Spirituality of religious orders in Catholic tradition

[JReducation]

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?

He does not. Bonaventure and he worked on the Summa at the University of Parish. However, Bonaventure had to abandon the project. Thomas finished it. We don’t know how much or how far Bonaventure worked on it. Neither of them ever mention it. We know that they were collaborators, because it’s in the Dominican and Franciscan annals.

It would be incorrect to consider Bonaventure a co-author, because he did not stick with the project.

There are references in history to debates between the two friends on points in the Summa while it was still in progress. They did not agree on everything. But it seems that their disagreements were really about approach not content. In fact, both made the same theological and scientific mistakes… This actually tells us that they were no strangers to each other’s thinking. Their biggest mistake was the Immaculate Conception. They both denied it and what’s most interesting is that the wording with which they deny it is almost identical. We know that this is one point that they explored together. There were other points as well in which we find word for word correspondence.

Bonaventure never claimed to be co-author to the Summa. There is a Summa written by Bonaventure, but it’s a smaller work.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Denise1957]

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

Okay, I see yout point about detachment. So you are saying, then, that we have to be detached from things going on in the Church, and not question everything that is wrong. To this I would say that it is not the case that “most” traditionalists question everything that is going on. I think that you see some traditionalists doing this on the forum, but they aren’t most traditionalists. If you ever become a member of a EF parish, you would see the reality.

In the case of detachment, you feel that it’s wrong to question everything that’s going on in the Church, but it’s alright to question so many things that the traditional Catholics believe? Isn’t this a form of attachment also? Isn’t it a form of attachment to worry that traditional Catholics love the EF, and are not detached from the Mass, as you are? If you want to focus on grace, and not notice anything around you, that’s fine. But I think that you have a wrong idea about why Catholics love the EF. It isn’t that we focus on things like vestments, what people are wearing, or looking for something wrong, as you have implied. No. I sincerely hope that you will try to understand that our love for the EF is that all of these things - vestments, incesnse, holy water, gregorian chant - they all lend themselves to focus on God, through reverence. I think that a Franciscan would have a difficult time understanding this. But the Church says that it’s alright for us to be attached to the EF. The Church does not teach that we must have a Franciscan view of the Mass.

 

[Denise1957]

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?

I was wondering about this as well. Certainly the Summa has always been credited to St. Thomas, as far as I know.

Oops…I see now that this question has already been addressed.

 

[TimothyH]

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.

This brought to mind Brother Lawrence and the book of his collected correspondance titled “Practicing the Presence of God”.

He stated in one of his letters, and forgive me for the poor paraphrase, that when he saw an ungoldy person or someone who was sinning, he would pray for that person and then move on with his business at hand, confident in God’s plan and confident that if it was God’s will, that person would be converted in an instant.

This was intriguing to me at first, and a little disconcerting, and a couple of my Evangelical friends were horrified that one could be so indifferent to sin when I discussed it with them. The “Soldier of Christ” attitude is commendable, but the idea that every sin and every wrong should and can be combatted typically manifests itself in suburban America as confrontation and subsequent loss of peace.

Everything in modern city life is calculated to keep man from entering into himself and thinking about spiritual things. Even with the best of intentions a spiritual man finds himself exhausted and deadened and debased by the constant noise of machines and loudspeakers, the dead air and the glaring lights of offices and shops, the everlasting suggestions of advertising and propaganda. The whole mechanism of modern life is geared for a flight from God and from the spirit into the wilderness of neurosis. Even our monasteries are not free from the smell and clatter of our world.(No Man is an Island, Thomas Merton)

I find that peace is a requirement for the Holy Spirit to work in me. Without it, I’m dead in the water. Peace is becoming an very prized possession in my life as I get older.

-Tim-

 

[Denise1957]

He does not. Bonaventure and he worked on the Summa at the University of Parish. However, Bonaventure had to abandon the project. Thomas finished it. We don’t know how much or how far Bonaventure worked on it. Neither of them ever mention it. We know that they were collaborators, because it’s in the Dominican and Franciscan annals.

It would be incorrect to consider Bonaventure a co-author, because he did not stick with the project.

There are references in history to debates between the two friends on points in the Summa while it was still in progress. They did not agree on everything. But it seems that their disagreements were really about approach not content. In fact, both made the same theological and scientific mistakes… This actually tells us that they were no strangers to each other’s thinking. Their biggest mistake was the Immaculate Conception. They both denied it and what’s most interesting is that the wording with which they deny it is almost identical. We know that this is one point that they explored together. There were other points as well in which we find word for word correspondence.

Bonaventure never claimed to be co-author to the Summa. There is a Summa written by Bonaventure, but it’s a smaller work.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Setting aside the issue of the authorship of the Summa, I’m currently studying the issue of St. Thomas’ work at the University of Paris, and the strong opposition that the Franciscans had to his work. I think that the Franciscans were worrying that St. Thomas was siding with the Averroist view, when in fact he was trying to prove it wrong. Anyway, I’m hoping to start a thread on this subject when I’ve studied all that I can about it.

