Opus Dei Saints or Sect

[Mark12]

Why would anyone join Opus Dei if he didn’t want to follow the Opus Dei “spiritual path”?
That doesn’t make any sense to me.

Does not make sense to you because you never been an Opus Dei member.
Opus Dei preaches one thing to the outside world, but inside doors, the teachings are totally different.
People join Opus Dei expecting one spirituality but slowly you start to understand that things are different.
They preach that they advocate for “the liberty of the conscience” but as soon as you join you find out that you can not choose your confessor nor your spiritual director, both are assigned to you.
They preach that “we are all God’s children, and out of 100 souls, He’s interested in all 100!”, but as soon as you join Opus Dei you start to see that you’re slowly discourage to spend time with your friends that do not want to participate in Opus Dei’s activities.
I could give you hundred of samples like this, but I think that you get the picture.

 

[JReducation]

Does not make sense to you because you never been an Opus Dei member.
Opus Dei preaches one thing to the outside world, but inside doors, the teachings are totally different.
People join Opus Dei expecting one spirituality but slowly you start to understand that things are different.
They preach that they advocate for “the liberty of the conscience” but as soon as you join you find out that you can not choose your confessor nor your spiritual director, both are assigned to you.
They preach that “we are all God’s children, and out of 100 souls, He’s interested in all 100!”, but as soon as you join Opus Dei you start to see that you’re slowly discourage to spend time with your friends that do not want to participate in Opus Dei’s activities.
I could give you hundred of samples like this, but I think that you get the picture.

How is this different from any other institute?

When I joined my community my spiritual director and confessor were assigned by the superior. I had two choices, not more.

We not only did not spend time with non Franciscan friends, but we did not spend time with relatives either. We still don’t. We spend very little time with people who are not Franciscan or Dominicans. This dates back to St. Francis, who taught us to be brothers to all men. But brotherhood or being a child of God does not mean that we are all called to the same spirit and charism. Sometimes, we must put distance between us and others in order to stay focussed and not be distracted by that which is outside of our respective charisms.

I remember a very good friend of mine who was a Dominican. Her father died. I was sent to deliver the news. Her mother wanted the daughter to be with her for the funeral. Mother told me to deliver a message to the mother. The message was very simple. “Sister and the rest of the community will be with you in prayer and in the Eucharist. It is the best and richest gift that we can offer you and your husband at this time.” The sister did not go to her father’s funeral.

My sister married when I was a novice. My family wanted to send me a ticket to fly me to her wedding. My superior did not think it was a good idea because there would be lay people at the wedding. I was given permission to call my sister on her wedding day and speak to her for 10 minutes. In those days there was no such thing as unlimitted long distance. Long distance calls had to be short.

I was invited to a pro-life conference. I was told that I could go ony if another brother goes along. This way, there will be another Franciscan with whom to speak.

I know that the Missionaries of Charity do not entertain friends who are lay or who belong to other religious communities. However, they are still our sisters and they love all of us.

I’m not Opus Dei, but what you have described is no different from what other institutes practice, especially the more conventual ones. I’m wondering if St. Jose Maria and his successors didn’t just borrow from the conventual and secular orders of old… Is that a possibility?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LoyalViews]

Does not make sense to you because you never been an Opus Dei member.
Opus Dei preaches one thing to the outside world, but inside doors, the teachings are totally different.
People join Opus Dei expecting one spirituality but slowly you start to understand that things are different.
They preach that they advocate for “the liberty of the conscience” but as soon as you join you find out that you can not choose your confessor nor your spiritual director, both are assigned to you.
They preach that “we are all God’s children, and out of 100 souls, He’s interested in all 100!”, but as soon as you join Opus Dei you start to see that you’re slowly discourage to spend time with your friends that do not want to participate in Opus Dei’s activities.
I could give you hundred of samples like this, but I think that you get the picture.

Like Brother said, it’s normal. You decided to join, you should know the expectations, and what will be needed of you. Of course, you are free not to join.

As an ex-Opus Dei member I don’t know which testimonies you read, but I assure you that they are not false. I do not have any angst against Opus Dei, I just don’t agree the way that they force their members to live their spiritual path. By the way, Opus Dei is not an Order, is a Prelature
Also, people like you were saying the same about the ex-Legionaries and now we know that they were saying the truth…

There was more proof for the misgoings-ons in the Legionaries than there is for the Opus Dei.

