Real tradition does not guarantee security

[JReducation]

I’ve been serving in the Church since I was about 20 years old. That’s an entire generation. During that time, I have spent hours studying Church history and traditions. While it is true that anti-clericalism is not new and neither is it new for some people to take it upon themselves to compete with the pope for authority, it is new for the man in the pew to do so.

Even in those days when monarchs and aristocrats competed with the pope’s authority, it was always with his temporal authority. The source of the conflict was always greed. It had nothing to do with faith, morals, church law or pastoral practices. The same was true on the front lines where ani-clericalism flourished.

What one sees today is that many Catholics put the pope under a microscope and justify themselves using very secular justifications. I was talking to one of brothers about this. The man is a doctor of canon law and civil law. He explained something to me that made a lot of sense. He said that even in the most democratic societies people acknowledged the rights of government and the rights of rulers. The greatest legal problem that he see in the Church is that growing tendency to ignore the rights of those who rule: pastors, religious superiors, bishops and pope. Instead, personal opinion is gradually being attributed a great deal more authority than people who are legitimately appointed to or elected to positions of the authority.

As I sat there listening to this rather interesting observation I thought about tradition. I know for a fact that in Catholic tradition, personal opinion has always yield to authority, even when authority is wrong. St. Ignatius of Loyola once told the Jesuits that even if something is white, if authority says that it’s black, they must see it as such. St. Francis said that as long as something is not a sin against the Commandments, then it must be obeyed, even if one knows that there is a better idea or something better for the soul. St. Thomas Aquinas would later repeat this. This went as far back as St. Benedict who said that the voice of authority is always the voice of Christ unless that voice commands sin, because Christ does not command sin.

It would seem that the only question that is part of tradition is whether something is sinful, not whether authority has a right to govern and a right to choose and we have a duty to acquiesce. Catholic tradition has always said that we must acquiesce when legitimate authority acts honorably. That is, when its actions are no sinful.

I told Brother about some of these posts on CAF, as he is not allowed to look at any Catholic site on the internet. He raised a rather interesting question about the laymen on these sites. I thought I’d throw it out there.

Brother said, “It’s obvious to any scholar that they are confused about tradition. So let’s lay tradition aside for a moment. What do they really want? From your description of their concerns about this papacy, it sounds as if these people lack interior peace. A person with interior peace is not afraid and does not care about these things. Only that present matters to him. Maybe what they want is not tradition, but the absence of fear. And they believe that tradition will restore that confidence.”

I thought about it and remembered the number of men whom we have turned down, because they wanted to enter our community because we’re traditional. We’ve told them that’s a horrible reason for entering the consecrated life. One should enter the consecrated life open to insecurity, not looking for it. The consecrated life, if it’s well lived only offers one security, salvation.

Would it be fair to say that many, not all, traditionalists who put the pope and hierarchy under microscopes are living outside of tradition?

Would it be fair to say that they have let their fears take over their faith?

Would it be reasonable to say that a true man of faith looks for silence, not for security?

 

[robwar]

You are always the best. I would have thought before joining CAF that if someone called themselves a “traditional” Catholic, is that they follow the Churches teaching to the best of their ability and embrace the teaching and authority of the Church. What I find here is that the definition seems to be turned into what type of Mass one attends or prefers. This later definition has nothing to do with how one is trying to practice their faith in everyday life but what Mass they think is the best and then nick pick to death the Mass they feel is wrong or illegitimate (in their mind) even though it has been approved by Popes and Bishops. Yet there is no offering on how one Mass over another is making them a better Catholic the rest of the week or how they practice and live out their faith. I hope I have understood you correctly in your opening post and what you are asking. As your question states, yes real tradition is not security because God calls us to go beyond ourselves and what we may think in our own limited minds, understanding and experiences. This means that we are called to change and grow as the Church has changed and grown through 2000 years.

 

[OldYoungGuy]

What offers more security? To say, “Oh so and so says such and such is acceptable therefore I accept” or to risk persecution by peers and other Catholics (whether real or perceived) and say, “But what so and so says, even though he is in a position of authority, is wrong and somebody must say it.”