Regarding the issue on the Immaculate Conception; though St. Thomas’ view on this was wrong, the Immaculate Conception wasn’t declared as Dogma until 1854, by Pope Pius lX.

 

[Captain_America]

So Bonaventure was a faculty member Thomas bounced around ideas with, down at the lounge. I would think the whole disputation methodology would allow one to credit many a folk in Paris with authorship!

 

[JReducation]

Okay, I see yout point about detachment. So you are saying, then, that we have to be detached from things going on in the Church, and not question everything that is wrong. To this I would say that it is not the case that “most” traditionalists question everything that is going on. I think that you see some traditionalists doing this on the forum, but they aren’t most traditionalists. If you ever become a member of a EF parish, you would see the reality.

In the case of detachment, you feel that it’s wrong to question everything that’s going on in the Church, but it’s alright to question so many things that the traditional Catholics believe? Isn’t this a form of attachment also? Isn’t it a form of attachment to worry that traditional Catholics love the EF, and are not detached from the Mass, as you are? If you want to focus on grace, and not notice anything around you, that’s fine. But I think that you have a wrong idea about why Catholics love the EF. It isn’t that we focus on things like vestments, what people are wearing, or looking for something wrong, as you have implied. No. I sincerely hope that you will try to understand that our love for the EF is that all of these things - vestments, incesnse, holy water, gregorian chant - they all lend themselves to focus on God, through reverence. I think that a Franciscan would have a difficult time understanding this. But the Church says that it’s alright for us to be attached to the EF. The Church does not teach that we must have a Franciscan view of the Mass.

Let’s go very gently here. Notice that I said, Traditionalists and others too. It’s not the EF. Many Franciscans celebrate the EF.

The difficulty with detachment found among Traditionalists and those to the other end of the spectrum is a misunderstanding concerning the difference between detachment and indifference. I’m not talking about a holy indifference such as we see in people like Francis and Mother Teresa. I’m talking about an “I don’t care attitude”.

Many people think that detachment is that negative kind of indifference. Because one never says anything about certain issues, because one is focussed on the grace of the present moment, then one does not care. This is not true.

One does care about truth and heresy, about the salvation of souls, about the needs of the poor, about the abuses in liturgy, and more. However, the detached person focusses on his present moment, which means to focus on his mission.

The mother focuses on raising her family and loving her husband. The teaching sister focuses on her students. The friar focuses on his brothers. The monk focuses on silence and solitude. The parish priest focuses on his parish and its needs and so forth.

In other words, one does not try to deal with every issue or think about them, because one cannot serve two masters. If one has to serve the present moment, that may take up all of his time and attention. It’s OK not to worry about the rest. God will provide the right person or persons to deal with those other things.

That’s what we’re talking about here. You may want to pick up the works of Brother Lawrence and of Jose Maria Escriva. Jose Maria Escriva has a plan that works wonders for the layman who is seeking detachment, while at the same time persevering in love for the Church. You don’t have to become a member of Opus Dei to follow this plan. Another good writing is An Introductioin to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales.

As to Franciscans understanding the love for the EF, you’d be very surprised. The EF that we kow today is a product of the Franciscan Form. That’s a whole other story. The Church tweaked it and added Gregorian Chant and a few other things. That’s where they parted company, giving birth to the Franciscan Form and the Tridentine Form. The Franciscan Form was the precursor of the Tridentine Form.

Franciscans understand it very well. What we do differently is that we celebrate the EF including our traditions, lectionary, propers and our own calendar. We don’t follow the same calendar that the FSSP would follow. They use the old Roman Calendar. The rubrics are slightly different, but not enough to be noticeable, unless you’re looking for the difference.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Setting aside the issue of the authorship of the Summa, I’m currently studying the issue of St. Thomas’ work at the University of Paris, and the strong opposition that the Franciscans had to his work. I think that the Franciscans were worrying that St. Thomas was siding with the Averroist view, when in fact he was trying to prove it wrong. Anyway, I’m hoping to start a thread on this subject when I’ve studied all that I can about it.

Regarding the issue on the Immaculate Conception; though St. Thomas’ view on this was wrong, the Immaculate Conception wasn’t declared as Dogma until 1854, by Pope Pius lX.

So Bonaventure was a faculty member Thomas bounced around ideas with, down at the lounge. I would think the whole disputation methodology would allow one to credit many a folk in Paris with authorship!

We have to be very careful here not to confuse things. Franciscan history tells us that St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas began this work together. It also tells us that St. Bonaventure was pulled away from it by the General Chapter, not because the Franciscans were opposed to Aquinas work. Bonaventure was pulled away, because to the Franciscan spirituality, serving ones brothers takes precedence over serving the universal Church. When you serve your brothers well, you serve the Church well.

Bonaventure was needed to do several things:

1. To be the Minister General of the Order
2. To write the definitive biography on St. Francis
3. To preach on St. Francis and teach Franciscan spirituality to the world.

The Summa was not that important, compared to these duties.