Maybe you had a misunderstanding of the Opus Dei before you joined. When you join the Opus Dei, you are expected to be interested in the spirituality of the Opus Dei, that’s why you join. Just as you would join the Dominicans, or the Jesuits, or the Franciscans, or the Basilians. Simple

 

[Marie5890]

You’re putting together two things that don’t belong together.

Absolute obedience is not blind. Absolute obedience means that unless you’re commanded to sin, you obey and ask no questions.

I’m so tired of Catholics who bring up the sex abuse scandal every time that obedience is mentioned. It seem that the sex abuse scandal has become the American Catholic excuse for doing away with obedience as the great Catholic Masters taught it.

The Masters never taught anyone to sexually abuse children or to hide crimes. Trust me, there was a lot of sexual abuse in their times. Francis of Assisi lived during a time when priests lived with women, men, children and when bishops stole from the people and gave to the king. Not once does he say in his rule that one must do any of these things if ordered to do so. He commands absolute obedience, without question in all matters that are not sinful.

Let’s stop with the comparisons between sex abuse and obedience. Those who knowingly did what was wrong, were not doing what the Masters have taught us. Please stop telling people that it’s not safe or that it’s wrong to obey without questioning. That is contrary to our Catholic tradition. Our Catholic tradition has always taught that it is holy to obey and that obedience is the highest and most noble virtue.

It is wrong to obey what is sinful. It is Christ-like good to obey, even when the other side is mistaken. Please keep sin and absolute obedience separate and stop hurting Christian Spiritual Theology. Catholics are becoming the worse enemies of Catholic spirituality. That’s sad. We want to rewrite it. I can see why radical traditionalists have knee-jerk reactions sometimes. You can object to the sexual abuse scandal. You cannot equate it to the teaching of the masters concerning absolute obedience. When you do so, you’re rewriting Christian theology.

One more thing, Copernicus was never asked not to pose his theories. In fact, Pope Clement VII, when he heard of Copernicus’ theories was gratified and decided that the calendar needed some revisions. It is not clear whether Copernicus was a priest, but it is clear that he was a Dominican. Dominicans follow the rule of St. Augustine, absolute obedience. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect that Copernicus would disobey. Copernicus would have understood the rights of authority better than most of us. He was a Doctor of Canon Law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you Bro. JR.
I have never heard obedience explained like that to me. Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever had it explained to me ever. I’ve pretty much been left to “figure it out” on my own w/o any direction.

 

[mariafransisca2]

Here are the works by St. Jose Maria Escriva
escrivaworks.org/

You can download using Win Website Downloader
download.cnet.com/WinWSD-WebSite-Downloader/3000-2377_4-10562531.html

You can watch him online (see him in person)
youtube.com/user/josemariaescriva?blend=3&ob=5

You can download the videos using atube catcher
download.cnet.com/aTube-Catcher/3000-2071_4-10969422.html

I would say that St. Jose Maria Escriva is holy, and it is the member of Opus Dei who do the corporal mortification without discretion and love that is making it seem like a sect. And also the Da Vinci Code (which is erroneous and dangerous) has greatly contributed to this. But Opus Dei is the work of God.

I love St. Jose Maria Escriva and Opus Dei.

 

[roelblomsma]

Thanks again for your reply. Please understand that I am trying to learn here. I hope you have the patience to continue our conversation.

It is wrong to obey what is sinful. It is Christ-like good to obey, even when the other side is mistaken. Please keep sin and absolute obedience separate and stop hurting Christian Spiritual Theology. Catholics are becoming the worse enemies of Catholic spirituality. That’s sad. We want to rewrite it. I can see why radical traditionalists have knee-jerk reactions sometimes.

I don’t see how it is Christ-like to be obedient. Jesus didn’t really obey the pharasees or the rules of sabath. I mean, I’d definitely choose His side on the matter, but especially because His arguments were better, which I believe is obviously because He is God.

And why is it wrong to disobey when your superior is mistaken. Wouldn’t that be similar as to feeding a lie. I guess everything that reality is what God wants it to be, and thus if someone (say a superior or a priest or what so ever) strays from that reality by giving orders based on things that are not reallity, by following them you would be led away from God.