I’m not saying all criticisms offer by “traddies” are justified or prudent, but I think you are over simplifying a complex situation.

 

[JReducation]

You are always the best. I would have thought before joining CAF that if someone called themselves a “traditional” Catholic, is that they follow the Churches teaching to the best of their ability and embrace the teaching and authority of the Church. What I find here is that the definition seems to be turned into what type of Mass one attends or prefers. This later definition has nothing to do with how one is trying to practice their faith in everyday life but what Mass they think is the best and then nick pick to death the Mass they feel is wrong or illegitimate (in their mind) even though it has been approved by Popes and Bishops. Yet there is no offering on how one Mass over another is making them a better Catholic the rest of the week or how they practice and live out their faith. I hope I have understood you correctly in your opening post and what you are asking. As your question states, yes real tradition is not security because God calls us to go beyond ourselves and what we may think in our own limited minds, understanding and experiences. This means that we are called to change and grow as the Church has changed and grown through 2000 years.

I think that you understood me correctly.

As a follower of St. Francis, a man whom Catholics and non Catholics venerate as the Perfect Christian, the Mirror of Perfection, the Alter Christus, the Living First Beaitude and the Seraphic Father burning with love, I have to say that I firmly believe that insecurity is part of our Catholic Tradition. Francis gave up a life of security to embrace one of ambiguity. This was not a man who was a bad Catholic and underwent some radical conversion as did Paul, Augustine, Margaret of Cortona or Ignatius of Loyola. This was a young man who was a faithful Catholic. He was well on his way to sanctity. Yet, he leaves what seems to be a secure path to human success and to holiness, to embrace a very unsure path, one would say that he embraced a radical path. I would be dishonest and unfaithful if I were to deny that insecurity and ambiguity are in compatible with Catholic tradition and holiness.

What security did Ignatius of Loyola have? For that matter, what security did Benedict have leaving his hermitage to organize the monks of his day. He was not a priest, bishop nor any kind of authority figure. He had no guarantees that the monks would obey him or that he could get the job done. In fact, the monks tried to murder him, after they asked him to come to them and organize them.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta had no security when she left her convent with less than $5 in her pocket. Here was a religious sister, out of habit, alone on the streets of a very poor an dangerous city.

One of my favorite saints is Elizabeth Ann Seton. This was a convert, mother of five, a widow and destitute. What security did she have when she migrated from NYC to Baltimore and later to the mountains of Western Maryland. She and her children slept under snow their first winter in Emmitsburg.

These folks lived through times of crisis in the Church and the world around them. But the one thing that kept them going was silence. They did not agonize. They did not spend a lot of time talking to anyone about the affairs of the world or the Church, as we do. I accuse myself of being guilty of this as well. I too spend too much time dwelling on the affairs of the Church, not of the world as much. I have no clue what is happening in the world. I’m so glad that our rule and constitutions say that we’re not to concern ourselves with the world and what goes on there.

You folks don’t know what a relief it is to know to find out about a hurricane when it’s on top of you rather than agonize over it for a week wondering if it’s coming your way or not. You wake up one morning and you ask the brother at the breakfast table, “What’s that wind and what happened to the power?” He goes , “Look like a hurricane.” Then water starts coming through the roof and you go, “Yep, it’s a hurricane. Guess we better get some buckets and move some things out of the way.”

 

[JReducation]

My favorite part of this life happened when someone came up to me and asked, “So what do you make of the pope’s resignation?”

My reaction was, “What did he resign himself to this time?”

The other person said, “No. He abdicated.”

To which I responded, “He did? When?”

Then I was informed, “Three days ago. He’s leaving office Feb 28.”

“Oh! That’s something that we haven’t seen for a few hundred years. I wish him luck. Right now, I have more important things to do, unless the pope is going to come here and stock this pantry with baby food. I’ll find out more when I have a chance.”

It took me two days to get around to it.

