Oh… Wow. Good to know, Thanks for the response.You don’t have to be clergy. St. Catherine of Siena was not a religious. She was a Lay Dominican. St. Thomas More and St. Joan of Arc were Secular Franciscans. St. Francis of Assisi was a lay brother and the list goes on.
I’m not saying that you have to use the discipline. I’m just dimistifying it. It’s not for the clergy. Actually, it has its roots in monastic life, which is lay not clerical.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
You’re very welcome. I always like to help readers understand that most of these practices originated with lay movements. We have a tendency to think that this is for clerics. But what most people don’t know is that monastic and mendicant orders were not clerical movements. They were lay. The first monks and mendicants were lay men, not clerics. Clerics later joined these movements, because they wanted to live a consecrated life. Therefore, they left the secular world and entered religious life. That’s how you ended up with many priests who are both, clerics and religious.Oh… Wow. Good to know, Thanks for the response.
We live in a new covenant - the foundation of which is Christ Jesus. Jesus is our example and the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth.The answer to the first question is that we do not know if Christ used corporal discipline. Neither the scriptures nor sacred tradition affirm or deny it. But we do know that corporal discipline has been part of the Christian tradition from the first generation Christians. The Dessert Fathers and Mothers practiced it. It does form part of the Christian Tradition. Prior to that it was part of the Judeo tradition as well.
To deny something solely because it’s not included in scripture can be a grave error. Much has been revealed to the Church that is not found in scripture. That’s why we have the Church. The fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church. That being said, if this practice has existed since the early days of the Church and has been found to be virtuous by the Church, then it is not for us to question the practice itself.
We can question the individual’s motives and that is the job of the spiritual director. The spiritual director must carefully examine the individual to ascertain that the motives are virtuous. They can only be found virtuous if they are consistent with the faith of the Church, which is never in error.
Now let us look at the tripod upon which the faith of the Church rests: Sacred Tradition, first. The Magisterium, second and Sacred Scripture, third. The reason that Sacred Scripture comes in third is not because it is the least important, but because it came into existence after Tradition and Magisterium. It was the Church who decided what should be included and excluded from the canon of scripture. Many things were excluded for different reasons. Some were excluded because they were commonly known. Other things were excluded because they did not reflect what the Church believed. And other things were excluded because they could not be proven to be revealed truths.
Spiritual disciplines were not included in Sacred Scripture because they were commonly known and practiced by the first generation Christians. The same holds true for many dogmas. You will not find the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption or the word Trinity in Sacred Scripture. In fact, you do not find the word Sacrament in scripture or canonization. But we believe these are dogmas that must be held by every believer.
There is no explicit mention of religious life or the vowed life in scripture, but it is an essential part of the Church and all of the Apostolic Churches uphold this. Why? Because it is a tradition that has been handed down to us from the time of the Fathers of the Church. Along with this tradition there were handed down to us many disciplines, such as the use of the Discipline, which was included in the rules of St. Benedict and St. Basil, the father of monasticism for west and east respectively. Both of these fathers handed down a practice that had been in place before they organized the monastic movement into religious orders. They received it from the early monks and hermits that lived in the desert who had received their faith from the Apostles and the disciples of the Apostles.
We can’t argue this using scripture alone. That would be an invalid argument. Much has been handed down to us through Apostolic tradition, thus called Sacred Tradition. If we hold on to the idea that it must be in scripture, then we run the risk of having to call into question the many disciplines and doctrines that were handed down to us from the first Christians, but are not included in scripture.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Let us never forget that Scripture followed tradition. The Jedeo and Christian traditions were handed down by word of mouth and later written as Scripture. Not everything that was handed down was written. The early writers did not see the need to write many things, because they were understood by the community of believers.
Sacred Tradition cannot be lost. It is maintained to this day by the Church. This is a dogma of the Church that must be believed by all Catholics. Men, no matter how sinful, can alter, delete or set aside Sacred Tradition. The Holy Spirit does not allow it to happen. This is a teaching of the Church. Everything that has been handed down to us through Sacred Tradition is infallible and to be held by all. There is a difference between customs, disciplines and Sacred Tradition. Customs and disciplines are created by the Church or spirng up spontaneously through the grace of the Holy Spirit. These are not part of the deposit of faith. Therefore, the Church has the power and authority to change them or abrogate them.