One more thing, Copernicus was never asked not to pose his theories. In fact, Pope Clement VII, when he heard of Copernicus’ theories was gratified and decided that the calendar needed some revisions. It is not clear whether Copernicus was a priest, but it is clear that he was a Dominican. Dominicans follow the rule of St. Augustine, absolute obedience. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect that Copernicus would disobey. Copernicus would have understood the rights of authority better than most of us. He was a Doctor of Canon Law.
¨/QUOTE]

Sorry, I meant Gallileo. He was put into jail because of the fact that he believed the earth was turning around the sun, right? As we now know, the earth is in fact turning around the sun, because appearently God wanted it so. So, in my opinion, with all do respect, but the holy leader that put Gallileo in prison, did so in direct contradiction with God. Now, appearantly it is not a sin to put someone in jail because he has other ideas, but it isn’t exacly Christ-like, or is it. So was it a good thing that his subordinates executes his orders or not.

And what about Marcial Marciel, who also mentioned absolute obedience. The founder of the Legion of Christ, and a good friend of Pope John Paul II (and I thruly hope it was because he wasn’t informed well). This friend of satan (there is no other discription that comes to mind) was a drug addict that violated thousands of children and, hear here, could do so for decenia because nobody questioned his authority or orders. Talking about hurting the Catholic Church. (And this is exactly why I brought up the matter of sexual abuse. The church has ordered for decenia or maby for centuries to deny it and to ignore it. Were these orders by the church in the name of God or in the name of someone else. And besides, as long as the Church preaches against sex before marriage, homosexuals, anticonceptives etc., they should give the example themselves and ban homosexual and pedofile priests at once, expell them from the church. Else it become hypocracy.

So again the question. Absolute obedience of human beings that might be your superiors. Is it a good thing or is reason implemented in our minds by God to question and to go against orders of superiors the moment one finds out these orders are based on lies, which in some cases no doubt come from the father of all lies.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t see how it is Christ-like to be obedient. Jesus didn’t really obey the pharasees or the rules of sabath.

Actually, he did. Be very careful not to fall into a Protestant mode of reading scripture. Jesus observed all of the Jewish prescriptions. That’s why he goes to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover. That’s why he tells the Jews to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s”. Not all of the Pharisees were evil. Jesus himself may have been a Pharisee and so may have some of his Apostles.

Jesus opposed the abuse of the people. That’s why he tells them “The Shabbat was made for man, not man for the Shabbat.” In other words, the Shabbat was a means to holiness. Jesus gets into an argument with them, precisely because they want to command sin. The Shabbat was not to be used to sin. They wanted to deny food to the hungry. That is a grave sin. He never opposed the legitimate exercise of authority, be it by Rome or by the Jewish authorities.

And why is it wrong to disobey when your superior is mistaken.

For starters, you can be excommunicated at best. Worse case scenario, you can be committing a mortal sin and end up in hell.

Again, steer clear of Protestant spirituality. They don’t understand the spiritual life the way that the Masters taught it. I love them dearly, but they are mistaken on this one. They confuse mistake with moral error. They are not the same. If my superior tells me to do something a certain way and I believe that there is a better way to do it, I still have to do it his way. He has the right to command and I have the obligation to obey. This is a legitimate exercise of authority. He is not commanding something sinful. He is commanding what he believes to be the best course of action. If there is a mistake, it’s a human mistake. It has nothing to do with Satan. Satan is not interested in the neutral. He goes for the jugular. He wants you to disobey. He wants you to challenge your superior and how much more you know. He wants you to nurture your pride. He wants you to enter into a conflict with your brother. This agrees with him.

That’s why the masters tell us that obedience is pleasing to God and man, because obedience is an act of love. It has nothing to do with getting it right. Pilate was wrong. Caiaphas was also wrong. But Jesus and Mary submitted to their legitimate authority. To make sure that we understood that Pilate was exercising legitimate authority, Christ says to him, “You would have no power over me, had it not been given to you from above.” Pilate had the authority to put Jesus to death. What he could not do was make Jesus commit a sin by avoiding the cross.

Wouldn’t that be similar as to feeding a lie. I guess everything that reality is what God wants it to be, and thus if someone (say a superior or a priest or what so ever) strays from that reality by giving orders based on things that are not reallity, by following them you would be led away from God.

There are many things that are neutral, even if they are mistaken.