People kept asking me and I kept saying that I knew nothing about it, but was not very interested either, because my dads were coming to pick up their monthly supply of baby food and diapers and the pantry was not ready. I would pray for the pope and for the conclave when I got to chapel. That’s all that I could do at this point in time.

Then the election came. I was excited to watch the new pope on TV. He was lucky. He was elected on an evening when I didn’t have to be anywhere. Otherwise I wouldn’t have been in his audience to pray for him as he asked. I also remember that as soon as he went back inside someone asked me if I was going to the diocesan synod meeting the next day, because I was one of the “synod fathers”. I just rolled my eyes and got to my notes for the next day. So much for the excitement about having a religious pope, one named Francis and from the Americas. The synod notes wait for no one.

Thinking about what he would say about the EF, women priests, gay marriage, abortion, the SSPX and whatever were not priorities on my radar. I would deal with those when he spoke about them, not before. Also, my daughter was getting married two weeks after the election and I was very excited, because I had not seen her in three years. I had spoken to my future son-in-law when he asked for permission to visit me to ask for my daughter’s hand in marriage.

Our constitution says that we may visit with our families every five years. I was not planning on attending my daughter’s wedding. The brothers decided to bring it up at a chapter. A vote was taken and it was agreed by all except one vote (mine) that I should be allowed to attend my daughter’s wedding and if she wanted me to do so, I should walk her down the aisle and dance the Father-Daughter dance with her.

Community, family, apostolate were paramount. These were the things that God put in front of me at the present moment. I would just have to trust God to take care of the Church and guide the pope.

 

[JReducation]

What offers more security? To say, “Oh so and so says such and such is acceptable therefore I accept” or to risk persecution by peers and other Catholics (whether real or perceived) and say, “But what so and so says, even though he is in a position of authority, is wrong and somebody must say it.”

I’m not saying all criticisms offer by “traddies” are justified or prudent, but I think you are over simplifying a complex situation.

My friend:

I think you may want to withhold that thought and ask others who have been around here for a long long time, if I’m one given to oversimplification.

I just don’t have the time to put the pope under a microscope. Even if I did, why would I want to do so?

Benedict, Augustine, Francis, Ignatius, Elizabeth Ann and Teresa of Calcutta never did. They were far wiser and holier than I am. They too lived in distressing times. As St. Francis de Sales says in Introduction to the Devout Life. “Live your faith and the other person worry about his own.”

 

[Cojuanco]

Brother really isn’t given to simplification.

But what he’s saying is that we should obey our lawful superiors in all that is not sinful. That’s in the Baltimore Catechism, by the way, for those keeping score at home. So all this backbiting, all this idiocy in the Church today - I mean, today I saw a priest, an ordained priest who should know better, treat the Pope with utter contempt, it’s that bad - is in large part because we keep second guessing everything our superiors tell us to do, even when there is no sin involved. This even from traditionalists. But part of the tradition they and we often ignore to the detriment of Holy Mother Church is of obedience, but also of respect - there have been many Saints who have criticized their superiors respectfully and in a manner open to correction. But many today do not, even self described traditionalists, instead acting as if their opinions deserved more authority than those of a successor to the Apostles.

 

[tawny]

My friend:

I think you may want to withhold that thought and ask others who have been around here for a long long time, if I’m one given to oversimplification.

I just don’t have the time to put the pope under a microscope. Even if I did, why would I want to do so?

Benedict, Augustine, Francis, Ignatius, Elizabeth Ann and Teresa of Calcutta never did. They were far wiser and holier than I am. They too lived in distressing times. As St. Francis de Sales says in Introduction to the Devout Life. “Live your faith and the other person worry about his own.”

As always Br. JR, you know what to say and how to sat it.

 

[Sirach2]

-- there have been many Saints who have criticized their superiors respectfully and in a manner open to correction. But many today do not, even self described traditionalists, instead acting as if their opinions deserved more authority than those of a successor to the Apostles.

It is always painful for me to read messages of this type. There is nothing more desirable to Our Lord than unity – “that they may be one, as we are, Father.” Most of us suffer from the factions often initiated by those who believe their security lies in their own version of tradition. OldYoungGuy typifies this in his comment, “But what so and so says, even though he is in a position of authority, is wrong and somebody must say it.”

