Is Catholicism A Democracy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JReducation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No one said that it was not a means to an end. What we are saying is that the form that religious choose to follow will be the one that THEY feel is the best means to their end.

The laity has no right to intervene in this arena. When are we going to understand this part? It’s like inerfering in someone else’s marriage.

JR 🙂
Well, yes, of course religious Orders are going to choose what way they wish to go liturgically speaking. And no, I have no plans on attending any Chapter meetings and weighing in on what direction I think the Order should go.

However, we have a Dominican parish in a nearby city. People often go to it for miles around because it is one of the only (maybe the only, other than the indult TLM and the SSPX) that actually utilizes altar rails and doesn’t use EMHC’s (and yet somehow we survive :rolleyes:).

Now, I think it is perfectly legitimate for a group of the faithful to ask the parish to have a TLM. Now, I appreciate your post on what the chain of command would be in such situations, that is helpful. Yet certainly I would not consider a request of the parish to be out of bounds or telling the Order what to do (and I’m not saying this is your view either).

And of course it seems as if the request would go through a different process than if one were requesting it of a regular diocesan parish. I do wonder if this might still be clarified a bit more in the upcoming further instructions regarding the Motu Proprio.
 
But there was one reality that I walked away with. Catholicism, much like Judaism IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.
No, it is the world’s last absolute monarchy, and, like all absolute monarchs before him, this one claims the divine right of kings.

Fortunately, it is easier to opt out of his kingdom than it was most of the others. That’s why he has managed to survive I suppose.
 
No, it is the world’s last absolute monarchy, and, like all absolute monarchs before him, this one claims the divine right of kings.

Fortunately, it is easier to opt out of his kingdom than it was most of the others. That’s why he has managed to survive I suppose.
:coffeeread: :hmmm:

In spite of our discussions here, we all love the Church and don’t really share your vision of her.

I hope in time you will come to see her beauty as well. 🙂
 
No one said that it was not a means to an end. What we are saying is that the form that religious choose to follow will be the one that THEY feel is the best means to their end.

The laity has no right to intervene in this arena. When are we going to understand this part? It’s like inerfering in someone else’s marriage.

JR 🙂
JR,
In regards to this question of what the religious superior can decide, could they/he decide thus?
OF is the accepted norm for the order.
However, EF is allowed in pastoral situations where the laity request it.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate your posts and they are most informative and balanced. Balance is something I hope for as well.
However, I believe that, since the HF has permitted the TLM and declared it to be a valid mass, that all priests should be required to learn to celebrate it. Not because I want to see it in every parish, but because they need to be able to minister to the needs of the faithful.

I realuze that this may not be within the scope of the discussion here, but it is just my feelings on it. I hope that the seminaries, and individual priests and orders, will see the benefit of this and see that our present and future RC priests are fully equiped to say mass in both forms.

Peace
James
 
JR,
In regards to this question of what the religious superior can decide, could they/he decide thus?
OF is the accepted norm for the order.
However, EF is allowed in pastoral situations where the laity request it.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate your posts and they are most informative and balanced. Balance is something I hope for as well.
However, I believe that, since the HF has permitted the TLM and declared it to be a valid mass, that all priests should be required to learn to celebrate it. Not because I want to see it in every parish, but because they need to be able to minister to the needs of the faithful.

I realuze that this may not be within the scope of the discussion here, but it is just my feelings on it. I hope that the seminaries, and individual priests and orders, will see the benefit of this and see that our present and future RC priests are fully equiped to say mass in both forms.

Peace
James
It seemed to me that JR’s posts suggest (cumulatively) that the Holy Father would never give such a direction to priests in religious Orders, communities, societies since issuing such an order to them is outside the Pope’s areas of responsibility. If he were to issue such a “mandate” then maybe next he could issue a mandate that all married men are to father six children and raise them to adulthood, through natural generation or adoption, or maybe that all widowed women shall remain widowed until death. In other words, certain actions by the Holy Father range from implausible to impossible.

My own concern is that those who have awaited and hoped for the Moto Proprio seem to be grateful to a very minimal degree. My own genration felt the loss of the Latin Mass and yet we accepted the NO as the decision of Rome. Are many of us very pleased to see an emerging availability of the Latin Mass? Yes. Do we expect that we are to make demands? No. Do we understand that we can thank God and the Church for the MP? Yes.
 
It seemed to me that JR’s posts suggest (cumulatively) that the Holy Father would never give such a direction to priests in religious Orders, communities, societies since issuing such an order to them is outside the Pope’s areas of responsibility. If he were to issue such a “mandate” then maybe next he could issue a mandate that all married men are to father six children and raise them to adulthood, through natural generation or adoption, or maybe that all widowed women shall remain widowed until death. In other words, certain actions by the Holy Father range from implausible to impossible.
Was my post that unclear??
I wasn’t trying to intimate papal mandates to the religious or anything of the sort. And I certainly don’t understand how you could jump from priests being able to say mass in both forms to numbers of children and status of widow(er)s
If I understand JR’s previous posts, it is up to the head of a given religious order to determine the suitability and viability of the EF within the order. If this is the case, then couldn’t a superior make a determination similar to the MP where he says we will use the OF unless there is shown a need for the EF in specific instances. (such as pastoral circumstances)

My other parallel point was that, in my opinion, every seminary should require that all seminarians be proficient in both forms of the mass. This is only right since the EF and OF are both valid, permissable form of the mass. Our current priests should be encouraged to become proficient in the EF if they are not already. Please remember that, even if a parish does not have a regular EF mass, individuals can still request it for special occasions:
Art. 5 of Summorum Pontificum dtd 7/7/2007:
§ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.
It could only be to the benefit of the faithful if their priest is, at least, familiar with the EF even is they don’t celebrate it regularly.

Again, I don’t mean immediately - but over time I hope this will occur.

Peace
James
 
…They are also very strong on balance between belief and intellect. I like their love for the Church while at the same time they have a great love for Dominic. They have been treated badly by many conservatives, unfarily so, because they have just been fulfilling Dominic’s wishes, to explore all possibilities in order to preach the truth.
I never heard this about the Dominicans - I thought the Jesuits were the ones to watch out for.
…People can’t seem to separate the pulpit from the university classroom.
But why should they? What preachers preach from the pulpits are in great part formed by what they receive in their formation. If heresy is being taught in the classroom, what do you think will be preached from the pulpit? C’mon - let’s not go down this road. The conversation was going so well.
…Just because the Dominicans do good theology in the classroom, which often calls into question traditional Church teaching doesn’t mean that they are preaching this from the pulpit. They have been given a bumb rap for being good scholars.
It’s troubling that you say this about the Dominicans (perhaps you paint with too broad a brush)…but frankly, I don’t care who it is - good theology never calls into question traditional Church teaching. Good theology = traditional Chruch teaching. Period.

That being said, I have talked with more than a few very faithful younger priests who indicate that part of the biggest challenge of their formation was “tuning out” the heresy being taught to them in seminary.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
However, we have a Dominican parish in a nearby city. People often go to it for miles around because it is one of the only (maybe the only, other than the indult TLM and the SSPX) that actually utilizes altar rails and doesn’t use EMHC’s (and yet somehow we survive :rolleyes:).
No one said that religious orders are out to be rebels. As to altar rails, it depends on how the Church was originally built. My former parish had them, because the Church was built in the 1800s, we did not use them for communion, but no one took them out, because it would have been a “crime” to deface such a beautiful building. My local parish as built in 1970s. It has no rails. It’s a very simple building. It is Franciscan run and they built it with the resources they had.
Now, I think it is perfectly legitimate for a group of the faithful to ask the parish to have a TLM. Now, I appreciate your post on what the chain of command would be in such situations, that is helpful. Yet certainly I would not consider a request of the parish to be out of bounds or telling the Order what to do (and I’m not saying this is your view either).
And of course it seems as if the request would go through a different process than if one were requesting it of a regular diocesan parish. I do wonder if this might still be clarified a bit more in the upcoming further instructions regarding the Motu Proprio.
I believe that requests are always welcome. What is important that people understand is that they go through different chains of command and that they affect different people, not only the person making the request.

As far as I know there is no rule against making requests. However, one must be respectful and patient. I posted above something that I found on another thread regarding a group of parishioners in another Dominican parish. They never said that the Dominicans were doing anything wrong. They simply wanted the TLM and the Dominicans responded that it was not necessary at this time, because the parish was full at all of its masses. It sounded like a situation similar to the parish that you describe aove. The group posted the Friar’s email, the actual letter on CAF and the person’s name too. They were looking for support to go to Rome with this. Check the post, I put it up before. I was stunned.

In our parish the pastor was toying with the idea. I’m not sure if he was asked about it or if it was a personal interest of his. The superior of the house told him to hold off. People needed an explanation, because they believed that any priest could celebrate TLM if they wished. They had no idea that a religious is first a religious then a priest and that they need permission from their superiors for certain things, depending on their rule and the constitutions of their institute. The Brothers were kind enough to explain it. I think everyone is happy. If there are any unhappy people, I haven’t heard them.

I really doubt that he Motu Propio is going to go further into explanations or clarifications that deal with religious who run parishes. Here is my reason. Most Congregations and Orders have these directives spelled out in their constitutions. They know what they can do and what they cannot. There are few grey areas. In the few cases where there may be a grey area there is the Sacred Congregation on Religious Life that clarifies these things for them and if the institute is an Order they have direct access to the Holy Father, because Orders follow a rule that was approved by some pope and can only be changed by another pope. Also, religious institutes have general chapters every couple of years and the results are sent to the Sacred Congregation for Religious for approval before they become the law of the Instittute.

The only declarations in rules that I am aware of, regarding liturgy, have to do with the obligation to celebrate liturgy, the theology of the liturgy and its importance to the institute and how to celebrate the Liturgy of the Hours. The Benedictines are the most detailed in this, for obvious reasons. They are monks. Liturgy is their life. Other communities pretty much follow the general teachings of the Church. They add a few details here and there, but nothing that the Church finds objectionable or it would not have been approved. For example, Franciscans have to avoid all semblance of clericalism. That takes nothing away from the mass or the priesthood. It’s a reminder to the Brother Priests that they are Brothers and they are not to be arrogant, nothing wrong in that. God knows that we have had a fair share of arrogant clerics.

JR 🙂
 
JR,
In regards to this question of what the religious superior can decide, could they/he decide thus?
OF is the accepted norm for the order.
However, EF is allowed in pastoral situations where the laity request it.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate your posts and they are most informative and balanced. Balance is something I hope for as well.
However, I believe that, since the HF has permitted the TLM and declared it to be a valid mass, that all priests should be required to learn to celebrate it. Not because I want to see it in every parish, but because they need to be able to minister to the needs of the faithful.

I realuze that this may not be within the scope of the discussion here, but it is just my feelings on it. I hope that the seminaries, and individual priests and orders, will see the benefit of this and see that our present and future RC priests are fully equiped to say mass in both forms.

Peace
James
Major religious superiors have the same authority as a bishop when it comes to the internal affairs of their community. Of course they can decide that one form can be celebrated for the laity and the other must be used for the community.

The only time that I would see a major superior opting out of the EF would be if the community was divided on this issue. Then, for the sake of preserving the unity of his community the major superior would have to do one of two things. Either he has to invoke a chapter where this is taken to a vote and that becomes the law. Or he can order under obedience what he feels is the best for the community. If that means no EF in any of their ministries, then he has to communicate this to the bishop in the dioceses where his order serves. Then it’s up to the two of them to decided what to do next. There are always options, such as no EF in that parish or the Order leaves the parish. I don’t expect things to get so nasty. I do expect that this will cause discussion in religious houses and it already has in some. I haven’t seen anyone pull out of a parish because of it. The bishops seem to be keeping their hands out of this when it comes to religious run parishes. As long as they celebrate the NO with the proper dignity and reverence, I don’t believe that the bishops are going to intervene. I could be wrong, so don’t take it to the bank.

JR 🙂
 
It seemed to me that JR’s posts suggest (cumulatively) that the Holy Father would never give such a direction to priests in religious Orders, communities, societies since issuing such an order to them is outside the Pope’s areas of responsibility. If he were to issue such a “mandate” then maybe next he could issue a mandate that all married men are to father six children and raise them to adulthood, through natural generation or adoption, or maybe that all widowed women shall remain widowed until death. In other words, certain actions by the Holy Father range from implausible to impossible.

My own concern is that those who have awaited and hoped for the Moto Proprio seem to be grateful to a very minimal degree. My own genration felt the loss of the Latin Mass and yet we accepted the NO as the decision of Rome. Are many of us very pleased to see an emerging availability of the Latin Mass? Yes. Do we expect that we are to make demands? No. Do we understand that we can thank God and the Church for the MP? Yes.
If we notice, when the Pope has spoken to religious he has spoken very generally, not in specifics. The specifics is done when he is in dialogue with a major superior or the general chapter of an order. The reason for this is because there are so many orders with such different charisms, that it would be very difficult to make one statement that fits all. In addition, not all religious have the same canonical standing. If you look at Canon Law on Consecrated Life, there are many degrees of Consecrated Life and with each degree come special rules and privileges as well as obligations.

A good example of this was the case of the habit. There was a letter from John Paul regarding religious and in one section he speaks about religious dress. But he does not go into detail as to what this should be, because the traditions and rules of each institute allow for different forms of dress. He would have to sit with each community and discuss this issue in light of their tradition and charism. I doubt that the Holy Father has the time to do this. That’s why there is a Sacred Congregation for Religious Life. They deal with these very specific details. The same would be applicable as to how they celebrate liturgy or how they train those who are to be deacons and priests.

For example, when the permanent deaconate was approved, the Orders, not the Congregations, the Orders did not allow it. None of their members can be permanent deacons. I know one friar who is, but he had to get permission from his superior general. Generally friars and monks are members of Orders, not congregations. They have Pontifical Rights. They can declare that they will not make use of a specific infult or declaration, such as the permanent deaconate. I know that the Capuchin-Franciscans, with whom I am most familiar, said that they would not allow it because they want to maintain the number of clerics low. They were founded as a lay order with some priests. Deacons are clergymen, they are not laymen. The permanent deaconate would have affected their charism.

This is how Orders look at such things, in terms of what affects their charism. This is legal as long as it is not in conflict with dogma, morality, or canon law.

JR 🙂
 
Just as an aside,
The regular EF mass in Cincinnati is Run by the FSSP. Today father couldn’t make it so Mass was celebrated by a Franciscan priest. So I guess the Franciscans have already decided that both forms are acceptable for them.

I really enjoyed seeing this since my great great uncle was a Franciscan priest and his brother was a Franciscan brother.
So we had an “Uncle Father Prosper, and an Uncle Brother Ferdinand”.
This is alwasy a great joke when we have a new addition to the family. Especially if that person is not catholic.

Peace
James
 
I never heard this about the Dominicans - I thought the Jesuits were the ones to watch out for.
The Dominicans have taken their share of beatings too as have the Jesuits.
But why should they? What preachers preach from the pulpits are in great part formed by what they receive in their formation. If heresy is being taught in the classroom, what do you think will be preached from the pulpit? C’mon - let’s not go down this road. The conversation was going so well.
Maybe I need to say this differently. When I studied theology, we learned what the Catholic Church teaches, but we also looked at Luther, Calvin, Wesley, the Orthodox, and others who are not Catholic or even Christian. We examined the pros and cons of each. We were always taught the Catholic teaching and what others said about it and why they objected to it. This is what I mean when I say the separation from the classroom and the pulpit. We were not taught to teach Calvin, but we learned Calvin. We were taught the Catholic response to the different perspectives, but we have to learn the perspectives in order to understand the rationale of the Church. In doing so we learned to better understand the reason for Church teachings. We even learned that many people, Catholics and non Catholics also misunderstood some of the non Catholic thinkers and have carried those misunderstandings through the centuries and even built upon them, which only made things worse.

I found this very useful. Recently I had a Catholic ask why we lifted the excommunication on the Orthodox Church and I was able to explain why the Orthodox believe what they believe and the reason for lifting the excommunication, even though both sides agree that we are not in full communion. Understanding and knowing these things is helpful to anyone who is goiing into ministry.
It’s troubling that you say this about the Dominicans (perhaps you paint with too broad a brush)…but frankly, I don’t care who it is - good theology never calls into question traditional Church teaching. Good theology = traditional Chruch teaching. Period.
Calling into question in a theology classroom does not necessarily mean negating. It means playing devil’s advocate. You try to reach at the truth from the other side of the argument. The Dominicans do this very well and to their credit. It should not be troubling at all, because they do a very good job at teaching truth from both sides of the fence. They can use something like this, “Let’s say that Jesus Christ is not the Messiah. How do we explain the impact that he has had on world history?” That’s what I mean by calling into question. I had a professor who began his Christology course this way. At the end, we arrived at the conclusion that he must have been who the Gospels say, by looking at the other side and finding that we couldn’t defend it.
That being said, I have talked with more than a few very faithful younger priests who indicate that part of the biggest challenge of their formation was “tuning out” the heresy being taught to them in seminary.
I have heard this too. This is sad, because it means that they have not had good professors who really know how to teach. The idea is to teach truth, but present all the arguments for and against it, then present the weaknesses in the arguments against truth.

JR 🙂
 
Just as an aside,
The regular EF mass in Cincinnati is Run by the FSSP. Today father couldn’t make it so Mass was celebrated by a Franciscan priest. So I guess the Franciscans have already decided that both forms are acceptable for them.

I really enjoyed seeing this since my great great uncle was a Franciscan priest and his brother was a Franciscan brother.
So we had an “Uncle Father Prosper, and an Uncle Brother Ferdinand”.
This is alwasy a great joke when we have a new addition to the family. Especially if that person is not catholic.

Peace
James
To the best of my knowledge, none of the religious orders have decided against the EF for the laity. What they have to decide is whether they will use it regularly in their parishes and in their houses.

They can’t decide this for the universal church. That would be against the Motu Propio. That would be disobedience.

The flexibility that canon law gives them is to decide if they want to do this as a regular thing, even in their parishes. Going over to an FSSP church or oratory to cover for a priest is an act of charity. I don’t believe that they would deny the sick priest this favor. That would be mean and unlike Francis.

Even in Boston, the Cardinal has allowed it in some parishes, but has said that he does not see it as a great pastoral need, nonetheless he does see its pastoral benefit.

JR 🙂
 
I heard an interesting story when I once visited Clear Creek Monastery in Oklahoma. They are a daughter house of Fontgambault in France. They are Benedictine and both celebrate the TLM exclusively.

When Pope John Paul II issued his indult in the 1980’s the monastery at Fontgambault wanted to use it to celebrate the TLM. They had already been celebrating the NO in Latin. Someone (I’m not sure who) basically told them they couldn’t. They obeyed. And for 12 years they celebrated the NO in Latin. Well, after about 12 years the Abbott went to Rome and met the Pope. The Pope asked him how he was enjoying the indult. The Abbott told him that they had not yet had the privilege of enjoying the indult.

Well, apparently very soon afterward someone got a call from the Vatican (I’m not saying it was the Pope himself; I don’t know) and when the Abbott returned the person who had been blocking the indult was peeved but had to tell them that they could go ahead and utilize the indult. And they’ve been doing so ever since. Deo Gratias!
 
To the best of my knowledge, none of the religious orders have decided against the EF for the laity. What they have to decide is whether they will use it regularly in their parishes and in their houses.

They can’t decide this for the universal church. That would be against the Motu Propio. That would be disobedience.

