Implied accusation of disobedience

[Vico]

But if my father allows me something, for example, giving me the keys to the car, is he teaching me anything? Other than that he’s a gread dad, of course.

Sure, we teach by example. Sometimes we learn by making mistakes, hopefully somebody that is wise will help us. Hopefully we will search for them. Did the greatest warriors of legend not seek the great masters of the arts in their time, an apply to be their students?

Externally we have the form, internally we have the proper disposition. The external form is group (witness), the inner disposition is private. This makes it possible to express devotion outwardly without it being an expression of personal pride, because the outward form is prescribed for all.

 

[zab]

Sure, we teach by example. Sometimes we learn by making mistakes, hopefully somebody that is wise will help us. Hopefully we will search for them. Did the greatest warriors of legend not seek the great masters of the arts in their time, an apply to be their students?

Externally we have the form, internally we have the proper disposition. The external form is group (witness), the inner disposition is private. This makes it possible to express devotion outwardly without it being an expression of personal pride, because the outward form is prescribed for all.

So getting back to his father giving him the keys to his car…he has a loving father who did not have to give to his son the keys to his car, but he did.

 

[JReducation]

But if my father allows me something, for example, giving me the keys to the car, is he teaching me anything? Other than that he’s a gread dad, of course.

As usual, I’d like to add something from my personal experience. I’m the father of a community of brothers. I have several duties under that title. One of them is to teach. That’s pretty obvious. The other is to protect. Not unreasonable either. The other is to guide and discipline.

Let’s go back to protect. There are times when I must protect the brothers by forbidding some things. These are always things that are contrary to the Gospel, the Rule or the law of the Church. However, the Gospel, the Rule and the law of the Church also allow me to change some rule unilaterally. In other words, I don’t have to get a consensus from the General Chapter, permission from the Vatican or from my Major Superior. Because built into the system is an unspoken rule that says that if it is necessary for the salvation of souls, I can make legal what has been illegal provided that it does not violate the Gospel, the Rule and Canon Law. This flexibility is built in for the purpose of mercy.

It is not a flexibility that I have built into the system. It was built into it by the Church through her example. In other words, there is a precedent. Throughout her history, the Church has changed disciplines, extended privileges, granted indults for the sole purpose of exercising mercy, not just on the issue of how Holy Communion can be received, but on many issues, many much more serious.

When I, as the father, grant a permission, it does not mean that I like what I’m allowing. It simply means that I have the authority to allow it and I have the duty to find every possible way to protect my brothers from falling into sin. If that means expanding a rule or granting an indult from it, and it is within my power to do so, then I have a moral duty to them to act in their best interest. There are times when I have done this, even though I have not made use of an indult that I have granted, because it’s something that I’m uncomfortable doing. But by granting the indult, I do a good for someone else.

The caveat here is that the Church allows persons in positions of authority, bishops and religious superiors, permission to grant indults in certain areas. But those things that she allows us to authorize are never sinful. They may be less preferable. But less preferable is not the same as evil or sinful.

For example, I granted a brother permission to miss daily mass for an extended period. The reasons are not important for this post. But the Rule and Canon Law do not command daily attendance at mass under pain of sin. Canon Law refers to daily mass as highly desirable for clerics and consecrated religious, not as mandatory. The Rule commands daily attendance at mass, but leave it up to the superior to moderate. I have the authority to grant that indult. However, I could not dispense him from praying the LOTH. The brothers are bound to pray the LOTH under pain of mortal sin. That is in the Rule and in Canon Law. Unless the Rule or Canon Law is changed, I cannot grant that indult.

Not everything that authority allows is because it is pleasing to authority. It may be because it is the compassionate thing to do. That’s going to be a judgment call on the part of the person in authority, which we have to allow for. Otherwise, we find ourselves second-guessing authority left and right.

I’m not sure if I’m making sense here. I hope so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

So getting back to his father giving him the keys to his car…he has a loving father who did not have to give to his son the keys to his car, but he did.

