

On obedience to the Abbot, the Rule of St. Benedict is clear as a bell:

The first degree of humility is obedience without delay. This becometh those who, on account of the holy subjection which they have promised, or of the fear of hell, or the glory of life everlasting, hold nothing dearer than Christ. As soon as anything hath been commanded by the Superior they permit no delay in the execution, as if the matter had been commanded by God Himself. Of these the Lord saith: “At the hearing of the ear he hath obeyed Me” (Ps 17[18]:45). And again He saith to the teachers: “He that heareth you heareth Me” (Lk 10:16). (RB 2:5)

This obedience, however, will be acceptable to God and agreeable to men then only, if what is commanded is done without hesitation, delay, lukewarmness, grumbling or complaint, because the obedience which is rendered to Superiors is rendered to God. For He Himself hath said: “He that heareth you heareth Me” (Lk 10:16). (RB 2:5)

-Tim-
 
Thanks, it sounds very reasonable, what you’ve explained. But, what if a sallible superior insists that Francis did fly? Even if his friars obey, certainly others should feel free to reject his view.

But the idea that the brothers should obey, whether or not the superior is correct, sounds like obedience. That what he superior says is automatically correct, that’s what I still cannot accept.
 
Back to the main topic, FE seems to be running fairly well of late. 😃
 
newyorkcatholic said:
Thanks, it sounds very reasonable, what you’ve explained. But, what if a sallible superior insists that Francis did fly? Even if his friars obey, certainly others should feel free to reject his view.

But the idea that the brothers should obey, whether or not the superior is correct, sounds like obedience. That what he superior says is automatically correct, that’s what I still cannot accept.
Click to expand...
I hope I don’t get into trouble. Quickly, we obey, not because the superior is right. We obey out of pure love, just as Christ obeyed.

Pilate was wrong, dead wrong. But Christ submits to his authority out of love. His obedience was necessary for redemption. Our obedience completes what is missing in Christ’s sacrifice, as St. Paul says.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The_Curt_Jester said:
Back to the main topic, FE seems to be running fairly well of late. 😃
Click to expand...
Give it 24 hours. There are some sites that have plum bad luck staying up. That happens with my community’s site. It’s up three days and down two. It’s like Communism, two steps forward and three steps backward. 😃

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
While the FE forum is perking along (at the moment) it seems the new member registration is Not working. The message being returned is: “Sorry, registration is currently disabled.”

Any ideas (related to this inquiry)?
 
Much thanks!!!

I know, I knew that :o
I think my mind has gone on its post Lent/Triduum vacation without me (again)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top