The flexibility that canon law gives them is to decide if they want to do this as a regular thing, even in their parishes. Going over to an FSSP church or oratory to cover for a priest is an act of charity. I don’t believe that they would deny the sick priest this favor. That would be mean and unlike Francis.
Of course, in order for the orders to respond in charity as above, the priests would have to be proficient in the EF, even if it isn’t used in their own parishes or houses.
Even in Boston, the Cardinal has allowed it in some parishes, but has said that he does not see it as a great pastoral need, nonetheless he does see its pastoral benefit.
I really think that this is the bottom line. Even those areas where the Bishop is basically opposed to the EF, if the pastoral need is there he really must respond - even if only grudgingly at first.
However that is the seed that may grow over the years. Grow and bear beautiful fruit for the church in both the EF and the OF.

Peace
James
 
I heard an interesting story when I once visited Clear Creek Monastery in Oklahoma. They are a daughter house of Fontgambault in France. They are Benedictine and both celebrate the TLM exclusively.

When Pope John Paul II issued his indult in the 1980’s the monastery at Fontgambault wanted to use it to celebrate the TLM. They had already been celebrating the NO in Latin. Someone (I’m not sure who) basically told them they couldn’t. They obeyed. And for 12 years they celebrated the NO in Latin. Well, after about 12 years the Abbott went to Rome and met the Pope. The Pope asked him how he was enjoying the indult. The Abbott told him that they had not yet had the privilege of enjoying the indult.

Well, apparently very soon afterward someone got a call from the Vatican (I’m not saying it was the Pope himself; I don’t know) and when the Abbott returned the person who had been blocking the indult was peeved but had to tell them that they could go ahead and utilize the indult. And they’ve been doing so ever since. Deo Gratias!
This is an excellent example of how things work between the Pontifical Orders and the Church. They have their own internal communication. It was unfortunate that someone had to stick their nose where it didn’t belong and this poor Abbot hadn’t heard the good news that he was waiting for. But you see, this is what I’m trying to teach the laity. The religious will move on this, on their terms and in coordination with the Holy See.

Our religious in our parish decided that we do not need the EF, because we already have five masses on Sunday and two on Saturday with standing room only. In fact, on Easter Sunday we will have 10 masses. We are going to rent some priests, as we have seven religious but only three priests. There is a rule about the number of masses that a priest may celebrate in one day.

However, the announcement was not a condemnation of the EF or delivered in negative tones. As for the community, they will continue to use the NO, because it is serving their spiritual needs. I think that because the Brothers are being very relaxed about it, so are the people. The fact is that we don’t have place for another mass. Our church is very small. I don’t know the exact size, but I bet it doesn’t sit more than 800 at one time.

Tonight, I went to the youth mass, which I normally do not go to, because the music is not my style. However, my son has autism and he really gets into it. He doesn’t have mental retardation. In fact, he’s in college. He does have language problems. He needs to see what he hears. He is the type of autistic who needs the visual (name removed by moderator)ut. They were going to have the young people dramatize, if that’s the right word, the gospel as it was read. I’m not sure if it’s drama, because they didn’t say anything. They just acted it out as the church went through it. I knew it was the very long gospel of Palm Sunday. To subject anyone with autism to that Gospel without the visual (name removed by moderator)ut would be cruel. They can’t follow along that long or visualize what’s happening in the story. I was pleasantly surprised. The kids did a beautiful job. Their attitude and reverence from the beginning to the end was inspiring.
They even had a scourging, crowning of thorns and a life-size cross where they actually hung one of the kids, etc.

After mass I asked my son, “What did you think?” He said, “I didn’t know that Jesus rode a coult and an ***. How the heck did he ride both?” I started to laugh, because it’s one of those details in Matt’s Gospel that I never paid special attention to. Jesus does in fact ask them to bring both animals. After I explained to him the whole story, he asked another question. “Why did they stop when he died? Why didn’t they read the part when he rose?” I explained again that this would come next Sunday. I explained the meaning of Passion Sunday to him. These subtleties are difficult for people with language disorders, but they’re important. When they pick up on them, it’s a breakthrough, because then they begin to understand their faith better.