The progressive thinking back in the 60’s stressed the concept of having a more “welcoming” church. Same thing, isn’t it?

 

[ProVobis]

Sure, we teach by example.

But what are people going to learn if you tell them it’s okay to eat meat on Fridays, they don’t need to fast for three hours before communion, they don’t need to study Latin, they don’t have to kneel at the altar rails for communion, their mortal sins are really only venial sins, etc.? Did anyone see a real genuine growth in faith after that?

 

[Vico]

But what are people going to learn if you tell them it’s okay to eat meat on Fridays, they don’t need to fast for three hours before communion, they don’t need to study Latin, they don’t have to kneel at the altar rails for communion, their mortal sins are really only venial sins, etc.? Did anyone see a real genuine growth in faith after that?

The form changes over time, the essential truth stays the same. I was raised with the every-Friday abstinance, and the longer communion fast, I studied Latin in school for years, kneeling at the rail. The Catechism and other writings are still present and teach about the gravity of sin. Are they being studied? I believe the attitude of humility is missing that makes one receptive to God.

I noticed a profound change occurred in American cuture with the change of sexual behavior, bringing increased divorce (1965), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965, made contraceptives available to married women), of hot-pants (1971), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972, made contraceptives available to all women), and Roe v. Wade (1973, legal abotion).

Example, of current penitential practice in the Latin Church: The Fridays of the year, outside of Lent, are designated as days of penance, but each individual may substitute for the traditional abstinence from meat some other practice of voluntary self-denial as penance.

 

[DavidPalm]

Because built into the system is an unspoken rule that says that if it is necessary for the salvation of souls, I can make legal what has been illegal provided that it does not violate the Gospel, the Rule and Canon Law. This flexibility is built in for the purpose of mercy.

It is not a flexibility that I have built into the system. It was built into it by the Church through her example. In other words, there is a precedent. Throughout her history, the Church has changed disciplines, extended privileges, granted indults for the sole purpose of exercising mercy, not just on the issue of how Holy Communion can be received, but on many issues, many much more serious.

When I, as the father, grant a permission, it does not mean that I like what I’m allowing. It simply means that I have the authority to allow it and I have the duty to find every possible way to protect my brothers from falling into sin. If that means expanding a rule or granting an indult from it, and it is within my power to do so, then I have a moral duty to them to act in their best interest.

Greetings from Shanghai!

This is an excellent point, Brother. I wanted to post an exchange that my friend Michael, who wrote article I linked above about the miraculous healing of his hand, had with Leon Suprenant of CUF on the issue of kneeling. Alas, there are certain sites that are blocked here in China, so I can’t gather the links.

Suffice to say that Michael’s point is that sometimes these permissions from Rome are rather grudging permissions. And Rome understands that there is a revolution and a counter-revolution taking place in the Church. The modernists are great at finding and exploiting every “loophole” to advance their agenda. But it appears that, in certain instances at least, the Popes have purposely left things open and a bit loose, so that things can also move in a more traditional direction. Michael’s point in the article is that since Rome has left the “rules of the game” somewhat less rigid, the more traditionally minded may be needlessly playing into the hands of the modernists when they insist on an absolute uniformity of practice in a less traditional direction. I’m not doing his argument justice–I just woke up. I’ll try to have Michael send me the links.

It is very clear that Benedict XVI’s personal desire is that more Catholics kneel to receive Holy Communion. The CDW has made it clear that kneeling is an option and that there is no disobedience attached to it. There are many parishes in the U.S. at which the NO is celebrated where kneeling is still the norm and we are seeing more and more of that. Now, as we’ve seen on this thread, there are individual bishops who are moving things in that direction. None of this is taking place in opposition to the Holy Father’s wishes or directives. Rather, faithful Catholics are exercising their legitimate “minority option” within the flexibility that Rome herself has provided, to move the liturgy in an more traditional and reverent direction.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

But what are people going to learn if you tell them it’s okay to eat meat on Fridays, they don’t need to fast for three hours before communion, they don’t need to study Latin, they don’t have to kneel at the altar rails for communion, their mortal sins are really only venial sins, etc.? Did anyone see a real genuine growth in faith after that?