And what about Marcial Marciel, who also mentioned absolute obedience.

(And this is exactly why I brought up the matter of sexual abuse. The church has ordered for decenia or maby for centuries to deny it and to ignore it. Were these orders by the church in the name of God or in the name of someone else. And besides, as long as the Church preaches against sex before marriage, homosexuals, anticonceptives etc., they should give the example themselves and ban homosexual and pedofile priests at once, expell them from the church.

Moral law does not allow the Church to expel these men from the Church. They can be dismissed from the clerical state or from religious life; but they must be allowed to remain Catholic and to receive the Sacraments. Canon Lawyers are wondering if dismissing is such a good idea. It rids the Church of a problem, but it releases a person to do damage outside. Dismissal does not protect the innocent. There is a question on the table, “is there another alternative, such as confinement to a house?” The Church has never had a formal policy that promotes or defends such sins as you posted above. It’s unfair to say that. There have been and always will be individuals in authority who will make these mistakes. Do not confuse them with the Church.

Just because they’re red, does not make apples and tomatoes the same thing. The Legionnaires were bound to obey Fr. Marciel as their founder and superior on all matters where he exercised legitimate authority, even if he was mistaken. They were never bound to obey him in sinful matters. That is not the meaning of absolute obedience. Absolute obedience sorts out the sinful from the non-sinful. It complies with the non-sinful without complaining, questioning, or murmuring. It refuses to do the sinful.

Fr. Marciel was not the only sinful founder. Do you think that every founder of a religious community was a saint?

As to the current state of his soul, that’s not up to us to speculate. We would be committing a sin to do so.

So again the question. Absolute obedience of human beings that might be your superiors. Is it a good thing or is reason implemented in our minds by God to question and to go against orders of superiors the moment one finds out these orders are based on lies, which in some cases no doubt come from the father of all lies.

One may never comply with sin. One must always submit to legitimate authority, because it is pleasing to God and man.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Edmundus1581]

Does not make sense to you because you never been an Opus Dei member.
**Opus Dei preaches one thing to the outside world, but inside doors, the teachings are totally different.**People join Opus Dei expecting one spirituality but slowly you start to understand that things are different.
They preach that they advocate for “the liberty of the conscience” but as soon as you join you find out that you can not choose your confessor nor your spiritual director, both are assigned to you.
They preach that “we are all God’s children, and out of 100 souls, He’s interested in all 100!”, but as soon as you join Opus Dei you start to see that you’re slowly discourage to spend time with your friends that do not want to participate in Opus Dei’s activities.
I could give you hundred of samples like this, but I think that you get the picture.

That seems to me to be the main point of this thread. I neither agree nor disagree with the statement, but want to emphasise its significance.

The thread has become diverted with a more general discussion on “obedience”, and I’ve participated in this, so I’ll share in the responsibility.

Mark12 has provided his opinion, from first hand experience, that what he experienced in Opus Dei is significantly different from what he expected, and from what Opus Dei professes. He is entitled to that opinion, and he’s entitled to present his supporting case.

I have no opinion one way or other on this issue, as I have not been a member of Opus Dei, and I’m not considering it, however the OP is considering Opus Dei, and so in asking whether the negative testimonies are true will benefit most from first hand knowledge.

The dispute over what “obedience” is has also distracted from what I think the critics are saying, that, in practice, in Opus Dei the superiors take it too far, and further than enquirers are led to believe. Again, I have no information or opinion on this, but if someone is inquiring, and asks for more information, then those with personal experience are entitled to tell it as they’ve seen it.

There is nothing inherently disobedient or sinful in making one’s personal experience public (obviously, the circumstances and implied confidentiality are pertinent), or in paying attention to bad things one has heard about an organisation one is thinking of joining.

 

[Danquayle76]

You’re putting together two things that don’t belong together.

Absolute obedience is not blind. Absolute obedience means that unless you’re commanded to sin, you obey and ask no questions.

I’m so tired of Catholics who bring up the sex abuse scandal every time that obedience is mentioned. It seem that the sex abuse scandal has become the American Catholic excuse for doing away with obedience as the great Catholic Masters taught it.