I definitely agree with you. I’m just, like you, trying to help show our friend some of the logic behind these beliefs. Maybe you misunderstood my post.Sacred Tradition cannot be lost. It is maintained to this day by the Church. This is a dogma of the Church that must be believed by all Catholics. Men, no matter how sinful, can alter, delete or set aside Sacred Tradition. The Holy Spirit does not allow it to happen. This is a teaching of the Church. Everything that has been handed down to us through Sacred Tradition is infallible and to be held by all. There is a difference between customs, disciplines and Sacred Tradition. Customs and disciplines are created by the Church or spirng up spontaneously through the grace of the Holy Spirit. These are not part of the deposit of faith. Therefore, the Church has the power and authority to change them or abrogate them.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Let me understand you clearly - self beating is contained in Sacred Tradition? After all that is what this thread is about.
It is obvious that Paul was referring to asceticism practiced without God, asceticism trusted to achieve the desired result on its own. Asceticism practiced without God’s Spirit of Love achieves nothing. As 1 Corinthians 13:3 says, “If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.”
Corporal mortification is part of Sacred Tradition; I don’t know whether this particular form of mortification is Tradition with a capital “t”. JReducation is surely more knowledgeable than I about this. Tradition and Scripture certainly establish the precedent, though. And we do not feel confined to only practicing what is explicitly described in Scripture.
Not every word they said was true, but their doctrine was true. For example, Clement of Rome believed in the Phoenix’s existence and talks about it in his Epistle to the Corinthians as an analogy to the death and resurrection of Christ. Clement’s doctrine was sound but not every word he said was necessarily true. This is different from Scripture, in which the words are infallible.
The Magesterium was God-breathed
. Here’s a fascinating passage that relates this explicitly:The answer to this is actually an extremely beautiful piece of theology. We know that Sacred Tradition existed before Sacred Scripture did. Sacred Tradition is the infallible teaching of Christ passed on by word of mouth from the apostles; that existed from the moment they started teaching, and as every word Jesus spoke in life was infallible, the teachings the apostles passed on orally were infallible.
The answer, my friend, is that the early Church did not believe that it was necessary to include it in the canon of scripture, not that it did not believe in it being divine revelation. They did believe and taught that what they received from the Apostles through the Fathers was of divine revelation and was infallible and they taught this. You can find it in the writings of the Fathers themselves. They did not believe it was necessary to include in the canon that became the bible, because the purpose of the bible was to present the Messiah.
What St. Francis experienced is not revelation. It was a vision. Second, he did weigh it against scripture and then went to the Holy Father in Rome who confirmed what he discovered, which was to rebuild the Church. Third, if any Christian knew that God dwells in the hearts of men, it is St. Francis. Read is rule, his life and his admonitions.
How do you know this for a fact?
I don’t think your analogy is very good. Francis of Assisi experienced and acted on a private revelation, and private revelations are binding on no one save the ones to whom they are given (and not even them, if there is any legitimate confusion). That is entirely different from the infallible verbal teachings of Christ the apostles received and handed down. These are binding, for Christ protects the Church from error so that the Tradition will never be corrupted. And if you look over the course of its whole history, you’ll see she has taught the same things in all ages. That was one of many things that helped me to become Catholic.
Not the Tradition of the apostles, for it is protected by the Holy Spirit from any error.
The Scripture calls on us to obey the Magesterium, to adhere to the Sacred Traditions of the apostles, and to hold fast to the Scriptures. The Scriptures’ true meanings are of course known through the Tradition and Magesterium, for if we each rely on our own private interpretation based on what we feel the Spirit is telling us personally, we end up hopelessly divided. And Jesus says that those who do not hold fast to Him “scatter.” On the other hand, He prayed that His Church would be one, totally united, in John 17. The Catholic Church has remained united throughout her history, though people have broken off from her, abandoning her unity of sacrament and truth. The fact that people break from her does not negate her identity; it negates theirs. And all heresies fail and wilt away with time, but the Catholic Church has remained.
That doesn’t make sense, for Christ took up His Cross freely! He also calls on us, “anyone who would follow me must take up his cross and follow me.” This is a willfully chosen action He describes, else there would be no point in giving it. Martyrdom has its highest value when it is chosen, when we accept what is done to us of our own Free Will for the sake of Christ. This is what Jesus did for the world, choose suffering that we might be saved.
When I look at the incredible purity of the lives of the saints who practiced these flagellations, I have to be extremely dubious of your particular private interpretation of Scripture.
A wise perception. I think the people who object to corporal mortification often haven’t studied carefully the moral lives of the saints who practiced it.
Whoah! JR, you forgot John the Baptist, St. Arsenius and the desert hermits who lived almost all their lives in total solitude.
No, I did not forget them. A hermit is physically alone. He or she lives in silence and solitude while he prays with and for the other members of the Mystical Body. He is always very aware of the Communion of Saints. John and Arsenius were very aware of their relationship with humanity. They did not despise humanity. They loved humanity and they did what they had to do for the salvation of humanity. Therefore, they were active members of the community.
. Thanks for clarifying that for me; I didn’t understand what you were saying there.