Whooo…back the truck up. The one that is underlined should not be in there. It would go against church teaching to say that a mortal sin is only a venial sin. To me that is TOTALLY not the same as changing the fast from three hours to one hour. Apples and oranges!

I don’t know where you are but I’ve never heard teaching that oh it’s ok…your sins are really only venial. No one can really judge that…but they can tell you a sin might be mortal in its nature.

 

[JReducation]

I truly believe that there is a tendency to push our point of view. This is true of left and right. We can’t deny that. To a certain extent, it’s part of human nature. Subconsciously, we want to feel safe. If we can get the whole group to go our way, it validates what we believe and gives us a sense of safety. What we have to understand is that real spirituality is not about feeling safe, but about being faithful.

As usual, I’ll share an anecdote. The old religious orders of men were exempt from many of the rubrics that were adopted as a result of the Council of Trent. The law in the Church has always been that if you have a custom that predates a law my a very long time, usually a century, your custom remains law for your jurisdiction, be it a diocese, order or abbey.

We never had all of these rules that you guys are so excited about. Our masses were very simple, as were our chapels. When we went to parishes, we followed whatever the bishop wanted for his people, while we did our thing inside of our houses. In other words, we have internal and external practices. The external practices always conform to the mind of the local bishop, because it’s his diocese and these are his people, not our people. We’re not responsible for the diocese.

I had a brother ask me why I allowed certain things of the brother-priests, things that were never allowed in 800 years. He was concerned that these allowances created a distinction between the ordained and the non-ordained. I went on to explain that holiness calls us to be faithful. If the General Chapter had approved something, the successor of St. Francis had given it his blessing and the Lord Pope had stated that it was allowed as long as it remained within specific parameters, meaning that it did not allow for those who are priests to stand out in any way, shape or form. Fidelity commands that we accept what those who are superior to us have approved. We do not have to do it, unless it is mandated. However, it would be unfaithful to contradict and criticize those who are over us, because as St. Paul says, there are times when we act as if we were judges of the law rather than doers of the law.

That being said, the brother felt safe. The ancient tradition was not being called bad, which seemed to be his greatest fear. I believe that this happens to many people. We react to changes in disciplines or experiments out of fear that we may be told that we have been wrong all along. That’s not always the case. Most of the time, it’s not a matter of being wrong all along. Most of the time, it is a matter of something being permissible, while the usual and customary continues to be good. There are times when the usual and customary no longer works and it has to be changed too. In those cases, it’s not a matter of it having been wrong. It’s a matter of something not being useful today. The bottom line is that things can change for reasons that are no reflection on what came before them and we need not be afraid. We need to be faithful. Part of fidelity is assent to authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[floresco]

That being said, the brother felt safe. The ancient tradition was not being called bad, which seemed to be his greatest fear. I believe that this happens to many people. We react to changes in disciplines or experiments out of fear that we may be told that we have been wrong all along. That’s not always the case. Most of the time, it’s not a matter of being wrong all along. Most of the time, it is a matter of something being permissible, while the usual and customary continues to be good. There are times when the usual and customary no longer works and it has to be changed too. In those cases, it’s not a matter of it having been wrong. It’s a matter of something not being useful today. The bottom line is that things can change for reasons that are no reflection on what came before them and we need not be afraid. We need to be faithful. Part of fidelity is assent to authority.

I believe that many people like to ascribe an affinity for tradition to fear. They like to see themselves as bravely embracing change, in contrast to those fearful traditionally-inclined ones. I suspect that these people are usually wrong. They certainly would be if they guessed that my motivation was fear. My love of tradition has nothing to do with fear. It comes from my sense of connection to the past and appreciation of my spiritual heritage.
Keeping traditions makes the communion of saints come alive for me because it allows me to share practices with my ancestors in Faith.