Why do traditionists assume so vehemently that their version of Truth is more certain than that of authority? And being so self-satisfied with their opinion, fracture the body of Christ with promotion of these errors.

Part of me believes that it is sometimes a problem with personal catechesis that focuses exclusively on rules and sin, rather than the gospel of mercy. It doesn’t surprise me that these types are disgruntled with Pope Francis. There is a harshness in the very words they speak and posts they write.

Luke 7:47
Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less.

 

[JRKH]

I should perhaps not answer because I am not that knowledgeable on the various matters that are often discussed onthe “traditional” forum…but here goes anyway…

Would it be fair to say that many, not all, traditionalists who put the pope and hierarchy under microscopes are living outside of tradition?

hhmmmm…I don’t really feel qualified to answer this question other than to observe that small “t” tradition has changed and evolved over the 2 millenia of the Church…So this type of questioning and debate might actually harken back to an earlier form of “tradition” rather than being “outside” of it…

Would it be fair to say that they have let their fears take over their faith?

I many cases I I would say yes to this. Anything that is perceived as “change” can have an element of “fear” attached to it. It is a disturbance to the spirit. Too often in society we embrace this disturbance and maybe even rail against it. I’ve seen this over and over in the world where people listen to the news and “discuss” events…usually jumping to conclusions railing against an injustice without all the facts and so forth.
It’s only a short step to move from doing this in secular matters to doing it in spiritual ones as well.

Would it be reasonable to say that a true man of faith looks for silence, not for security?

Yes I think think that this is a reasonable statement - though I would substitute “agape” for silence…only because Jesus Himself tells us that all is based on agape and the more fully we can embrace agape, the more secure and peaceful we can become.

Someone said that you have oversimplified a complex question - and I agree to an extent. You have simplified a rather complex question.

However, I think that many times “oversimplification” can be the very best thing to do.
As mentioned above, Jesus distilled all of the Law and the Prophets down to just two commandments (Mt 22:36-40). He left the Apostles with a single command - that they love one another as He loved them (John 13:34-35). Distilling a complicated issue down to it’s most basic can then allow for a stronger rebuilding. It allows one to examine and slough off that which is not good and to retain and strengthen that which is good.

Well - I find I am prattling on again……bad habit of mine…

Peace
James

 

[Petaro]

There is a real contrast between the vow of obedience taken by a cleric and the unfettered right to make a complete fool of ourselves we lay people have taken to our heart this last generation.
This lack of respect for authority is seen clearly in the anti-governmental conspiracists that America generates and fosters on so many cable television channels . However it is found also in the glee and relish many take when commenting on the pedofile scandal in the church; the assault on traditional marriage and the general lack of respect for others shrouded in the raucous demand for individual rights without concomitant responsibilities.

It is sharply in focus in the pharisaic forensic inspection of every word of our new Pontiff.

It is perfectly valid for us laymen to challenge the actions of our superiors as long as we recognise them as our superiors and maintain the prudence and self-knowledge to hold our tongues till the Holy Spirit moves us. ( I have never had the wisdom of my confirmation to recognise the soft breeze of the Holy Spirit yet.) I look at this great man Francis, and do a quick calculation of comparison with myself and bow in obedience as if I was an old Jesuit.

I hold my tongue solely on the recognition of my place amongst the Church Militant (somewhere near the door.) and the vain hope that humility and blind reliance on the Mercy of my Father will find Him saying “That fat one up the tree is one of mine.”

Pray for us poor sinners who are not cloistered against the bad guys. I rejoice with you in the obvious love shown to you by your community and hope you had a wonderful time at your daughter’s wedding.

 

[clem456]

I believe security is tied up with triumphalism. What does a triumphant Church look like?

