T
TrueLight
Guest
Recently received and had my first communion. Confirmation around Easter.
- Status
J
jwinch2
Guest
Gotcha…
D
Denise1957
Guest
Could you please describe how most Traditionalists resist detachment?
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I’m not sure if this is applicable, but a few weeks ago I gave a quote from Dominic. The quote is his most famous one, delivered after a contingent from Rome failed to stamp out a growing sect:
“It is not by the display of power and pomp, cavalcades of retainers, and richly-houseled palfreys, or by gorgeous apparel, that the heretics win proselytes; it is by zealous preaching, by apostolic humility, by austerity, by seeming, it is true, but by seeming holiness. Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth.”
A few posters chimed in and mentioned they were annoyed with people who continually speak of austerity and the Mass (this despite the fact that I never said anything about austerity within the Mass in my post). They talked a lot about the exteriors that are contained within the Mass such as vestments, candles, icons, and other such items. One person even mentioned the Dominicans ran his parish and it had all of those things.
The reality is Francis worked only with the most poor of the poor, and his order reflected that. Dominic was big on personal poverty and especially austerity as well. This is reflected in the attitudes that both orders take. Brother JR can chime in on the Franciscan side of things, but a Dominican can celebrate a Mass and run a fancy Church with no problems. The catch is though, they must retain the austerity with their actions and words during Mass, and especially outside the Mass. There should be nothing frivolous involved. If participating in high Masses is causing them to lose the austerity, they need to scale back.
A Dominican would be fine with a Mass without all the “bells and whistles”. Mass is Mass. Dominic was a proponent of keeping things simple, it meant more energy for studying and preaching. If anything, a Dominican would use an austere Mass as a teaching tool, to show that as nice as the externals are, the Eucharist and the Mass itself is paramount. I know if I ever become a full Dominican priest (rather than a layman), I would definitely go for a more lowkey building and an austere celebration of the Mass.
I imagine it could be very difficult for some traditionalists to do this, to detach the externals of the Mass, just like it could be difficult for some Dominicans and Franciscans to go to huge Churches of splendor.
I used the term austere or austerity a lot in this post. There’s a reason for that; it’s a big time deal for Dominicans. And to do that, you do need to let go of a lot of things and let a few of the little things slide. Example; there’s no kneelers in the Church. No big deal, kneel on the floor. If local rubrics or the local Superior says standing can be done if there’s no kneelers, then everyone can stand. The whole community will either stand or kneel, because the family does things together. But I think some traditionalists would take issue with either the standing part or the fact there’s no kneelers in the pews.
Another good example could be Franciscans receiving Communion on the hand. Some people simply might not be able to wrap their heads around that they’ve been doing it for years.
And finally, the fact we have two Forms within the Roman Rite. Some people get so attached to the Form they like, they lose slight of the valid Forms and expressions found within the whole Catholic Church. And it’s not just traditionalists who fall victim to this mentality either.
T
TrueLight
Guest
One can have a liturgically beautiful mass and be austere in one’s personal life.
St Dominic and St Francis were products of the times they lived in.
If one lives in a time period where the Church is more focused on opulence and riches rather than prayer and evangelization, then there will arise holy men and women who preach the opposite.
If, on the other hand, the Church has gone the opposite direction and has lost reverence, there will be some holy men and women who arise to bring back the beauty and the reverence.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
TrueLight;856917h4:
I met a woman once, and she told me something interesting. She attended a specific parish and said “I can’t attend Mass anywhere else. If I go anywhere else I get lost. I just can’t handle it”. She acknowledged this wasn’t spiritually healthy, but the point remains; she had an attachment to how that parish was run and how they did things. A similar thing has happened here on these boards. I’ve seen people posting that they drive long distances to attend their preferred Form, and if they can’t make it to their preferred Form they simply won’t go to Mass and take a spiritual Communion instead. This is an extreme form of of attachment, one that isn’t spiritually healthy. Getting attached to and hung up on non-essential things can be stifling in more ways than one.
That is the joy of being a Dominican, and Dominican spirituality. The search for knowledge, looking at complex things and explaining them. Yet the simplicity of how one goes about their lives brings so much joy. And also a practical side; studying those complex things, if you live a simple life, may allow you to make those complex things simpler to understand for other people.