The Masters never taught anyone to sexually abuse children or to hide crimes. Trust me, there was a lot of sexual abuse in their times. Francis of Assisi lived during a time when priests lived with women, men, children and when bishops stole from the people and gave to the king. Not once does he say in his rule that one must do any of these things if ordered to do so. He commands absolute obedience, without question in all matters that are not sinful.

Let’s stop with the comparisons between sex abuse and obedience. Those who knowingly did what was wrong, were not doing what the Masters have taught us. Please stop telling people that it’s not safe or that it’s wrong to obey without questioning. That is contrary to our Catholic tradition. Our Catholic tradition has always taught that it is holy to obey and that obedience is the highest and most noble virtue.

It is wrong to obey what is sinful. It is Christ-like good to obey, even when the other side is mistaken. Please keep sin and absolute obedience separate and stop hurting Christian Spiritual Theology. Catholics are becoming the worse enemies of Catholic spirituality. That’s sad. We want to rewrite it. I can see why radical traditionalists have knee-jerk reactions sometimes. You can object to the sexual abuse scandal. You cannot equate it to the teaching of the masters concerning absolute obedience. When you do so, you’re rewriting Christian theology.

Br. JR, OSF

AMEN!!!

 

[Danquayle76]

Thanks again for your reply. Please understand that I am trying to learn here. I hope you have the patience to continue our conversation.

Sorry, I meant Gallileo. He was put into jail because of the fact that he believed the earth was turning around the sun, right? As we now know, the earth is in fact turning around the sun, because appearently God wanted it so. So, in my opinion, with all do respect, but the holy leader that put Gallileo in prison, did so in direct contradiction with God. Now, appearantly it is not a sin to put someone in jail because he has other ideas, but it isn’t exacly Christ-like, or is it. So was it a good thing that his subordinates executes his orders or not.

Galileo ended up in hot water not so much for his ideas, but how he expressed them. Pope Urban VIII had requested Galileo to privately compose a treatise listing the pros and cons of the heliocentric view of the universe. However, rather than keeping this treatise privately Galileo published his response to Urban in Italian, which was seen as a challenge to the Pope as by publishing in the vernacular he seemed to be appealing directly to the people against the Pope. Even worse was the content of his book. It took the form of a dialogue in which the Pope was portrayed as an idiot!

Finally, from a purely scientific view Galileo’s Dialogues deserves condemnation as the work is more polemic than scientific treatise. Even by the standards of the time, Galileo’s work was shoddy and contained little value. Galileo only wrote his classic Two New Sciences, which justly deserves praise, after he had been placed under arrest.

While we might not agree with the treatment Galileo received we need to recognize that he was primarily in trouble for being disrespectful toward the Pope not for his scientific views. In addition he never went to jail, but was rather simply placed under house arrest.

 

[roelblomsma]

Finally, from a purely scientific view Galileo’s Dialogues deserves condemnation as the work is more polemic than scientific treatise. Even by the standards of the time, Galileo’s work was shoddy and contained little value. Galileo only wrote his classic Two New Sciences, which justly deserves praise, after he had been placed under arrest.

While we might not agree with the treatment Galileo received we need to recognize that he was primarily in trouble for being disrespectful toward the Pope not for his scientific views. In addition he never went to jail, but was rather simply placed under house arrest.

Ok, didn’t know that.

 

[Mark12]

How is this different from any other institute?

When I joined my community my spiritual director and confessor were assigned by the superior. I had two choices, not more.

We not only did not spend time with non Franciscan friends, but we did not spend time with relatives either. We still don’t. We spend very little time with people who are not Franciscan or Dominicans. This dates back to St. Francis, who taught us to be brothers to all men. But brotherhood or being a child of God does not mean that we are all called to the same spirit and charism. Sometimes, we must put distance between us and others in order to stay focussed and not be distracted by that which is outside of our respective charisms.

I remember a very good friend of mine who was a Dominican. Her father died. I was sent to deliver the news. Her mother wanted the daughter to be with her for the funeral. Mother told me to deliver a message to the mother. The message was very simple. “Sister and the rest of the community will be with you in prayer and in the Eucharist. It is the best and richest gift that we can offer you and your husband at this time.” The sister did not go to her father’s funeral.

My sister married when I was a novice. My family wanted to send me a ticket to fly me to her wedding. My superior did not think it was a good idea because there would be lay people at the wedding. I was given permission to call my sister on her wedding day and speak to her for 10 minutes. In those days there was no such thing as unlimitted long distance. Long distance calls had to be short.

I was invited to a pro-life conference. I was told that I could go ony if another brother goes along. This way, there will be another Franciscan with whom to speak.

I know that the Missionaries of Charity do not entertain friends who are lay or who belong to other religious communities. However, they are still our sisters and they love all of us.

I’m not Opus Dei, but what you have described is no different from what other institutes practice, especially the more conventual ones. I’m wondering if St. Jose Maria and his successors didn’t just borrow from the conventual and secular orders of old… Is that a possibility?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother, thanks for taking the time to answer my post. But your answer shows that you have no understanding of what Opus Dei is about.
I totally agree when you say that what I described is expected for religious communities or a conventual live.
But Opus Dei is not a religious order, and Opus Dei members do not make vows.
And that’s another issue that we have ex-Opus Dei members.
Opus Dei’s premise is that you do not need to be a priest or a monk to be saint (or on the path to be a saint) , that a lay person, living his daily life in the middle of the world can be a saint to.
But once you joined, you start to realize that Opus Dei’s demands are more for monks than for lay people.
All the samples that you mentioned above (not spending time with relatives/ no be able to attend funerals and marriage/ etc, etc.) apply to all the numerary members of Opus Dei.
So you joined Opus Dei under the premise that you’ll be a lay person but later you start to realize that you’re not a lay person, you’re a monk.
Looking from the outside some people can think that this is not a big deal. And it is. The calling to be a monk and live a conventual live is totally different than to be a lay person.

 

[Mark12]

Like Brother said, it’s normal. You decided to join, you should know the expectations, and what will be needed of you. Of course, you are free not to join.

There was more proof for the misgoings-ons in the Legionaries than there is for the Opus Dei.

Maybe you had a misunderstanding of the Opus Dei before you joined. When you join the Opus Dei, you are expected to be interested in the spirituality of the Opus Dei, that’s why you join. Just as you would join the Dominicans, or the Jesuits, or the Franciscans, or the Basilians. Simple

Thanks for taking time to answer my post.
I just answered another similar post, so I’ll not repeat myself.
Regarding the misgoings of the Legionaries… ex-members filed complaints with the Vatican since 1970, and took almost 40 years to finally do something…
Regarding the misgoings of Opus Dei… we’ve been filing complaints with the Vatican for the last 15 years, so we do not loose the faith that sooner the Vatican will take some measures…

 

[jwinch2]

u start to realize that Opus Dei’s demands are more for monks than for lay people.
All the samples that you mentioned above (not spending time with relatives/ no be able to attend funerals and marriage/ etc, etc.) apply to all the numerary members of Opus Dei.
So you joined Opus Dei under the premise that you’ll be a lay person but later you start to realize that you’re not a lay person, you’re a monk.
Looking from the outside some people can think that this is not a big deal. And it is. The calling to be a monk and live a conventual live is totally different than to be a lay person.

It is my understanding that Opus Dei is quite open about the lives that their Numerary members would be living. The idea that their salaries go to the group, they live in community, and are expected to be celibate is public knowledge. Are you suggesting that information is hidden from potential Numerary members?

 

[Corki]

To the OP: what do you understand a “sect” to be? Sects are not necessarily a bad thing in the Church.

 

[aea]

I’ve read several of the St. Josemaria classics and they’re good. I know an Opus Dei numerary well for several years now. I don’t find anything controversial about it BUT like all groups of people I imagine there’s good and bad. Regarding obedience, yes, Catholics should be obedient but should also realize the Church is both human and divine, so there can be ambiguities and inconsistencies in spiritual direction. St. John of the Cross illuminates in the spiritual ladder work how things aren’t always clear when it comes to vocations and living one’s vocation. However, from my knowledge Opus Dei stresses the basics, i.e. Sunday Mass and weekly confession.

Full disclosure: Once I received a dispensation to skip Sunday Mass and make it up doing the week. I obeyed, yet later criticized the pastor directly or perhaps more likely, IF I remember right, in a round about way. There were interpersonal conflicts. I still try to figure out how I became exempted from Sunday Mass. This same pastor cautioned me against being involved in Opus Dei.

The Church is both human and divine. That human “element” will make for complexities no matter what the order.