I resent it when people make up reasons for why I do what I do rather than ask me. It is especially annoying when the motives they make up are negative ones such fear or self-righteousness. They have no right to judge me this way.

I have also noticed that those who are critical of the traditionally inclined like to talk about obedience and fidelity even when it does not apply. My post at the beginning of this thread gave a good example. Even though my preference to receive Communion from an ordained man rather than an EMHC in no way involves disobedience or rejection of authority, some people are ready to see it as that.

I am tired of being called disobedient, schismatic, self-righteous and fearful. I am tired of being judged for my love of tradition.

 

[zab]

I believe that many people like to ascribe an affinity for tradition to fear. They like to see themselves as bravely embracing change, in contrast to those fearful traditionally-inclined ones. I suspect that these people are usually wrong. They certainly would be if they guessed that my motivation was fear. My love of tradition has nothing to do with fear. It comes from my sense of connection to the past and appreciation of my spiritual heritage.
Keeping traditions makes the communion of saints come alive for me because it allows me to share practices with my ancestors in Faith.

I resent it when people make up reasons for why I do what I do rather than ask me. It is especially annoying when the motives they make up are negative ones such fear or self-righteousness. They have no right to judge me this way.

I have also noticed that those who are critical of the traditionally inclined like to talk about obedience and fidelity even when it does not apply. My post at the beginning of this thread gave a good example. Even though my preference to receive Communion from an ordained man rather than an EMHC in no way involves disobedience or rejection of authority, some people are ready to see it as that.

I am tired of being called disobedient, schismatic, self-righteous and fearful. I am tired of being judged for my love of tradition.

In your original post you stated, "Her point seemed to be that I should stop my “disobedience”. Perhaps that was not her point at all. I know that when I have expressed my reason for doing as my bishop has requested of me I am not accusing others of disobedience. No one likes to be falsely judged. I have tried to explain the value of being obedient to the valid requests of our pastors and bishops. When I do as I have been requested, I am not “bravely embracing change”. Sometimes being obedient is not easy such as the directive in our archdiocese to remain standing after the Agnus Dei. Nevertheless, it is proprer to do as we have been directed. What seems to be the problem is the thinking “If she is being obedient, then that must mean that she thinks I am being disobedient.” Brother JR has been trying to teach all of us something.

 

[floresco]

What seems to be the problem is the thinking “If she is being obedient, then that must mean that she thinks I am being disobedient.” Brother JR has been trying to teach all of us something.

When someone tells me that it is important to be obedient and that I must change my usual practice, it is hard to see how that can mean anything other than she thinks my usual practice is disobedient.

Brother JR was trying to teach us the motives that people have for being attached to tradition. I do not need someone else to teach me what my motives are, especially when it involves placing a negative interpretation on them. It would make more sense for me to teach Brother JR about my motives. It seems likely that I know more about them than he does.

 

[zab]

When someone tells me that it is important to be obedient and that I must change my usual practice, it is hard to see how that can mean anything other than she thinks my usual practice is disobedient.

Brother JR was trying to teach us the motives that people have for being attached to tradition. I do not need someone else to teach me what my motives are, especially when it involves placing a negative interpretation on them. It would make more sense for me to teach Brother JR about my motives. It seems likely that I know more about them than he does.

You and I are apparently hearing different things from Brother JR’s posts. What I meant to say in my previous post was, Brother JR is trying to help all of us to understand some things. He did not come across as taking sides to me.

 

[MarkThompson]

Brother JR was trying to teach us the motives that people have for being attached to tradition. I do not need someone else to teach me what my motives are, especially when it involves placing a negative interpretation on them. It would make more sense for me to teach Brother JR about my motives. It seems likely that I know more about them than he does.

I think I read Brother’s post the same way that zab did, but even so, it can be valuable to get a “second opinion” about yourself from someone with as much wisdom and charity as Brother JR. Many’s the time someone has said something like that to me, and after my initial reaction, I realize, “You know, I’ve never really thought about it that way, but . . . .” Either way, it exposes you to another perspective on shared facts.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

When someone tells me that it is important to be obedient and that I must change my usual practice, it is hard to see how that can mean anything other than she thinks my usual practice is disobedient.

