Is it against tradition for a pope to be a religious?

[Lucky7]

To the original question posted by Brother, I have no clue. I’ve tried to understand and sympathize with Lucky and McCall and others who have calmly tried to explain their concerns or worries. But though I do keep them both in daily prayer (as Lucky once asked), I truly don’t “get” where they are coming from.

I just wanted to say thank you. I am doing much better than I was when I first asked for those prayers, so they are working!

Can I be so bold to ask that you add my husband to the prayer list? lol

And by the way, I am also a Jewish convert to the Faith.

 

[pnewton]

Quote:

It was an insult. An ad hominem. Here at CAF, “protestant” is used as an insult, like “liberal”, or “nazi.”

I that that YoungTradCatholic properly explained the impact of modern technology on communication and discussion in the world today. Now everyone can discuss with everyone else the Pope’s shoes, his garb, whose feet he washes, etc. In all this I can’t help but think this ability has caused us to lose a sense of holy silence. Why do we feel the need to concern ourselves with these things? They are not teaching. I am reminded of Peter by the sea in John 21 who inquire of Jesus as to the fate of John. Jesus’ words were, “What is that to you?” Are we so free of concerns about our own spirituality that we now have the time and effort to involve ourselves in how the Holy Father is acting? We have become a spiritual papparazi.

It is not that I think everything the Holy Father does is right and above reproach. Rather, I think all that has been discussed about him is simply irrelevant to anyone but him and God. He need not explain himself because the only other one who has a legitimate interest knows everything.

 

[Lormar]

It was an insult. An ad hominem. Here at CAF, “protestant” is used as an insult, like “liberal”, or “nazi.”

I that that YoungTradCatholic properly explained the impact of modern technology on communication and discussion in the world today. Now everyone can discuss with everyone else the Pope’s shoes, his garb, whose feet he washes, etc. In all this I can’t help but think this ability has caused us to lose a sense of holy silence. Why do we feel the need to concern ourselves with these things? They are not teaching. I am reminded of Peter by the sea in John 21 who inquire of Jesus as to the fate of John. Jesus’ words were, “What is that to you?” Are we so free of concerns about our own spirituality that we now have the time and effort to involve ourselves in how the Holy Father is acting? We have become a spiritual papparazi.

It is not that I think everything the Holy Father does is right and above reproach. Rather, I think all that has been discussed about him is simply irrelevant to anyone but him and God. He need not explain himself because the only other one who has a legitimate interest knows everything.

I did NOT use it as an insult and I don’t like being accused of doing so.

 

[Lormar]

I did NOT use it as an insult and I don’t like being accused of doing so.

Let me explain it in the sense that I did use it.

It sounded to me like Lucky was reducing the Church to an invisible institution.

If we can’t trust our shepherds, well…I don’t know what to say other than I came here with an open mind and an open heart after spending many years in independent chapels. It doesn’t help me to stay in the Church reading all of this stuff because much of it is why I left in the first place.

 

[floresco]

Let me explain it in the sense that I did use it.

It sounded to me like Lucky was reducing the Church to an invisible institution.

If we can’t trust our shepherds, well…I don’t know what to say other than I came here with an open mind and an open heart after spending many years in independent chapels. It doesn’t help me to stay in the Church reading all of this stuff because much of it is why I left in the first place.

There was nothing protestant in what Lucky said. The Catholic Church recognizes that we are all sinners and all fallible, even clergy. They can make mistakes.

On the other hand, we should not jump to conclusions, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and we should always be respectful.

 

[Mike30]

I guess my question is still not answered. My question is very simple. Why is it so wrong for this man to live like a religious?

This question triggers other questions that those of us who consider ourselves orthodox religious ask ourselves.

1. Are we of such little value to the layman?
2. Is our way of life an inconvenience when it becomes shared with the wider Church?
3. Why do people want to see the large religious houses of the past, if they don’t want to see us in the center of Church life living and working as our founders did, not as the religious of the 1950s? Many religious of the 1950s were as far from the founders as you can get. That’s why the Council called for a return to the roots.

Given the fact that Pope Benedict created more cardinals from religious orders and more bishops from religious orders than any of his predecessors and that every bishop that Pope Francis has elected, except one, is from a religious order, it stands to reason that won’t have to wait another 250 years for the next religious pope.

I read a lot of what you write Brother and I am constantly amazed with your knowledge of Franciscan history, spirituality and culture as well as your almost encylpedic knowledge of other Religious orders and institutes. Yet, threads like this simply confuse me. Let me explain.