I have no problems with decked out Churches, vestments, or anything of the sort. I do have a problem when people get overly attached to them, and their absence causes their heart to harden,
I did mention this in the previous thread actually, and I agree. That’s exactly why Dominicans can run and celebrate in fully decked out Churches. The point is that you can strip away a lot of the externals and still have the Mass, and for some people they may have a hard time with this. The same way how one’s heart can be raised by a splendid building, it can also be raised by a Mass with a priest that has tattered clothing and a building that hasn’t had a building inspection in three hundred years. Remove those people from that environment, it might not be pretty.
I met a woman once, and she told me something interesting. She attended a specific parish and said “I can’t attend Mass anywhere else. If I go anywhere else I get lost. I just can’t handle it”. She acknowledged this wasn’t spiritually healthy, but the point remains; she had an attachment to how that parish was run and how they did things. A similar thing has happened here on these boards. I’ve seen people posting that they drive long distances to attend their preferred Form, and if they can’t make it to their preferred Form they simply won’t go to Mass and take a spiritual Communion instead. This is an extreme form of of attachment, one that isn’t spiritually healthy. Getting attached to and hung up on non-essential things can be stifling in more ways than one.
That is the joy of being a Dominican, and Dominican spirituality. The search for knowledge, looking at complex things and explaining them. Yet the simplicity of how one goes about their lives brings so much joy. And also a practical side; studying those complex things, if you live a simple life, may allow you to make those complex things simpler to understand for other people.
In a time where materialism and objectification runs rampant, one could make the argument that more-so than ever we should heed the words of Holy Fathers Dominic and Francis when it comes to austerity.
I have no problems with decked out Churches, vestments, or anything of the sort. I do have a problem when people get overly attached to them, and their absence causes their heart to harden,
D
Denise1957
Guest
You mention detachment from the externals of the Mass. But what would you consider as external?
What I see in the traditional subforum is a quiet battle between the Scotists and the Thomists. Most here aren’t even aware of it. The Dominicans and Franciscans weren’t always on each others side. Franciscans were very much against some of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas. I think that some Franciscans are worried that the Church might return to Thomism. But nominalism has had its heyday, and it may be time to return to reverence…but that’s up to God.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Well said, TrueLight.
J
JReducation
Guest
We have to remember that the Franciscans live like the poor and among the poor. If we can afford something, we get it. If we can’t, no big deal. We do without it. The reverence and the beauty of the mass is built into the mass. We can’t add or take away from it.
This is very common to mendicants. You do whatever the superior says to do. The superior made do with whatever is available.
Even this was never a big issue for Franciscans. The truth is that Franciscans have never made a big issue about the way that we celebrate the mass. In some provinces they received in the hand and in other provinces they received on the tongue. The friars went with whatever seemed right to the superior. When you’re a Franciscan, you don’t stop to analyze all of these little details. If it’s not a sin, you go with whatever your community does. The goal is to love the cross and worship God. The worship must come from the heart of the friar.
If you observe the mass on EWTN, you will see a very typical Franciscan mass. The austerity is not so much in the artifacts, but in two key areas:
Observe the absence of Gregorian Chant. Francis and Clare banned it.
Observe the absence of a complicated sanctuary. Francis and Clare banned those too.
Between 1209 and today, Bishops have often asked Franciscans to staff parishes and missions. In those cases, the friars comply with the wishes of the bishop. When we build chapels and churches for our use, they are very austere. When we build them for a bishop, we do as Francis said. We obey the bishop.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is not a matter of being a product of ones time. This is a matter of Revelation. Francis makes it very clear that his way of life and his way doing things was not revealed to him by man, but by God himself. Therefore, it must be maintained until the end of time. The Church approved this.
Observe what he said in his last testament.
**And when the Lord gave me some brothers, no one showed me what I ought to do, but the Most High Himself revealed to me that I should live according to the form of the holy Gospel. And I caused it to be written in few words and simply, and the Lord Pope confirmed it for me.
And let the minister general and all the other ministers and custodes be bound by
obedience not to add to these words or to take from them. And I strictly enjoin on all my brothers, clerics and laics, by obedience, not to put glosses on the Rule or on these words saying: Thus they ought to be understood; but as the Lord has given me to speak and to write the Rule and these words simply and purely, so shall you understand them simply and purely and with holy operation observe them until the end.
**
To say to Franciscans that Francis was a product of his time is a form of “Franciscan Protestantism”. This is what the Lutheran and Anglican Franciscans believe. Our idea is that Francis heard the voice of Christ as Christ wanted it to be for our family for all time. To look at Francis as a product of the Middle Ages is to violate what he says above. It is a way of glossing over what he taught and wrote, which is how those Franciscans that went with Luther and Henry VIII did. They justified themselves by glossing over Francis with a veneer, which said that he was a product of another time and had to be adapted to their time and the Church of their era.
This does not mean that Christ did not and will not raise other institutes to meet new situations as they arise. It means that the Franciscan understanding of the Gospel is not up for reinterpretation, because the only interpretation allowed to be preached by a Franciscan is that given to the Gospel by Francis and the Church. He commanded this under obedience for all time. It is very offensive to Francis to even suggest that he was a cultural product. As St. Bonaventure says in his theological writings. Francis was more than just a man of his time. He was the perfect disciple and we can trust this, because God put his signature on his holy body for all time. If one wants to learn to be the perfect disciple, St. Bonaventure says that one just needs to look to Francis.
As to the comment that someone else made that Franciscans are opposed to Thomism, that’s not true. Bonaventure wrote half of the Summa. Many people do not know this. This was a shared project between Thomas and Bonaventure while both were professors at the University of Paris. Bonaventure had to pull out of the project, because the friars ordered him to take up the government of the order. Thomas was left to complete it alone.
Bonaventure would later write his own summa, which the Franciscans follow to this day. It includes much of what’s in Thomas’ work. The difference is in approach. Bonaventure begins with love that leads to knowledge. Thomas begins with knowledge that leads to love.
As far as returning to the Summa of St. Thomas, that’s not a problem for Franciscans. Franciscans have always studied the Summ of St. Thomas. What the Church has always granted us is the freedom not to follow it. We have always had the privilege of following Bonaventure and Scotus. The reason for that is because their theological writings contain the same as those of Thomas, but they are grounded in what was revealed by Christ through Francis.
The difference is that Thomas was never a superior or a founder. Francis trumps him in that regard. While Thomas is the most excellent theologian, he remains a brother, while Francis is the Seraphic Father. Bonaventure and Scotus, being very conscious of Francis’ fatherhood, write the same things that Thomas does, but they use Francis’ words and actions to explain these concepts, instead of classical philosophy. This makes their writing more difficult to understand for those who do not understand Francis. While Thomas is clearer, because he uses classical systems. You don’t need to understand Dominic in order to understand Thomas. You do need to understand Francis, to understand Bonaventure and Scotus. Francis is not an easy person to understand. This was a man of many levels.
If Thomas had written his Summa with Dominic in mind, it would be very difficult for most people to understand. Like his friend Francis, Dominic too was a man of many levels. Dominic and Francis lived very simple lives, but they were far from simple men. Theirs was a very complex and nuanced spirituality and theology.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
TrueLight
Guest
If I said anything offensive, I apologize. I love both St Francis and St Dominic. And I didn’t say he was just a cultural product. That would be undermining any Saint.
However, St Francis is not the only one who had a revelation from God.
I stand by my belief that different Saints were raised for different purposes. Yes, St Francis’ teachings can be applied for all time. That doesn’t change the fact that he was raised for a reason at that particular time.
I cannot purport to know God’s mind or speak for what his intentions were. However, it is quite obvious that throughout the ages starting from old testament times, God raised different holy men for specific reasons that he was aware of.
I don’t think that anyone should be made to feel afraid to mention an opinion about St Francis. I didn’t pronounce any heresy and I’m allowed my opinion. You can disagree with me, you can say I’m totally wrong, but I shouldn’t be made to feel that I am not allowed to express my opinion by stating I have a Protestant viewpoint (which is not even insulting to me, by the way).
Also, with all due respect, Brother, we are not all Franciscans and don’t all follow his rule.
I think for the sake of charity, one should assume anything that is said about St Francis is said with the most positive intention, unless shown otherwise, especially when it comes from someone who adores St Francis, which I hope you know that I do.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Br. JR, I was really hoping that you would answer my question here.
J
JReducation
Guest
My experience has been that many Traditionalists and people on the other end of the spectrum too, have a problem with detachment, because they don’t understand it.
Let’s just use the example of people like Francis, Teresa of Avila or Mother Teresa. Their focus was always on the Gospel, embracing the cross. They understood and knew about the problems in the Church around them and in the secular world too. However, they refused to be drawn into the debate, dialogue and arguments around these issues.
For example, Francis prohibits being told about the sins of priests, by either friars, nuns or laity. He put it very clear, that he was not interested and did not want to even consider sins in priests, because his focus was on the fact that they consecrated the Eucharist and absolved from sin. Teresa of Avila was informed of the sins of the priests in her time and of the heresies of her time. Her reaction was that she was not interested. She prohibited all conversation about such topics, because it took away from the inner silence necessary to pray. Mother Teresa bound herself and her sisters to look for Christ is the distressing disguise of the poor and avoid getting involved in conflict and issues of the Church and the secular world. Dominic makes a case for saying that you can’t fight heresy with argument and confrontation, but with love and truth. His definition of love and truth was kindness to the extreme that the Dominicans were not to engage in debates.
This was not an indifference for souls, just the opposite. This is where the misunderstanding comes in that leads to a rejection of detachment by many people. This is an attitude that is cultivated over many years. The individual trains himself or herself to become totally dependent on God’s Divine Providence to find a resolution to these problems. The individual trains himself to trust the Church, especially the pope and bishops. The individual trains himself to think of himself as one who has to deal with what is immediately before him and allow the rest to go. God will send someone to deal with it.
There is always a constant struggle with the self, to master silence, to master trust in Divine Providence, to pray for God’s grace to lead us out of tough situations and to speak gently and kindly about all people involved in the situation. These are not easy things to do. They take a lifetime. No one is born with this kind of discipline. I believe that many people give up on this, because they don’t see quick results or the desired results. It’s understandable, because it’s tempting to give up on this or to believe that this kind of detachment is only for religious, forgetting that God gives us all his love and attention. We can all trust. We just have to work at it.
When you do, you become very peaceful inside. Nothing fazes you. You can walk through the world like Mother Teresa did, focused on what you have to do today and immediately. God will provide for what you can’t fix.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
Denise1957
Guest
Thank you for your reply, but you didn’t answer my question. You had previously said that most traditionalists resist detachment. Your above post doesn’t address this directly.My experience has been that many Traditionalists and people on the other end of the spectrum too, have a problem with detachment, because they don’t understand it.
Let’s just use the example of people like Francis, Teresa of Avila or Mother Teresa. Their focus was always on the Gospel, embracing the cross. They understood and knew about the problems in the Church around them and in the secular world too. However, they refused to be drawn into the debate, dialogue and arguments around these issues.
For example, Francis prohibits being told about the sins of priests, by either friars, nuns or laity. He put it very clear, that he was not interested and did not want to even consider sins in priests, because his focus was on the fact that they consecrated the Eucharist and absolved from sin. Teresa of Avila was informed of the sins of the priests in her time and of the heresies of her time. Her reaction was that she was not interested. She prohibited all conversation about such topics, because it took away from the inner silence necessary to pray. Mother Teresa bound herself and her sisters to look for Christ is the distressing disguise of the poor and avoid getting involved in conflict and issues of the Church and the secular world. Dominic makes a case for saying that you can’t fight heresy with argument and confrontation, but with love and truth. His definition of love and truth was kindness to the extreme that the Dominicans were not to engage in debates.
This was not an indifference for souls, just the opposite. This is where the misunderstanding comes in that leads to a rejection of detachment by many people. This is an attitude that is cultivated over many years. The individual trains himself or herself to become totally dependent on God’s Divine Providence to find a resolution to these problems. The individual trains himself to trust the Church, especially the pope and bishops. The individual trains himself to think of himself as one who has to deal with what is immediately before him and allow the rest to go. God will send someone to deal with it.
