Real tradition does not guarantee security

[EcceAgnusDei]

Reported. Not only do you publicly disgrace Brother Jay here, but you spread your gossip at F.E. in addition. About as vicious as it gets.

I did not publicly disgrace – I pointed out an error. I did not call him a liar, as I do not know his intentions, nor did I make a judgement on him in any way, here or on FE. And it is not gossip – he is a public figure and what I pointed out was true and in public.

Why does it seem near impossible to show that things certain people say here might not be true?

As I said above, I think most people would want to know when they are saying something that is not true, for whatever reason. I would. Wouldn’t you?

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Alright, I made my point. Carry on without me posting more.

 

[RPRPsych]

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.

This is an excellent post. (I’m the fat guy falling out of the tree, for the record.)

 

[Sirach2]

I did not publicly disgrace – I pointed out an error. I did not call him a liar, as I do not know his intentions, nor did I make a judgement on him in any way, here or on FE. And it is not gossip – he is a public figure and what I pointed out was true and in public.

Well you did call hin a liar at F.E. Who’s the untruthful one now?

Your quote: The key is that he fosters it. And then, time and time again, his stories turn out not to be true, even by his own admission

 

[RPRPsych]

Well you did call hin a liar at F.E. Who’s the untruthful one now?

Your quote: The key is that he fosters it. And then, time and time again, his stories turn out not to be true, even by his own admission

If “F.E.” is what I think it is, I think you should drop this. Those folks are quite incorrigible. (And the same goes for R***** C****)

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Well you did call hin a liar at F.E. Who’s the untruthful one now?

Your quote: The key is that he fosters it. And then, time and time again, his stories turn out not to be true, even by his own admission

The complete quote, for context:

It really is a shame. It would be wonderful to have a very knowledgeable priest or religious as a regular poster on any Catholic forum, but Brother JR fosters a personality cult that is absolutely not healthy. The key is that he fosters it. And then, time and time again, his stories turn out not to be true, even by his own admission (wherever that thread is in the history of Fisheaters).

And I stand by that. I did not call him liar, I said some stories are untrue (this one, for example). There is a distinction and it is an important one. I’m not sure if you were around Fisheaters at the time of the thread I referenced. Admissions were made public, with Brother’s approval. You can go look for it, if you’d like. Since he approved of it being made public, it is not gossip.

I will not add anything more, but I will clarify my point, like in this post, if needed.

And as to the topic of the thread, it is true that real religioun fosters insecurity. If God doesn’t fill us with holy dread (emphasis on holy), then perhaps we are making Him smaller than what He really is so we can contain Him. I was reading a translation of Little Flowers of St. Francis last night, and in the forward by Friar Rohr (I believe) he made the point (I’m paraphrasing) that anytime we whittle a religious text or belief down to something we claim to understand, we’ve ruined its power, because religion is supposed to make us uncomfortable. Truth often makes us uncomfortable, whether we are liberal or traditional or neither. If it doesn’t, perhaps we haven’t faced the full implications of that truth.

• PAX

 

[TimothyH]

The word “PAX” should be more than an interesting Latin word or a sentimental wish added to the end of a post.

It should be an interior disposition which manifests itself in words and deeds.

I know I can do better lately.

-Tim-

 

[RPRPsych]

A “cult of personality”?

I’m starting to think that “incorrigible” was too charitable a term.

Do you even know what the phrase means?

Brother JR has very kindly taken it upon himself to educate us on various points of doctrine, discipline, history and Canon Law. He’s the Isaac Asimov of CAF. To accuse him of fostering a “cult of personality” and blatantly ignore those who do so is both unjust and un-Christian.

Hint: nobody’s writing books called “Apologia Pro Brother J.R.”. But there is an “Apologia Pro M***** L******”. Who has the personality cult, pray?

 

[zab]

And as to the topic of the thread, it is true that real religioun fosters insecurity. If God doesn’t fill us with holy dread (emphasis on holy), then perhaps we are making Him smaller than what He really is so we can contain Him. I was reading a translation of Little Flowers of St. Francis last night, and in the forward by Friar Rohr (I believe) he made the point (I’m paraphrasing) that anytime we whittle a religious text or belief down to something we claim to understand, we’ve ruined its power, because religion is supposed to make us uncomfortable. Truth often makes us uncomfortable, whether we are liberal or traditional or neither. If it doesn’t, perhaps we haven’t faced the full implications of that truth.