We for the most part are not members of Religious Institutes or orders. Our exposure to them I would guess has primarily been minimal at best except for those few of us who are members of Third Orders, went to schools run by Religious Orders or Institutes or have had close personal; interaction with them While I went to Catholic schools, the Jesuits I met were teachers primarily and that was how we saw them and how they acted. We never saw any of the things that are constantly brought up to show how Jesuits live their lives.We saw that they were teachers and that was really about it.

In short, most of us know next to nothing about Religious Orders and or Institutes and their charisms or how they live and approach the world except in a very limited fashion.

As to your questions, I think Religious Orders are of great value to the layman, as long as the layman understands whats going on. An example, years ago I went to a retreat at a Trappist Monastery. Before the retreat, I was told what to expect, how the Brothers behaved with each other and how they would behave with us. How Mass would be celebrated and how it would be different than what we were probably used to. We were told about the silence and the value of hard physical labor to their lifestyle. We were allowed to take part or not. But we knew what was going on. It was an amazing experience, one that I will treasure forever. But, had I not had the introduction given to us, the whole thing would have seemed very strange, confusing and yes, even frightening in some circumstances.

With the Holy Father, we were pretty much blindsided. No Pope in living memory has behaved in the fashion that he has. In one fell swoop, much of what we were used to and understood about the Papacy was turned upside down, much the same as what happened after Vatican II. The comfort zone was gone and we were expected to understand everything. Immediately. For those of us who were blinsided in this same fashion after Vatican II, the similarity was confusing and frightening to say the least.

And that was unfair to us. While the Holy Father is a Jesuit, most of us are not.

As to your way of life being an inconvenience to us, not at all, except where it infringes upon our place in the Church. To expect us as laymen to accept wholeheartedly the charism of any specific order as our own, to me would bethe same as the Religious having to give up his own charism completely. Bad news all the way around, and it doesn’t have to be that way. I doubt that you as a Franciscan, would be very comfortable in a Carthusian or a Trappist of the Strict Observance House. Their charisms are completely different than are yours.

I have often heard you speak in highly critical and even disparaging terms for Religious life prior to Vatican II. From what you have stated it would appear that Religious life in those days was some sort of aberration, a tumor that needed to be excised, a cancer that needed a cure. I’m not entirely sure that was your intention or even if what you said was 100% accurate given the huge number of Saints from Religious Orders that came out of those years, but I think that discussion is best left for another time.

In short, I don’t mind that the Holy Father is a Jesuit and lives as a Jesuit. More power to him. But he is also the Pope of the Holy Mother Church. Not the Pope of just the Jesuits, but the Pope of all of us. To expect us as non Jesuits and non-religious to react to him in a way that a Religious might is more than a tad unfair.

It will take us time to get used to what he does especially when it conflicts or even contradicts what his predecessors did.

 

[McCall1981]

With the Holy Father, we were pretty much blindsided. No Pope in living memory has behaved in the fashion that he has. In one fell swoop, much of what we were used to and understood about the Papacy was turned upside down, much the same as what happened after Vatican II. The comfort zone was gone and we were expected to understand everything. Immediately. For those of us who were blinsided in this same fashion after Vatican II, the similarity was confusing and frightening to say the least.

And that was unfair to us. While the Holy Father is a Jesuit, most of us are not.

 

[pnewton]

I did NOT use it as an insult and I don’t like being accused of doing so.

Then do not use it unless it applies. Protestant theology does not recognize the papacy. There was not the slightest reference to sola scriptura or private interpretation. The word was meaningless in the connotation of this thread. You say you did not mean it as an insult. You do not realize that such a use of “protestant” on a Catholic forum is insulting? Really?

 

[Eufrosnia]

This might be a little frank for people, but here goes anyways.

What traditions?

The Papacy is an office that has been continually defined by it’s many, many holders, not by some ancient “tradition”. If you really want to nit-pick, the traditions of the Papacy now really only date back to 1929, to the Lateran Treaty. Before then, the Papacy always included in it the concept of being a secular king with wide swaths of land and subjects and taxes and administration. The King-Pope no longer exists; that tradition of the papacy is dead. The Pope is still considered a Head of State as the head of a sovereign nation, but it is drastically different then what existed before.

Now, there are some things that are intrinsic to the office. The Pope is head of the Catholic Church, and head of the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope has a charism of infallibility as defined by Vatican I.

But how the Pope carries out his day to day office? Up to the man who is Pope. As Br. JR has pointed out time an again, many of what we would consider to be Pope “traditions” were brought to the Papacy by whoever was elected, not by some ancient rules. In the exact same way, Pope Francis will bring new traditions with him, some of which may be adopted by his successors and some of which may be disregarded.

What it really sounds like is that people are afraid. People don’t like change. People like everything to be comfortably the same. Well, we are not called to be comfortable. We are always called to grow in our love for Christ, which is what the Holy Father is trying to lead us to.

But we don’t grow in our love in Christ by changing traditions. The traditions developed as we grew in love of Christ. You cannot then say that these traditions detract from your love of Christ. That does not make sense.

The issue is not that people don’t like change. The issue is with losing a rich form of expression that we had. That is a legitimate concern.

Also, something worth saying, if you were to read the “Auctorem Fidei”, a papal bull by Pius VI condemning the propositions of the Synod of Pistoia, you will notice how many of the practices that are not intrinsically wrong are condemned as “giving credence to the position of heretics” or “offensive to the faithful” etc. So the idea that something can offend the minds of the faithful and that it needs to be taken in to account is not a foreign concept. It has been around for sometime and at least one Papal bull had been pronounced that uses it as a basis to condemn many propositions.

 

[Eufrosnia]

They have never been lost. We’ve had Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans and now a Jesuit pope. If a secular priest is elected to succeed them, he picks up on what he wants and leaves behind what he does not want. That’s an advantage of being pope. Traditions are not laws and all laws are subject to his approval. He can dispense himself from any and all if he so chooses to do.

He certainly can dispense with the entire body of tradition and canon laws if he so chooses to, yes. But my point is that if he were to do so, it does not change the fact that the faithful will be very confused and offended.

They will not be offended because “its change”. Certainly some for sure but not all. Many will be upset because those laws, traditions were all built to safeguard, promote and communicate some doctrinal truth. By getting rid of these expressions, it becomes harder to communicate it. One has to reinvent the wheel. I think this very important aspect is something most people do not understand. For most people, tradition and laws represent some archaic mechanical way of doing things. They forget the organic development of these things because of a very real doctrinal truth behind it.

I feel that comments that “people just want to live with what they are comfortable” are extensions of this misunderstanding. The problem is not about being comfortable. If anything, it can certainly be more uncomfortable today to just stand up for traditions. So people miss the point when they say that this is about not wanting to leave the comfort zone. IT is NOT. IT is about not wanting to see rich expressions of truth that had developed over 2000 years being lost.

 

[otjm]

Then do not use it unless it applies. Protestant theology does not recognize the papacy. There was not the slightest reference to sola scriptura or private interpretation. The word was meaningless in the connotation of this thread. You say you did not mean it as an insult. You do not realize that such a use of “protestant” on a Catholic forum is insulting? Really?

Well, I thought I understood what Lormar was saying, as he was responding to a rather bleak comment about trusting bishops and Cardinals. I suspect that he was not aware that the use of the word was “loaded”.

 

[McCall1981]

Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save. Psalm 146:3

There is a difference between trusting the teachings of the Church and trusting the men of the Church.

Lormar’s protestant comment was in response the above. I think Lormar was just saying this sounds protestant because it involves an idea like following God without the Church. I think it was a legitimate comparison to protestantism and was not intended as an insult at all. Just saying…

 

[otjm]

I know that he as the pope is not accountable to anyone on earth, but simply casting aside clothing meant to express symbolism, and eschewing the papal palace with only a vague reference to humility can have unintended consequences.

It can also have intended consequences, and from what little I have observed and read, I am not entirely convinced that the Pope was not aware of the consequences; after all, he appears to have lived this way for decades, including as a priest, a bishop, and archbishop and a Cardinal. It is not like all of Argentina is a backwoods with no wealth. Further, it has been fairly clearly reported that he had some fairly choice and specific words publicly for others, at least in Argentina, who were/are members of the ordained.

1. It can give the impression that the predecessors were not being humble in using what Pope Francis has cast aside. Plus, it puts any successor who wishes to bring them back in a tough spot. I can picture the accusations of puffed up pride and self exaltation.

It can give that impression, particularly if one is casual in their observation rather than discriminating (that is, looking beyond the mere externals and observing closely). Those who are aware of his background would understand that it is not a reflection on Benedict, JP 2, JP 1, Paul 6…etc. Those who are not aware, or choose to ignore his background may or may not presume that it is intended as a swipe at a prior Pope. This Pope has lived his life in a radical conformation to the Gospel. There is no doubt others in the past have been offended by his life choices, derided them, been angered by them, been disgusted by them and etc. To one called to a radical following of the Gospel, that is not cause to stop. Not cause to apologize or attempt to explain; the lived expression of that radical following is the explanation to those who would listen.

1. It gives the impression that those things no longer have any meaning or value. That can have a devastating impact on the spiritual level.

Or it can have a cleansing impact on the spiritual level. That may depend on whether one chooses to dissect and criticize it, or whether one opens oneself to the action of the Holy Spirit and seeks to understand and grow.

Again, it’s unintentional.

I don’t think so; he has lived this way for decades. He is, by his life, trying to give witness to Christ. It all depends on whether or not we will be open to what he is trying to teach. It will depend on whether we wish to make much ado about it, or silence our business about it and learn. So it was with Mother Theresa; she certainly had plenty of criticism. She also converted many.

So do we listen to the critics, or the converts?

Bro. JR has essentially made the same point; do we try to dissect the life of a religious and get caught up in trying to argue its rightness or wrongness, or do we silence ourselves and learn?

 

[sojo]

I just wanted to say thank you. I am doing much better than I was when I first asked for those prayers, so they are working!

Can I be so bold to ask that you add my husband to the prayer list? lol

And by the way, I am also a Jewish convert to the Faith.

Consider your husband added! And I had NO IDEA you were a Jewish convert like me! I was amazed to find more than a few of us on CAF.

 

[SMHW]

Lormar’s protestant comment was in response the above. I think Lormar was just saying this sounds protestant because it involves an idea like following God without the Church. I think it was a legitimate comparison to protestantism and was not intended as an insult at all. Just saying…

To me it seemed that Lucky’s post was more or less echoing the Church’s teaching on infallibility.

 

[choliks]

**But we don’t grow in our love in Christ by changing traditions. The traditions developed as we grew in love of Christ. You cannot then say that these traditions detract from your love of Christ. That does not make sense. **

The issue is not that people don’t like change. The issue is with losing a rich form of expression that we had. That is a legitimate concern.

Also, something worth saying, if you were to read the “Auctorem Fidei”, a papal bull by Pius VI condemning the propositions of the Synod of Pistoia, you will notice how many of the practices that are not intrinsically wrong are condemned as “giving credence to the position of heretics” or “offensive to the faithful” etc. So the idea that something can offend the minds of the faithful and that it needs to be taken in to account is not a foreign concept. It has been around for sometime and at least one Papal bull had been pronounced that uses it as a basis to condemn many propositions.

The bold is mine. If Pope Francis is true to the charism of the Society of Jesus, then he can. It’s in the First Principle and Foundation of the Spiritual Exercises:
First Week: First Principle and Foundation:

The human person is created to praise, reverence, and serve God Our Lord, and by doing so, to save his or her soul.

All other things on the face of the earth are created for human beings in order to help them pursue the end for which they are created.

It follows from this that one must use other created things, in so far as they help towards one’s end, and free oneself from them, in so far as they are obstacles to one’s end.

If for him wearing the red shoes, the mozetta, the very intricate miter, or any "t"radition would hamper his praise, reverence, and service to God, then he can detach or be “indifferent” from them. This is part of the Jesuit tradition since St. Ignatius of Loyola, was the one who established this. Whether we like it or not, Pope Francis will live out his consecrated life while holding the keys.

IOW, the Pope is not destroying traditions, he’s living out the Jesuit (and Franciscan) one.

 

[choliks]

I just wanted to say thank you. I am doing much better than I was when I first asked for those prayers, so they are working!

Can I be so bold to ask that you add my husband to the prayer list? lol

And by the way, I am also a Jewish convert to the Faith.

Consider your husband added! And I had NO IDEA you were a Jewish convert like me! I was amazed to find more than a few of us on CAF.

If it means anything, Bro. JR is also a Jewish convert.

 

[Saints_Alive]

I don’t know how I could have said it better than by putting quotes around the word. I did not call our Faith tainted. I used “tainted” to modify the word “view”.

Our view/understanding of our Faith is distinct from The Faith at its essence.

I’m sorry I was unclear.

I’m not angry at you, but the word tainted is fairly negative.

God Bless

 

[JReducation]

And NONE of us, for generations, have experience with a religious pope.

I believe that the last religious pope died around 1775. He was a Conventual Franciscan Friar.

I mean, I wish with all my heart that we had the kind of hierarchy that I could place my whole trust in, like others are saying… but we don’t.

Br. JR mentioned that as a Franciscan he is to follow the Holy Father and not have an opinion of his own. Fine, but what if a Cardinal was elected that approved civil unions, or something like that. Would you follow? Would we as the laiety?

We can never lose sight of the first principle in obedience. One must obey in all things, not matter how foolish. One may never obey that which is sinful. The key is not the person, but the command. One always has a duty to follow authority. One never has the right to do what is sinful, even if authority commands it. But all the rest, we must obey and accept, even if we know that there is something better. We sacrifice ourselves as a penance for our sins and the sins of the world.

Well, if I had put my trust in the Cardinal that missed the conclave becasue of his homosexual misconduct scandal, or the Cardinal that recently approved civil unions, I would lose a lot. What if one of these men had been Pope? They were one step away.

Not if you look at the principle that I just wrote above.

A very short while back, I stopped opening, reading and contributing to the many threads and discussions here and elsewhere about the latest Pope Francis “thing.” I only opened this one because Br. JR had started it, and I do follow his teachings pretty closely.

That’s very kind of you.

I sense that the Rules of a Religious order are not the same as say, driving laws.

You’re right about that one.

But Religious Rules are internalized, taken for life and are meant to change the essential “you.”

I think that one problem that we have is our language. In today’s world the term “rule” has a completely different meaning that it does in religious life. In religious life, the term rule means worldview. It’s not a set of codes and statutes. The codes and statutes have two functions. A) They define the environment necessary to cultivate and protect that world view. B) They define and direct our thinking according to that world view.

In essence, their purpose is to strip the person of his old self. Any attempt to retain that old self is going to cause a spiritual schizophrenia. We have seen this among many religious between the 1970s and today.

 

[JReducation]

In short, most of us know next to nothing about Religious Orders and or Institutes and their charisms or how they live and approach the world except in a very limited fashion.

This is very true. This was one of the sad parts of the deviations of religious life during the last 200 years or so.

As to your questions, I think Religious Orders are of great value to the layman, as long as the layman understands whats going on.

I can certainly appreciate this and I encourage every layman to ask as much as he can. We can’t always explain everything, because there is not enough time or because some things are simply for internal forum only. Be I don’t think that any religious will refuse to try.

With the Holy Father, we were pretty much blindsided. No Pope in living memory has behaved in the fashion that he has. In one fell swoop, much of what we were used to and understood about the Papacy was turned upside down, much the same as what happened after Vatican II. The comfort zone was gone and we were expected to understand everything. Immediately. For those of us who were blinsided in this same fashion after Vatican II, the similarity was confusing and frightening to say the least.

And that was unfair to us. While the Holy Father is a Jesuit, most of us are not.

I understand being blindsided. I don’t think that it’s a matter of fairness as much as it is a matter of explaining. I have to admit that during the first two weeks there was a lot being said on TV and other means of communication about Pope Francis’ Jesuit roots and his Franciscan spirituality. It was probably helpful to those who heard these things. Unfortunately, the feed suddenly died. I’m not sure why it did. People still need to hear it. Not everyone had the chance to hear those few interviews or read those few articles or even understand them.

I have often heard you speak in highly critical and even disparaging terms for Religious life prior to Vatican II. From what you have stated it would appear that Religious life in those days was some sort of aberration, a tumor that needed to be excised, a cancer that needed a cure. I’m not entirely sure that was your intention or even if what you said was 100% accurate given the huge number of Saints from Religious Orders that came out of those years, but I think that discussion is best left for another time.

Religious life had deviated from its roots. I did not intend to hide that at all. Any religious who lived back then will tell you so. There was a form of religious life, but not what the founders had in mind. While I would not call it a cancer and neither did the Church, the Church did say that it needed to be reformed. Religious life needed and still needs to go back to the roots.

There were many saints. They were not saints because their religious communities had deviated from their original charisms, way of life, structure, governance, ministry, etc. These men and women became great saints because of a life of heroic virtue. Part of that virtue was their fidelity to the original vision, despite the twists and turns that their communities took over the centuries. A wonderful example of this is, though not a 20th century person, Teresa of Avila. What she experienced in the 16th century is very much what we have experienced in the 20th century. I think that every few centuries religious life is derailed and needs to be reformed. We have a long list of reformers who became great saints precisely because of their fidelity to the original charism despite the distortions: St. Bernard, St. Robert, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Clare, St. Collette, et al.

In short, I don’t mind that the Holy Father is a Jesuit and lives as a Jesuit. More power to him. But he is also the Pope of the Holy Mother Church. Not the Pope of just the Jesuits, but the Pope of all of us. To expect us as non Jesuits and non-religious to react to him in a way that a Religious might is more than a tad unfair.

It will take us time to get used to what he does especially when it conflicts or even contradicts what his predecessors did.

I can appreciate that it will take time. In a previous post, not on this thread, I told people that in a year or two all of this would seem quite natural, if only people are patient rather than pushing the panic button.

Thank you for you kind words and your thoughtful post.