Last Saturday at our men’s Gospel study we read the beautiful passage from Mt 2.
And very quickly, as it frequently does, the conversation turned to abortion, birth control, the disparity in birth rates between Christians and Muslims, and how the Koran urges Muslims to pursue their goals with violence. “If we could just go back to what the Church is all about” is the lament. These are mostly 50+ tradition minded men. “If Christians do not start having more children we are going to be in the minority” is how the song goes. Might be a true fact, but geez, that’s not what the Church gave us for Gospel on the 15th December 2013.

“Are you the one who is to come,
or should we look for another?”

What do Christian security and triumph look like? It appears from the Advent Gospels that security and triumph look differently than we think they should.

The Gospel for 12/22…Mt 1, Joseph’s world is turned upside down.
Did Joseph have plans for his own security?
Be a righteous man, know the scriptures, pray, marry a virgin, then have children? Someday see the Romans pushed back to where they came from by a Jewish hero?
He was prolly a “self-made” man like many of us believe we are, he probably envisioned his sons taking over his successful carpentry business perhaps?
The situation God gives him is anything but secure. Talk about obedience to a difficult message!!

At every turn, the Gospels turn people’s plans, notions, opinions absolutely upside down, right up to the foolishness of the cross. There is no concern about numbers… no attitude of self preservation, no worrying about how many "others’ there are. From beginning to end Christ is completely vulnerable to others. Poverty, fasting, prayer, obedience to his Father, tireless ministry, abuse, scandal, hatred, death. Loving us cost him every bit of earthly security.

 

[robwar]

It is always painful for me to read messages of this type. There is nothing more desirable to Our Lord than unity – “that they may be one, as we are, Father.” Most of us suffer from the factions often initiated by those who believe their security lies in their own version of tradition. OldYoungGuy typifies this in his comment, “But what so and so says, even though he is in a position of authority, is wrong and somebody must say it.”

Why do traditionists assume so vehemently that their version of Truth is more certain than that of authority? And being so self-satisfied with their opinion, fracture the body of Christ with promotion of these errors.

Part of me believes that it is sometimes a problem with personal catechesis that focuses exclusively on rules and sin, rather than the gospel of mercy. It doesn’t surprise me that these types are disgruntled with Pope Francis. There is a harshness in the very words they speak and posts they write.

Luke 7:47
Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less.

I think also that people cling to their own versions or ideas because they are unwilling to admit to themselves that they don’t know it all or have an incomplete under standing and a willingness to either grow or change in their understanding. Maybe that is pride in not willing to admit I don’t know what I thought I knew. It is kinda funny but coming from a Protestant background, some of the extreme “trad” come off as more like Martin Luther than true Catholics. He thought the Catholic Church had left it’s biblical roots and at least set out in the beginning to call the Church back. However, his understanding and views were incomplete. The authority has it wrong, I know better therefore I am right and the Church is wrong. That is what comes across in these splinter groups like SSPX etc.
I read a book “More Catholic than the Pope”. It was very good and in the end they end up more Protestant than Luther.

 

[Sirach2]

I read a book “More Catholic than the Pope”. It was very good and in the end they end up more Protestant than Luther.

Patrick Madrid is an excellent author, a solid Catholic. You perked my interest in this book. Amazon worded it well:
Faithful Remnant or Fanatic Schismatics?

It can be difficult to distinguish defenders from defectors. Many traditionalist schisms that sprang up after the Second Vatican Council are filled with devotion to the Blessed Mother. They remain extremely conservative with regard to most moral issues afflicting the Western world today. They practice a strict reverence before the Blessed Sacrament during their traditional Latin liturgies. It can be easy to sympathize with such **seemingly devout but truly disaffected Catholics. **
The attitude that one may correct authority has never been one that our saints adopted. Catherine of Siena wrote privately to the Pope, but we often find that people feel obligated to disparage authority all over the public media like these forums. As our moderator lamented, it is pure sinful “gossip” that puts stumbling blocks before faithful Catholics.

 

[JRKH]

The attitude that one may correct authority has never been one that our saints adopted. Catherine of Siena wrote privately to the Pope, but we often find that people feel obligated to disparage authority all over the public media like these forums. As our moderator lamented, it is pure sinful “gossip” that puts stumbling blocks before faithful Catholics.