Brother JR was trying to teach us the motives that people have for being attached to tradition. I do not need someone else to teach me what my motives are, especially when it involves placing a negative interpretation on them. It would make more sense for me to teach Brother JR about my motives. It seems likely that I know more about them than he does.

But see…I feel the same way when other people hijack your post and turn it into standing vs. kneeling and receiving COTT vs CITH. And somehow many of them, I feel, get a dig in about how they really feel the real presence and are much more pious then people who receive standing and CITH. I am like, REALLY? They know my heart and judge that? Because after I receive communion, usually I am so overwhelmed that I can do nothing but praise God and try not to sob. But people here on CAF will say that I’m doing the bare minimum.

I think Brother JR was trying to make a point to all of us that sometimes we have to examine our motives.

I don’t get it…when did we all turn on each other? What happened to Catholic unity?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

When someone tells me that it is important to be obedient and that I must change my usual practice, it is hard to see how that can mean anything other than she thinks my usual practice is disobedient.

Brother JR was trying to teach us the motives that people have for being attached to tradition. I do not need someone else to teach me what my motives are, especially when it involves placing a negative interpretation on them. It would make more sense for me to teach Brother JR about my motives. It seems likely that I know more about them than he does.

Perhaps you might have been so beaten up about being traditional in the past that it’s like you have a sunburn…and what might be a gentle touch…still feels like a slap?

 

[pnewton]

I resent it when people make up reasons for why I do what I do rather than ask me. It is especially annoying when the motives they make up are negative ones such fear or self-righteousness. They have no right to judge me this way…

I am tired of being called disobedient, schismatic, self-righteous and fearful. I am tired of being judged for my love of tradition.

I see your experiences as providing a helpful cautionary tale about judging the motives of others based on, well anything, but especially little bits and pieces of information. This happens to many different types of people.

 

[floresco]

I think I read Brother’s post the same way that zab did, but even so, it can be valuable to get a “second opinion” about yourself from someone with as much wisdom and charity as Brother JR. Many’s the time someone has said something like that to me, and after my initial reaction, I realize, “You know, I’ve never really thought about it that way, but . . . .” Either way, it exposes you to another perspective on shared facts.

There are no “shared facts” here. There is speculation from Brother JR. I would appreciate it if he had enough “wisdom and charity” to ask me what I think rather than tell me.

 

[JReducation]

There are no “shared facts” here. There is speculation from Brother JR. I would appreciate it if he had enough “wisdom and charity” to ask me what I think rather than tell me.

Maybe the problem is that I should have begun by saying that I’m not speaking about you personally. I’m speaking about my experience with many kinds of people in different situations. There is certainly room here for those who feel that certain traditions connect them with the past and with the entire body of believers. Far be it for me to deny this. I’ll give a perfect example of this. My community wears a habit. It’s been modified over and over again since 1209. But it retains the basics that are in the rule, a tunic with a cowl and a chord.

During the last 800 years there have been many variations on the Franciscan habit, in colors, size of the cowls, color of the chord, shoulder capes, scapulars, no shoulder cape, no scapulars, you name it. But the tunic with a cowl and a chord have been preserved. Why? Because it connects us to our Father back in 1209. There is validity in saying that we hold on to certain traditions because they connect us to the entire family throughout history. That’s one reason for keeping alive certain customs and traditions.

That does not rule out that there is the element of fear of being wrong when traditions are changed or completely dropped. I believe that at some subconscious level all of us have fears of new things and at some subconscious level changes are challenges. This does not make those who embrace change better than those who do not. This is an image that society has created. The truth is that many people who embrace change do so for practical reasons, but with trepidation. Fear on both sides is very real. The statement is not meant to offend. It’s just a reflection of my expeirence having been a spiritual director, a superior, and a religious.

Do not take my statement as a judgment about you. Take it as it was meant, another perspective from a person who has dealt with change and with the faithful at another level.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF