Bro. would you say that how one explains it or teaches it depends on the background ones comes from. So a Jesuit may explain it with different words than a non- religious even though the message is the same?
I think that is where people are getting off track. Even though the message take a different form, the message and teachings are the same.
Definitely.
Even different religious orders are going to come at the same subject from different angles and both are right.
There are, to this day, two definitions of grace floating around. One is Jesuit and the other is Dominican. For the longest time the Jesuits and Dominicans argued and challenged that the other side was wrong until a Franciscan pope intervened and threatened to excommunicate all of the Dominicans and all of the Jesuits if they didn’t stop accusing each other of heresy. So they looked to the pope to choose and he said that he was not going to get involved in an argument between the two most powerful religious orders in the Church, but one thing he could say, there was nothing contrary to doctrine in either definition. It was a matter of language and perspective and as a Franciscan, neither satisfied him. LOL
One has to remember that truth is one. There are not contradicting truths. Truth does not contradict itself. What you learn in a diocesan (secular) seminary, a theological college, or a religious order is the same truth.
There are going to be differences in the language that you use, the tone that you use, and even which truth you choose to focus on.
For example:
Dominican: focuses on truth itself. What is the truth? He’s very Thomistic
Jesuit: focuses on the mystical dimension of truth. What is God saying through this truth?
Franciscan: focuses on the incarnational dimension of truth. What does this truth tell us about God and man?
All of these are valid questions and the answers are legitimate.
Then you get into the area of ministry and again you’ll find differences.
A diocesan priest, because he is a secular Catholic, is not bound to any particular school of spirituality, nor is he bound to any religious community, nor has he been formed in any single tradition. He’s probably been formed in several traditions. In the end, he picks and chooses what works for him.
You get a man like Benedict XVI who was formed in Aquinas, Augustine and Bonaventure, but ditched Aquinas for Augustine and Bonaventure.
John Paul II was formed in Aquinas, Augustine and Bonaventure, but chooses Aquinas and ditches the other two.
Francis is formed in Ignatius. The other three are mentioned in passing. If I were to guess, I would guess that there is more Augustinian thought in Ignatius than Thomistic. This would make it easier for a Jesuit to be inclined to embrace Franciscan spirituality, because Francis and Bonaventure were very Augustinian. The Jesuit would have more in common with the Franciscan than with the Dominican or the diocesan priest.
These men also have a different life experience. Let’s take the fact that a diocesan priest lives in a world where everyone is a cleric (deacon, priest or bishop). Many diocesan priests have never met a Brother, must less understand what consecrated life is. They have read about it in Canon Law. They can paraphrase Canon Law or Vatican II. They don’t have a live experience with it. For such a man things like living with others, praying with others, eating with others, simplicity, ownership of material things, or collegiality are not part of his life experience. For the religious, they are everything. Take these away from a Jesuit, Franciscan or Dominican and he hurts. This explains a Jesuit pope preferring to live in a hotel than in the papal palace. In a hotel, you meet many people as you go in and out. You can sit with different people in the dining room. You have mass and prayers at very specific times, just like in a religious house.
All of these things are going to color the way that you speak. They color how you do things. They color your priorities. They color how you see the Church.
I heard a wonderful talk by Archbishop Dinoia on Sunday. He’s the Vice President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission under the CDF. Two things struck me. The first thing that struck me was that he wore full Dominican habit, not a cassock and Roman collar. The other bishops present wore cassocks.
The second thing that struck me was that during his talk, was that he said that the only thing that kept him sane living in Rome was that he would think of his Dominican brothers back home. He has to live alone in an apartment up the street from the Vatican where he works, rather than with his brothers in a priory. He soothes himself by staying in touch with his brothers and staying informed.
What I’m trying to show here is how religious life influences those of us who are religious. We don’t just follow rules for our religious orders. That’s not religious life. We BECOME different people and very different from other Catholics. Our gift to the Church and to the laity is to show you what life in the Kingdom will look like. If you want to get a glimpse of heaven, look at our way of life.
This influences how we teach, preach and even how we converse. I’ve been trying to say that to people on CAF, but they either ignore me or I get nasty remarks back. It’s funny, because the pope addressed this in his interview for the Jesuit magazine. He spoke at great length on the Jesuit Order to show us where he’s coming from. He’s telling us, “I’m a Jesuit and don’t forget it.” We keep saying, “You’re the pope and don’t forget it.”
I had on my black suit and my Roman collar. The brother I was with also had his black suit and Roman collar. He is priest. Someone thought I was a priest. I clarified and pointed to the other brother and said, “No. He’s a priest.” Now watch this. The woman responded,