I think this is something that cannot be emphasized enough. There is a huge difference between private questioning and commenting undertaken with a spirit of learning - and public comments that come across more as critiquing and teaching.

I don’t mean to say that public discourse is a bad thing, but it needs to be undertaken much more in a spirit of learning than one of espousing.

my 2cents

Peace
James

 

[robwar]

Patrick Madrid is an excellent author, a solid Catholic. You perked my interest in this book. Amazon worded it well:
Faithful Remnant or Fanatic Schismatics?

It can be difficult to distinguish defenders from defectors. Many traditionalist schisms that sprang up after the Second Vatican Council are filled with devotion to the Blessed Mother. They remain extremely conservative with regard to most moral issues afflicting the Western world today. They practice a strict reverence before the Blessed Sacrament during their traditional Latin liturgies. It can be easy to sympathize with such **seemingly devout but truly disaffected Catholics. **
The attitude that one may correct authority has never been one that our saints adopted. Catherine of Siena wrote privately to the Pope, but we often find that people feel obligated to disparage authority all over the public media like these forums. As our moderator lamented, it is pure sinful “gossip” that puts stumbling blocks before faithful Catholics.

yes, St. Catherine of Siena as well as St. Bridget of Sweden are credited with encouraging the Pope to return to Rome. St. Francis of Assisi likewise was a reformer in a time of low moral in the Church.

 

[Sirach2]

Robwar,
I just noticed that the book was co-authored by Pete Vere, one of the most well-known canon lawyers of our time.

 

[AndyP2010]

Brother Jay

I don’t think you have oversimplified these questions at all and I think that they can be even distilled down to one disturbing question.

Do you (the trad forum member) trust the Holy Spirit?

Because if the answer is yes, you don’t worry about church authority because the Holy Spirit will see that the Church will become the pure and spotless bride of our Lord and know that there is no need to worry ever. For many of us the answer appears to be no.

 

[clem456]

I think this is something that cannot be emphasized enough. There is a huge difference between private questioning and commenting undertaken with **a spirit of learning **- and public comments that come across more as critiquing and teaching.

I don’t mean to say that public discourse is a bad thing, but it needs to be undertaken much more in a spirit of learning than one of espousing.

my 2cents

Peace
James

The fruits of the Spirit come to mind. In what spirit do we accept the Church’s presentation of the faith? To put a twist on a saying:
Do we give it the benefit of our doubt, or the benefit of our good faith?

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

In my own life, the struggle against “the flesh” has become primarily a struggle with pride, lusting after knowledge and opinion.

 

[robwar]

Brother Jay

I don’t think you have oversimplified these questions at all and I think that they can be even distilled down to one disturbing question.

Do you (the trad forum member) trust the Holy Spirit?

Because if the answer is yes, you don’t worry about church authority because the Holy Spirit will see that the Church will become the pure and spotless bride of our Lord and know that there is no need to worry ever. For many of us the answer appears to be no.

Yes, that can be the crux of it all, does one think that the Holy Spirit guided those at Vatican II? That is in essence what Papal infallibility is, not that the Pope is perfect but that there is a special charism from the Holy Spirit to lead and guide and keep the Pope from error. There seems to be a misunderstanding of change and how the Holy Spirit uses change to challenge us to grow. Some of the things I’ve seen people post remind me of the KJV only fundamentalists. They are very stuck on a translation of the Bible from 1611 and insist that is the only English translation that is true to the original languages. However, the english language has drastically changed since 1611 and it is now outdated and arcane. No one talks this way anymore so why insist on reading the Bible in outdated English? When people insist on the 1962 Mass, it reminds me of these KJV only fundamentalists. Again they end up more Protestant than Luther. Is 1962 the final say on the Mass? No Has there been Mass revisions since the apostles? yes. Show a lack of knowledge of the development of the liturgy. Just like KJV fundamentalist uses a translation which a chunk of it was borrowed from William Tyndall’s faulty earlier English translation. Total lack of knowledge of the past and understanding of it.