There is always a constant struggle with the self, to master silence, to master trust in Divine Providence, to pray for God’s grace to lead us out of tough situations and to speak gently and kindly about all people involved in the situation. These are not easy things to do. They take a lifetime. No one is born with this kind of discipline. I believe that many people give up on this, because they don’t see quick results or the desired results. It’s understandable, because it’s tempting to give up on this or to believe that this kind of detachment is only for religious, forgetting that God gives us all his love and attention. We can all trust. We just have to work at it.
When you do, you become very peaceful inside. Nothing fazes you. You can walk through the world like Mother Teresa did, focused on what you have to do today and immediately. God will provide for what you can’t fix.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I know that you love them both.
All founders are inspired by the Holy Spirit. What made Francis very different was his claim that he learned nothing from man, but everything directly from God, which was true in that his rule and his admonitions came from private revelations. What is most interesting is that the pope confirmed these private revelations as a way of life. This had never happened before and never happened again until 1946 with Bl. Mother Teresa. No founder ever claimed that God had directly intervened in the foundation of his or her community and the Church has only sustained this claim twice in history: Francis and Mother Teresa. Their situation is very unique in the Church. Also, to the best of my knowledge, they are the only founders who received a promise from Christ that their communities would survive until the Second Coming.
**We agree on the first point. Every founder is raised for a different purpose and in response to a need at a particular time. I tried to say that above. What Bonaventure teaches us is that Francis was not raised for a particular reason at that particular time. Bonaventure’s Summa tells us that Francis was raised to be the teacher of perfect discipleship for all time.
Bonaventure taught, "Christ, having recognized the teaching of St. Francis as his own, affixed the seal of his stigmata to his body, and thereby irrevocably confirmed his teaching. Therefore, anyone who doubts that the doctrine of St. Francis are a most perfect way to reach eternal life, when these have been confirmed by God, must be exceedingly hard of heart.**
Bonaventure worked on this “Franciscan Summa” for 12 years in order to convince the world that there was more to Francis of Assisi, than a simple founder who rose for a particular need such as preaching, care of the sick, teaching, social outreach. Francis was raised to become the model of Christian discipleship. Bonaventure goes on to explain how he achieved this mission.
Of course you’re allowed to have an opinion. No one should be afraid to express an opinion or ask a question. As to the Protestant viewpoint, I apologize if I sounded rude. I was a knee-jerk reaction on my part, because this was the language of the Franciscans who have gone off the rail, especially those who follow Luther and Henry. Even in recent years, there has been a lot of sorrow among Franciscans, because some have had to be dismissed by annulling their vows, when they aligned themselves with groups like the SSPX and the SSPV. The argument of these people is that Francis was a product of his time, but today is different.
It is true. Today is different, but what the man said and did then is as valid today as it was then. We continue to say and believe the same things, even if we say it differently
I know that you are not all Franciscan. Again, I’m sorry for my rudeness. What you encountered is a very typical Franciscan response. Franciscans, Discalced Carmelites, Missionaries of Charity and Benedictines are very unique among religious. Our founders are not just founders. They are very much alive and we consider them parents. They commanded respect, love and fidelity by the way they lived.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I was thinking about this thread last night. I remembered something that can help us see some of the differences between the Franciscan and Dominican spiritualities. Even though the two communities have grown together and have always worked together, there are differences that are not always observable.
Allow me to give a wonderful example. Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure were working on the Summa. This was a joint project. It was necessary for the Church then and in the future. It clarified many questions and raised other important ones too. However, look at the approach of the two communities.
The Dominicans liberated Thomas from all other responsibilities to do this important work that would combat heresy and save souls. Therefore, Thomas never became a superior and was never given too many duties that would take him away from this very special work.
The Franciscans gathered in a chapter and decided that they needed Bonaventure to do two very important things: 1) To govern the order and 2) to preach about Francis, before the early witnesses died off.
While the Dominicans were focused on the big picture, teaching truth and combating heresy. The Franciscans were focused on the need to serve the fraternity, believing that if Bonaventure served the fraternity, the fraternity could serve the Church.
That’s one big difference between the two spiritualities. One leaves a brother free to fight heresy and teach, the other pulls a brother back home to serve his brothers and teach the world to the message of the founder.
Either way, they both end up in the same place, serving the Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Allow me to give a wonderful example. Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure were working on the Summa. This was a joint project. It was necessary for the Church then and in the future. It clarified many questions and raised other important ones too. However, look at the approach of the two communities.
The Dominicans liberated Thomas from all other responsibilities to do this important work that would combat heresy and save souls. Therefore, Thomas never became a superior and was never given too many duties that would take him away from this very special work.
The Franciscans gathered in a chapter and decided that they needed Bonaventure to do two very important things: 1) To govern the order and 2) to preach about Francis, before the early witnesses died off.
While the Dominicans were focused on the big picture, teaching truth and combating heresy. The Franciscans were focused on the need to serve the fraternity, believing that if Bonaventure served the fraternity, the fraternity could serve the Church.
That’s one big difference between the two spiritualities. One leaves a brother free to fight heresy and teach, the other pulls a brother back home to serve his brothers and teach the world to the message of the founder.
Either way, they both end up in the same place, serving the Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
TrueLight
Guest
Okay. :hug1:I know that you love them both.
All founders are inspired by the Holy Spirit. What made Francis very different was his claim that he learned nothing from man, but everything directly from God, which was true in that his rule and his admonitions came from private revelations. What is most interesting is that the pope confirmed these private revelations as a way of life. This had never happened before and never happened again until 1946 with Bl. Mother Teresa. No founder ever claimed that God had directly intervened in the foundation of his or her community and the Church has only sustained this claim twice in history: Francis and Mother Teresa. Their situation is very unique in the Church. Also, to the best of my knowledge, they are the only founders who received a promise from Christ that their communities would survive until the Second Coming.
**We agree on the first point. Every founder is raised for a different purpose and in response to a need at a particular time. I tried to say that above. What Bonaventure teaches us is that Francis was not raised for a particular reason at that particular time. Bonaventure’s Summa tells us that Francis was raised to be the teacher of perfect discipleship for all time.
Bonaventure taught, "Christ, having recognized the teaching of St. Francis as his own, affixed the seal of his stigmata to his body, and thereby irrevocably confirmed his teaching. Therefore, anyone who doubts that the doctrine of St. Francis are a most perfect way to reach eternal life, when these have been confirmed by God, must be exceedingly hard of heart.**
Bonaventure worked on this “Franciscan Summa” for 12 years in order to convince the world that there was more to Francis of Assisi, than a simple founder who rose for a particular need such as preaching, care of the sick, teaching, social outreach. Francis was raised to become the model of Christian discipleship. Bonaventure goes on to explain how he achieved this mission.
Of course you’re allowed to have an opinion. No one should be afraid to express an opinion or ask a question. As to the Protestant viewpoint, I apologize if I sounded rude. I was a knee-jerk reaction on my part, because this was the language of the Franciscans who have gone off the rail, especially those who follow Luther and Henry. Even in recent years, there has been a lot of sorrow among Franciscans, because some have had to be dismissed by annulling their vows, when they aligned themselves with groups like the SSPX and the SSPV. The argument of these people is that Francis was a product of his time, but today is different.
It is true. Today is different, but what the man said and did then is as valid today as it was then. We continue to say and believe the same things, even if we say it differently
I know that you are not all Franciscan. Again, I’m sorry for my rudeness. What you encountered is a very typical Franciscan response. Franciscans, Discalced Carmelites, Missionaries of Charity and Benedictines are very unique among religious. Our founders are not just founders. They are very much alive and we consider them parents. They commanded respect, love and fidelity by the way they lived.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
jwinch2
Guest
Very interesting information Brother, thank you for sharing it. I was unaware that Saints Aquinas and Bonaventure were working together. That must have been an incredible moment in history. I can hardly imagine the scene that would have made for those two great saints to be working like that together. When attempted to picture it in my mind a moment ago the vision that came into my head was a room where the air was almost crackling with electricity.I was thinking about this thread last night. I remembered something that can help us see some of the differences between the Franciscan and Dominican spiritualities. Even though the two communities have grown together and have always worked together, there are differences that are not always observable.
Allow me to give a wonderful example. Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure were working on the Summa. This was a joint project. It was necessary for the Church then and in the future. It clarified many questions and raised other important ones too. However, look at the approach of the two communities.
The Dominicans liberated Thomas from all other responsibilities to do this important work that would combat heresy and save souls. Therefore, Thomas never became a superior and was never given too many duties that would take him away from this very special work.
The Franciscans gathered in a chapter and decided that they needed Bonaventure to do two very important things: 1) To govern the order and 2) to preach about Francis, before the early witnesses died off.
While the Dominicans were focused on the big picture, teaching truth and combating heresy. The Franciscans were focused on the need to serve the fraternity, believing that if Bonaventure served the fraternity, the fraternity could serve the Church.
That’s one big difference between the two spiritualities. One leaves a brother free to fight heresy and teach, the other pulls a brother back home to serve his brothers and teach the world to the message of the founder.
Either way, they both end up in the same place, serving the Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Would you then suggest that someone who is interested in a fuller understanding of Aquinas should consider reading Bonaventure?
In one of the books on Dominican spirituality I have been reading the author spoke of Aquinas and said that when he finished his work on the Summa, he didn’t really feel like he had done anything, or that it wasn’t that big of a deal. That makes me feel like I really need to work on my humility…
C
Captain_America
Guest
Sorry if I have a bit of doubt about the assertion here, but it’s a boggler: I’ve never before heard that Aquinas had a co-author. Where did you hear this?
J
JReducation
Guest
OK, let me try it this way. Look at what the masters teach about detachment. It’s detachment from material things, but it does not stop there. It’s also detachment from the world around you, including the Church . . . not that you cease to be Catholic. That’s not what they meant.
What the masters did and taught was to focus on what is immediate and avoid all forms of conflict, argument and confrontations.
To many Traditionalists, not just them, not to challenge and question everything that they feel is wrong, is a form of indifference. To the spiritual masters, it’s detachment. They cultivated trust in God’s Providence to provide for the needs of the Church and they trusted the popes and bishops to find their way. They prayed, went about their business and when they saw something that they thought was wrong or made them feel uncomfortable, they checked with the Church. If it was allowed by the Church, whether it was prudent or foolish, as far as they were concerned, it was no longer their problem. Their problem was to work on their holiness and to serve those who were before them.
Many people misunderstand this attitude to be indifference or even giving in to wrongs. In fact, it’s far from indifference. It’s based on complete trust in Providence and in the Church’s ability to bounce back. The Masters teach us to follow the truth, remain calm, trust God and avoid anything that takes away from inner silence or distracts us from the present moment in our lives.
If you’re a sister and and your duty is to care for the homeless, whatever is happening down the street at the local parish has nothing to do with the homeless. You focus on the homeless. That’s the duty of grace of the present moment.
If you’re a mother and you have a family or a family and job, that’s your grace of the present moment. St. Jose Maria Escriva wrote a great deal about this for the laity.
A preacher has a duty to preach the truth. That is his grace of the present moment.
Each person has to detach from the other things that are happening in order to take care of the present moment with the greatest love and attention to duty. This is not being indifferent. This is being detached. I guess that one could all it a Holy Indifference. This is not an indifference that says, “I don’t care about abuses in liturgy.” This is an attitude that says, “This is not my task. My task it . . . Therefore, I leave it in God’s hands to send the person who can fix it. Then you walk away and attend to your task.”
People at the ends of the spectrum tend to get pulled into battles and worries that they can’t fix and feel that there is something wrong if they let it go and let God take care of it.
I can give a simplistic example from my life. I help at a parish. When I get there on Sundays, there are people greeting each other and walking around before mass begins. I can’t change that. It’s not my job to change it either. I’m not the pastor. I go into the Church, quietly kneel before the tabernacle and close my ears and eyes to everything around me. I just turn it off. Suddenly, mass is starting and I have no idea what happened around me. As the mass goes on, I’m very focused on the scriptures, the sermon, the words of the prayers, the sacrifice and the communion. I never notice any of the things that people often talk about, what someone is wearing or not wearing, that a kid is texting, that someone else is doing some other strange thing. I actually never see any of it. We were trained to detach and focus on the grace of the present moment. At that moment, nothing is more important than the liturgy. When I go to my pregnancy center, nothing is more important than the person whom I’m serving. You can blow up the town with a nuclear bomb and I might miss it, because the person in front of me is the most important thing in the world at that moment. OK, to tell the truth, I may notice a nuclear explosion, but you get the picture, right?
Does this help?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status