• PAX

Fear of the Lord is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Fr. John Hardon describes it this way:

Infused gift of the Holy Spirit that confirms the virtue of hope and inspires a person with profound respect for the majesty of God. Its corresponding effects are protection from sin through dread of offending the Lord, and a strong confidence in the power of his help.
The fear of the Lord is not servile but filial. It is based on the selfless love of God, whom it shrinks from offending. Whereas in servile fear the evil dreaded is punishment; in filial fear it is the fear of doing anything contrary to the will of God. The gift of fear comprises three principal elements: a vivid sense of God’s greatness, a lively sorrow for the least faults committed, and a vigilant care in avoiding occasions of sin. It is expressed in prayer of the Psalmist, “My whole being trembles before you, your ruling fills me with fear” (Psalm 119:120). One of its salutary effects is to induce a spirit of deep humility in dealing with others, especially with inferiors, since it makes a person aware that he or she stands constantly before the judgment of God.
With this definition, I disagree with you that real religion fosters insecurity.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending review by moderator Thomas Casey.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTE

Please stay on topic. Posts against any person, be that person a member of the forum or not are not allowed. They violate the rules of charity and the rules on derailing. Gossip has no place on a Catholic forum. If you have a question take it directly to the person or persons, do not use our forums to air out laundry. That is unfair to everyone involved in the conversation.

 

[JReducation]

About an hour ago, there some concerns about my post where I used the example of the resignation of Pope Benedict and the election of Pope Francis. It was not my intention to make the post about those event. Therefore I did not pay special attention to spelling out details. I was more focused on the message. Now it seems that it has caused some concern. Before continuing, I am not offended that anyone finds my posts important enough to keep track of them. I hope that they help someone’s spiritual life, as that is why I write them.

I will bite the bullet and accept that I was probably not as clear as I thought I was. The conversation that I am narrating is out of context. It may even be more than one person. I don’t remember.

To clarify this misunderstanding and get on with the message of the above referenced post. When you are a priest or a religious and the pope resigns, everyone hits you with the same questions.

• Did you know that the pope resigned?
• Why did he resign?
• What’s he going to happen next?
• Is he dying?

When you work in a large ministry or a large parish, you can be hit with these questions 10 to 15 times a day during the first few days of such an event. To the point that it’s no longer that important to you, because the novelty has worn off. So you return to your normal duties. Life can’t stop because the pope resigns.

Among my normal duties are making sure that we have enough baby items in our pantry for our new parents and also the internet apostolate, which is an apostolate that I have been doing for several years, since my health does not allow me to move around all the time. I have some very good days and not so good days. Those are not my only duties. Let’s make this clear. Those are two of my duties. I like to think that they’re important.

The truth is that I had no idea why the Holy Father resigned, other than what he said about age. I had no idea what was going to happen next. I certainly did not know if he was dying or not, because I had not heard anyone speak about his health being anything out of the ordinary for a man his age. Heck, he’s in better health than I am. Did I know that he resigned? I learned about it when someone told me. Did I believe it when I heard it? No. I thought the person telling me about it had misunderstood something.

Did I post on the resignation? I’m sure I did . . . me and 5 million other people on the Internet. Was that all that I did at the time? Heck no. As interesting as a papal abdication may be, there are things that are part of our daily lives that require our attention. . That’s my point. I don’t have a spouse, young children or elderly parents. Some people do, yet they find the time to put the Church under a microscope, which then gets them angry or frustrated. But what about their other duties? Is it worth getting angry or frustrated when one has other obligations?

While I heard about the resignation and even discussed it, to be honest, it was not until later in the week that I really woke up and realized that this was true. That’s when it dawned on me. Now I knew for sure, no more doubts. I was not in a trance, not at all. It was simply an uncommon event and an event that if one sat down to think about it too much, one would still not have any answers. There is my second point. If there are no answers to be had, is it fair to steal time and energy from other duties that God places before us in order to discuss that which is not really about us?

To conclude this preoccupation about what I did from the time that Pope Benedict resigned to the time that Pope Francis was elected, the answer is simple. I went about my duties. I politely listened to many questions that people asked, some of which I had answers to. And at times I tried to alleviate people’s concerns, especially more traditionalist members of our team, by making light of the situation with the intent of impressing on them that all is well. We must let God run his Church. Running the Church is not for us to do. As Padre Pio always said, worrying is useless. When you place yourself in God’s hands, be prepared for surprises.

 

[Avila123]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avila123
Hello Brother Jay,
I read your post and those that stayed on topic with interest, it is a shame it turned into a playground spat. I then realised that since Pope Benedict’s announcement of his retirement, I have had to put the Pope under a microscope at regular intervals.

The reason is not because I doubt or challenge but simply because I have to increasingly be ready with answers. It started at work with the person looking at my small crucifix and saying “You’re Catholic aren’t you, so …” Fortunately I had the 1st answer from EWTN and then realised with terror, that more questions and comments would follow (and they did). Then, having joined CAF, I started to learn more about what the Pope allegedly said (most of the secular stories seemed very odd) and learned to seek the source (which means popping Pope Francis’ back under a microscope).