My son has been exposed to mass and Palm Sunday since he was born. His mother was Catholic, he attended Catholic schools from Pre-K to grade 12. But no one realized that some of the subtleties of liturgical language that we take for granted went right over his head. I thank God for the opportunity to take him to a mass where there is visual representation that help him put together the whole picture. It also allows us to celebrate the Eucharist as a family.

I took him twice to an EF and he fell asleep. I had to keep nudging him. He finds it very difficult to follow the booklet with the English and Latin. We attended two masses at the Vatican, both on Christmas Eve. During one mass we sat in the rear of the sanctuary. On holy days like Christmas, the Basilica is so full that the set up chairs behind the main altar on the back of the sanctuary, but you are looking at the Pope’s back and the concelebrants. My son was desparate to leave. The second time, I made arrangements with a friend of mine who works at the Vatican for seats in front of the sanctuary. This time he was wide awake. Though he could’t follow the Latin prayers, he did follow the Holy Father’s homily, because we speak Italian and Spanish at home. He even chuckled at something funny that Benedict said. He liked the excitement when the Pope is leaving at the end of the liturgy everyone stands on the pews and chairs just to see him and he tries to shake hands with those who are close to the aisle. He got to shake Benedict’s hand.

Now I know to go with him to mas where he can see and hear what is happpening. It raises his level of interest and he is more in tune with the mystery of the Eucharist. I’m hoping that they’ll keep the youth mass in our parish, even if they do put an EF on the schedule.

JR 🙂
 
I really think that this is the bottom line. Even those areas where the Bishop is basically opposed to the EF, if the pastoral need is there he really must respond - even if only grudgingly at first.
However that is the seed that may grow over the years. Grow and bear beautiful fruit for the church in both the EF and the OF.

Peace
James
No no no, please don’t misunderstand what I said. He is not responding grudgingly. He is a Capuchin Brother. His response is consistent with the tradition of his community. They were founded to preach penance, not to run parishes or diocese. From their point of view, they will do whatever they feel is REALLY necessary to help the diocesan clergy. Anything that they believe is not necessary, they will pass, not because they have a negative attitude, simply because it’s not their vocation.

Their vocation is to serve the Church by preaching penance and by living the poverty of Christ crucified. Anything else that the Church throws at them, if they have a choice, they’re going to be very selective and thoughtful about. This is not a sign of grudging something. It’s the opposite. It’s a sign of fidelity to a tradition that was handed down to them by St. Francis and approved by the Holy See.

The Cardinal is going to do just as St. Francis mandated. If it is needed by the diocesan clergy, then go for it, as long as you do not sacrifice the spirit of prayer, penance, community and poverty. What the Cardinal seems to be saying is that he doesn’t see it as a need at this point, but he does recognze that it can do some good to heal the rift with the S. Piux X people.

You can read his complete statement on his blog. It’s clearer than what I’m doing here.

cardinalseansblog.org/?m=200706

In the picture, observe that the Cardinal is standing to our right of the Pope wearing the Brother’s habit, not the traditional Cardinal’s garb. This is an example of what I mean by fidelity to his Franciscan tradition. He never wears a roman collar and only wear the red for ceremony. This outward behaviours are indicators on an inward commitment to his roots.

Those roots include helping the diocesan clergy or dioceses when it is absolutely necessary. They reserve the righ to decide if it’s absolutely necessary and only the Pope can override them. But he is not grudgine the EF. On the contrary, this is a very holy man. Also a very smart man.

Hope this helps understand his position.

JR 🙂
 
If you want to see Catholicism at its best, follow this blog. This is a very holy man and one of my heroes.

I had the privilege of working with him for many years and being a long-time friend. The reason I became his friend is because of his holiness.

I wish we all had this much love for the Church and this kind of simplicity.

cardinalseansblog.org/?page_id=7

JR 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top