Of course I’m not a professed religious, and not a student of canon law. The numerary I know said Catholicism, to be practiced, doesn’t require an advanced degree.

I suppose there’s something to be said for simplicity.

But I would caution all to remember that salvation is individual, and comes with temptation. Organizations don’t save people, including Opus Dei. God’s grace does. And while I can’t quote Scripture to support this, it is widely held that God works in mysterious ways.

Alvaro

 

[stevusmagnus]

traditio.com/tradlib/obedienc.txt

WHAT IS OBEDIENCE?

Obedience is the carrying out of orders from one’s lawful superiors with the
intention of carrying out their will. Catholics especially prize obedience,
because of Christ’s own example and because in their lawful superiors they see
the representatives of Christ himself.

Let every soul be subject to higher powers - for there is no power but
from God. --Romans 13:1

CATHOLIC OBEDIENCE IS ALWAYS OBEDIENCE TO THE FAITH

It is the teaching of the Church that obedience is part of justice, one of the
four cardinal virtues, which are in turn subordinate to the theological virtues
of faith, hope and charity. Faith is greater than obedience! Therefore, if
obedience acts to harm the faith, then a Catholic has a duty not to obey his
superior.

Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God;
therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things. – St. Thomas
Aquinas, Supreme Doctor of the Church, Summa Theologica IIa-IIae, Q.104

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides
that which we have preached you, let him be anathema. – Galatians 1:8

THE FAITH AND TRADITION

Now the truths of our faith were received even by our Lord himself as a
tradition or handing down from his Father.

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine but His that sent
me. --John 7:16

Jesus said to them, Amen, Amen I say to you, the Son cannot do anything of
himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever He
doth, these things the Son also doth in like manner. --John 5:19

Likewise, our Lord hands the Faith down to us as a tradition through those
of our lawful superiors who are obedient to the Faith. Because the words
which thou gavest to me, I have given to them. – John 17:8

OBEDIENCE WITHIN TRADITION

But many Catholics, forgetting that Catholic obedience is relative to the Faith
and Tradition, think obedience is absolute, with only one opposite,
disobedience. They are mistaken. True obedience has two opposites:

Error by defect - DISOBEDIENCE. The sin of our first parents and the
origin of all sin in the world was a sin of DISOBEDIENCE.

Error by excess - FALSE OBEDIENCE. Excessive zeal even for obedience, if
indiscreet, will surely lead to a great fall.

TRUE OBEDIENCE

According to the supreme theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, true obedience is a
balance between twin errors of defect and excess, which are disobedience and
false obedience (IIa IIae, Q104, 5 ad 3).

Today this second error is common among Catholics who, when they follow orders
to depart from Tradition, falsely think that they are being obedient.

Obedience is the servant of Faith, not of obedience. --Spanish Proverb

God must always be obeyed no matter what He may ask of us. Such was the
Patriarch Abraham’s obedience. Human superiors need not be obeyed if their
orders violate the Faith. Such was the martyr’s obedience.

Error by defect - DISOBEDIENCE. My own conscience is my absolute
authority.

Error by excess - FALSE OBEDIENCE. The Church hierarchy is the absolute
authority. Obedience has no limits.

TRUE OBEDIENCE. God through the Catholic Church has absolute authority
over my conscience, BUT in the last resort God meant me to judge, if His
hierarchy is departing from His teaching. Obedience to men has limits (cf.
Galatians 1:8-9).

Error by defect - DISOBEDIENCE. The Pope has no authority over me.

Error by excess - FALSE OBEDIENCE. The Pope is infallible in everything
he says and does.

TRUE OBEDIENCE. The Pope, as Vicar of Christ, is given by Christ direct
authority over the whole Church, BUT he is not infallible in everything he says
and does.

Error by defect - DISOBEDIENCE. No respect at all is allowed to
superiors.

Error by excess - FALSE OBEDIENCE. I may never criticize any superior
under any circumstance.

TRUE OBEDIENCE. Lawful superiors are to be respected as the
representatives of Christ, BUT if they depart gravely from the Catholic Faith, I
may even rebuke them in public (cf. Galatians 2:11-14).

Error by defect - DISOBEDIENCE. I will not obey men, even pretending to
be servants of God, be they bishops or priests.

Error by excess - FALSE OBEDIENCE. I will obey the bishops or priests
even when the disobey God by forsaking Tradition.