I suppose the issue is whether one puts the Pope under the microscope to learn more about the faith and Church or for the wrong reasons. Certainly the more I read about what he says, I receive messages that can be a little unsettling or uncomfortable (usually exposing a requirement for improvement on my part), but I still love that man and if the Pope tells me to jump, I would and then remember to ask how high.

On another note, I when I applied to join one of the many new re-evangelisation team in our Diocese, the requirements included obedience to the Church, Pope and Bishop. This took me by surprise as I thought we would automatically do this anyway A few lines later, it said that if the discernment process may result in being placed in a team not of your preference. I didn’t take in the last line until after I sent in my application, so now I have a voyage into the unknown instead of the safe area of research and have to obediently accept that I may be placed where I need to be, instead of where I think I want to be.

God bless you.

Liz

Hi Liz

Thank you so much for this PM. Feel free to post the PM and my response.

What you’re describing is not what I mean when I say “putting the pope under a microscope.” If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that whenever someone says that the pope likes lemons, you go back to the source to make sure that the pope said lemons and not lemonaid. In that case, you’re putting your source under the microscope. But that’s a good thing.

I agree 100%, Pope Francis can be unsettling. When I first heard him say, “Who am I to judge?” I was rattled. Then I realized how often I judge so many people, not just gay people, bat at time even my own parents when they were alive.

---

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Life calls out to life

Thank you Br Jay for explaining the difference during the Thread’s Timeout.

When I have looked into the vocal opposition to a Church teaching (whether it has been articulated by the Pope or a Bishop), I find that the source boils down to the “me” word or a mind closed to thinking it through. It seems to be a case of being led through “self” to be center stage, blind to the damage that is being inflicted on the body of the Church and to researching the issue thoroughly. The person ceases to consider any other view because they cannot accept that they may have been led astray. The easy way is not to engage in dialogue but to try and shout the other person down. For example, if a baby is a lump of cells, until it is born, why aren’t abortions televised (from within the womb) to prove the Church is wrong? It would be horrifying but would give most of the facts.

I think that what I am trying to say is that, we should question but in a rational manner after researching, prayer and meditation and extend the same facility to the person we are raising the issue with. Until the issue is resolved one way or the other, I believe all parties have a responsibility not to confuse or weaken other souls’ faith.

 

[Petaro]

"About an hour ago, there some concerns about my post where I used the example of the resignation of Pope Benedict and the election of Pope Francis. It was not my intention to make the post about those event. Therefore I did not pay special attention to spelling out details. I was more focused on the message. Now it seems that it has caused some concern. Before continuing, I am not offended that anyone finds my posts important enough to keep track of them. I hope that they help someone’s spiritual life, as that is why I write them.

I will bite the bullet and accept that I was probably not as clear as I thought I was. The conversation that I am narrating is out of context. It may even be more than one person. I don’t remember.

To clarify this misunderstanding and get on with the message of the above referenced post. When you are a priest or a religious and the pope resigns, everyone hits you with the same questions."

Did I say something about forensic questionings in my last Post. It seems that the Pope is not the only one subject to it.
Sometimes the message is not in the media, and in that triumphant gotya moment some can lose the thread. Many of us simple men look forward to your posts and respect your wisdom. May you have many “good” days ahead.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Isaiah 8:20"if they speak not according to this word,it is because there is no light in them"as you have wisely proven tradition to be an unreliable source of security,then scripture,I believe Is.If a thing is black even when it is white then confusion is the rule.God then is not its author1cor14:33.I totally agree with your assertions regarding a breakdown of authority.After all did 'nt old father Adam stand in the place of Everyman (and woman)“in Adam all die1cor15:22 Adam then as man kinds head,(or place of authority)but the last Adam(head over His body:which is the church) that is Christ” a life giving spirit"1cor15:45.I believe authority is seen in such as Paul an Apostle(chosen of Christ not a clutching at straws)who,as you know,commends the Bereans for comparing his own words with those of scripture,thus declaring their knowledge of the source of authority,and so to be more noble than those who did’nt.Acts17:11.for Paul himself rebukes Peter to his face for defying that same authority .Gal2:11.It is a tragic truth that most of the breakdown we see in society is due to a breakdown of authority:children against parents,subjects to kings(rulers)ect.For we are to obey secular authority,as ordained of GodRom13:1.But when it comes to ultimate authority(as I saw in my own reading this morning) "We ought to obey God rather than men"Acts5:29. Bernard Lyons.