TRUE OBEDIENCE. I will gladly obey the appointed servants of God,
legitimate bishops or priests, BUT not when I know they are leading men away
from God.

Error by defect - DISOBEDIENCE. I protest against the leaders of the
Church claiming to have authority.

Error by excess - FALSE OBEDIENCE. Whoever protests against anything a
Church official does or says is Protestant.

TRUE OBEDIENCE. I will always respect the Church authorities as such (cf.
John 18:23, Acts 23:5), BUT I need not follow Church leaders who violate the
traditions of the Faith.

Error by defect - DISOBEDIENCE. Church punishments like excommunication
or suspension are meaningless.

Error by excess - FALSE OBEDIENCE. Even unjust or improper suspensions or excommunications are legally binding.

TRUE OBEDIENCE. Church punishments are terrifying instruments of God’s
law when valid, BUT when they are without foundation they are not valid (1917
Code, c. 2242, 1983 Code, c. 1321).

Error by defect - DISOBEDIENCE. I will attend no Catholic Mass.

Error by excess - FALSE OBEDIENCE. I will attend even a Protestantized
Mass if my superiors tell me to.

TRUE OBEDIENCE. I must attend the Catholic Mass, BUT I am not obliged to
attend a Protestantized Mass, because it destroys the Catholic Faith.

 

[JReducation]

traditio.com/tradlib/obedienc.txt

Why did you leave this quote out.

**Of Perfect and Imperfect Obedience.

The Lord says in the Gospel: he “that doth not renounce all that he possesseth cannot be” a "disciple " and “he that will save his life, shall lose it.”

That man leaves all he possesses and loses his body and his soul who abandons himself wholly to obedience in the hands of his superior, and whatever he does and says—provided he himself knows that what he does is good and not contrary to his [the superior’s] will—is true obedience.

And if at times a subject sees things which would be better or more useful to his soul than those which the superior commands him, let him sacrifice his will to God, let him strive to fulfil the work enjoined by the superior.

This is true and charitable obedience which is pleasing to God and to one’s neighbor.

Rule of St. Francis of Assisi**

Still binding to 1.7 million Catholics to this day.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[stevusmagnus]

JReducation:

St. Francis of Assisi binds his sons, under pain of mortal sin and excommunication to obey without questioning. He explains that even when authority is in error, we must obey and not question

St. Francis of Assisi taught that we, as Catholics, must obey error? To the contrary we must oppose error because it is the enemy of truth.

Also, what if the Pope says one thing and your Bishop or superior says to do the opposite? Then you follow the Pope and get suspended, yet Rome refuses to hear your appeal, deferring to the Bishop.

Moral law does not allow the Church to expel these men [serial pedophiles/ child molesters] from the Church. They can be dismissed from the clerical state or from religious life; but they must be allowed to remain Catholic and to receive the Sacraments.

This is completely untrue. These men have absolutely no guaranteed right to the sacraments and can indeed be excommunicated. Catholics who divorce and remarry are not even allowed to receive the sacraments much less child molesters.

As for OD, even if one “knows” what they are getting into coming in, it still doesn’t make the practices of the organization necessarily good.

As a previous poster pointed out, the Legionaries had insane rules dictating how their female lay members must peel and orange and other such nonsense. It was downright cult-like and the Vatican had to do a thorough investigation to weed out such odd overly controlling behaviors.

If you realize in conscience that any organization is violating your basic human rights and dignity, you shouldn’t simply leave the organization and let them harm others. You should completely refuse to obey the unjust orders and then work to spread the stories of abuse so that the organization changes its practices or is forced to change them.

Evil is evil. One should never “blindly” obey authority especially when they order things that would harm your faith. We don’t check our brains at the door as Catholics, even Catholics who join religious orders or lay institutes.

If a priest commands you to stop saying your rosary, you disobey. This would be deleterious to your spiritual life. One could never morally obey such an order. Our Lady told us to say it daily.

If a priest orders you to peel your orange using 5 pages of detailed directions, you disobey. His authority is limited to improving your spiritual life and has nothing to do with culinary practices.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Why did you leave this quote out

.

It was nowhere in the article.

It is also nowhere in the rule of St. Francis

db.ofmcap.org/pls/ofmcap/consultazione.mostra_pagina?id_pagina=1919