 

[JReducation]

Isaiah 8:20"if they speak not according to this word,it is because there is no light in them"as you have wisely proven tradition to be an unreliable source of security,then scripture,I believe Is.If a thing is black even when it is white then confusion is the rule.God then is not its author1cor14:33.I totally agree with your assertions regarding a breakdown of authority.After all did 'nt old father Adam stand in the place of Everyman (and woman)“in Adam all die1cor15:22 Adam then as man kinds head,(or place of authority)but the last Adam(head over His body:which is the church) that is Christ” a life giving spirit"1cor15:45.I believe authority is seen in such as Paul an Apostle(chosen of Christ not a clutching at straws)who,as you know,commends the Bereans for comparing his own words with those of scripture,thus declaring their knowledge of the source of authority,and so to be more noble than those who did’nt.Acts17:11.for Paul himself rebukes Peter to his face for defying that same authority .Gal2:11.It is a tragic truth that most of the breakdown we see in society is due to a breakdown of authority:children against parents,subjects to kings(rulers)ect.For we are to obey secular authority,as ordained of GodRom13:1.But when it comes to ultimate authority(as I saw in my own reading this morning) "We ought to obey God rather than men"Acts5:29. Bernard Lyons.

 

[JustaServant]

About an hour ago, there some concerns about my post where I used the example of the resignation of Pope Benedict and the election of Pope Francis. It was not my intention to make the post about those event. Therefore I did not pay special attention to spelling out details. I was more focused on the message. Now it seems that it has caused some concern. Before continuing, I am not offended that anyone finds my posts important enough to keep track of them. I hope that they help someone’s spiritual life, as that is why I write them.

If Tom Casey will indulge me in this momentary break from the OP…
Brother Jay, you don’t owe anyone an explaination for ANYTHING. If the busybodies at FE, who obviously have too much time on their hands, want to attack, let them do so in the privicy of their hollow hall they call a forum. In keeping with Tom’s warning I will refrain from typing what is currently in my thought bubble about FE and it’s owner.
You are a great blessing here at CAF, we see the results of your wisdom. That, and your work as a Franciscian is all you need to answer to.
Break over, return to the OP.

 

[JustaServant]

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.”

Having once been involved with Protestant fundamentalism I can identify with what the Brother says. On either side of the Tiber, when a person lacks inner peace and lives in a state of constant suspicion and fear, they are in endless turmoil and will latch on to whatever fantasy they have of the “perfect”. But even IF that “perfect” arrives, it will never be good enough.
Remember, the first words of the Gospel were “fear not…”

 

[JReducation]

If Tom Casey will indulge me in this momentary break from the OP…
Brother Jay, you don’t owe anyone an explaination for ANYTHING. If the busybodies at FE, who obviously have too much time on their hands, want to attack, let them do so in the privicy of their hollow hall they call a forum. In keeping with Tom’s warning I will refrain from typing what is currently in my thought bubble about FE and it’s owner.
You are a great blessing here at CAF, we see the results of your wisdom. That, and your work as a Franciscian is all you need to answer to.
Break over, return to the OP.

I believe that redemption began with one sentence, “Crucify him.”

Once that sentence was spoken, the wheels were set in motion. As Albert Schweitzer wrote in his famous book, Quest for the Historical Jesus, a man was crushed by a wheel, not because of his message, but because those listening were not paying attention to the message.

If someone is distracted by the words and misses the message, the words have to be clarified, swept away or even retracted. We must do whatever we can to deliver the message without distraction, for the good of the other person’s soul. That is the mission that God places before us at that moment.

My post is consistent with what I’m saying here. Tradition is helpful, if it keeps me focused on the duty of the present moment. That duty is to protect another person from missing a message that is good for the soul.

Having once been involved with Protestant fundamentalism I can identify with what the Brother says. On either side of the Tiber, when a person lacks inner peace and lives in a state of constant suspicion and fear, they are in endless turmoil and will latch on to whatever fantasy they have of the “perfect”. But even IF that “perfect” arrives, it will never be good enough.
Remember, the first words of the Gospel were “fear not…”

Fear has a way of paralyzing us. When it does so, it keeps us facing inward.

 

[JustaServant]

Fear has a way of paralyzing us. When it does so, it keeps us facing inward.

I occasionally use the example of my favorite Britcom Fawlty Towers (with John Cleese). Because Basil Fawlty is a textbook case of anxiety disorder. He’s not a stupid man, but when faced with adversity, he lapses into panic based on fears created in his own mind. He lets fear rule and paralyze him.
Fundamentalism of any sort uses fear as its fuel. It has to in order to survive. The fundamentalist god is a god of anger and revenge, and works in human affairs with almost military precision. Basically He’s like a drill sergent, not a loving merciful Father.
That’s why fundamentalism attracts people with certain personality distinctives.
That’s because the god they worship doesn’t look too much different than the image they see in the mirror.