Therefore, Bonaventure, nor the Franciscans lay any claims to co-authorship with St. Thomas. All that is said is that they began to work on this together. There is nothing to resist here. No one is taking anything away from Thomas. In fact, Thomas is gaining. At the end of the day, he had to finish this work by himself and he did an incredible job at it, without much help.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Denise1957]

Let’s go very gently here. Notice that I said, Traditionalists and others too. It’s not the EF. Many Franciscans celebrate the EF.

The difficulty with detachment found among Traditionalists and those to the other end of the spectrum is a misunderstanding concerning the difference between detachment and indifference. I’m not talking about a holy indifference such as we see in people like Francis and Mother Teresa. I’m talking about an “I don’t care attitude”.

Many people think that detachment is that negative kind of indifference. Because one never says anything about certain issues, because one is focussed on the grace of the present moment, then one does not care. This is not true.

One does care about truth and heresy, about the salvation of souls, about the needs of the poor, about the abuses in liturgy, and more. However, the detached person focusses on his present moment, which means to focus on his mission.

The mother focuses on raising her family and loving her husband. The teaching sister focuses on her students. The friar focuses on his brothers. The monk focuses on silence and solitude. The parish priest focuses on his parish and its needs and so forth.

In other words, one does not try to deal with every issue or think about them, because one cannot serve two masters. If one has to serve the present moment, that may take up all of his time and attention. It’s OK not to worry about the rest. God will provide the right person or persons to deal with those other things.

That’s what we’re talking about here. You may want to pick up the works of Brother Lawrence and of Jose Maria Escriva. Jose Maria Escriva has a plan that works wonders for the layman who is seeking detachment, while at the same time persevering in love for the Church. You don’t have to become a member of Opus Dei to follow this plan. Another good writing is An Introductioin to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales.

As to Franciscans understanding the love for the EF, you’d be very surprised. The EF that we kow today is a product of the Franciscan Form. That’s a whole other story. The Church tweaked it and added Gregorian Chant and a few other things. That’s where they parted company, giving birth to the Franciscan Form and the Tridentine Form. The Franciscan Form was the precursor of the Tridentine Form.

Franciscans understand it very well. What we do differently is that we celebrate the EF including our traditions, lectionary, propers and our own calendar. We don’t follow the same calendar that the FSSP would follow. They use the old Roman Calendar. The rubrics are slightly different, but not enough to be noticeable, unless you’re looking for the difference.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

I don’t necessarily equate detachment with indifference. For instance, you had previously mentioned the Mass, and how you mainly focus on scriptures at the Mass, and the sermon, words of the prayers, the sacrifice and the communion, and that you don’t notice what people often talk about such as what someone is wearing, or otherwise doing and that you never see any of it. You mentioned also that you were trained to detach and focus on the grace of the present moment, and that at that moment, nothing is more important than the liturgy.

Well, I don’t see that this is any different than what a traditional Catholic experiences at the EF. What you have described is certainly what I experience as well. I even tune out noisy children and crying babies, unless they are sitting right in front of me, which makes it a little more difficult. And no one trained me to do that. It just happened. Though I would have to add that I focus on Our Lord, and have no detachment whatsoever to Him. He is the focus of the Mass. How can we ever be detached from Him, whom we love more than life itself? You may worry that the nice vestments, incense, etc., takes away from this, but it does not. It helps it along. A Franciscan may not be able to understand this, though, unless they are determined to understand it.

 

[Denise1957]

We have to be very careful here not to confuse things. Franciscan history tells us that St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas began this work together. It also tells us that St. Bonaventure was pulled away from it by the General Chapter, not because the Franciscans were opposed to Aquinas work. Bonaventure was pulled away, because to the Franciscan spirituality, serving ones brothers takes precedence over serving the universal Church. When you serve your brothers well, you serve the Church well.

Bonaventure was needed to do several things:

1. To be the Minister General of the Order
2. To write the definitive biography on St. Francis
3. To preach on St. Francis and teach Franciscan spirituality to the world.

The Summa was not that important, compared to these duties.

Therefore, Bonaventure, nor the Franciscans lay any claims to co-authorship with St. Thomas. All that is said is that they began to work on this together. There is nothing to resist here. No one is taking anything away from Thomas. In fact, Thomas is gaining. At the end of the day, he had to finish this work by himself and he did an incredible job at it, without much help.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I wasn’t specifically interested in the issues between St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas, but more interested in the situation at the University of Paris with those Franciscans who censored St. Thomas, and attacked his views.

Also, there were a few extremist Franciscans in those days, such as William of Ockham (who was excommunicated because of his views concerning private property), and the Franciscan group called the ‘Spirituals,’ who advocated for the removal of the sacraments of the Church, and that they be replaced with Franciscan theology instead. Needless to say, they didn’t get what they wanted.

There are extremist trads to be sure, and there have been MANY extremist Franciscans, too.

 

[TrueLight]

Br. Jr,

I guess the point is that most people have issues with detachment - both understanding and practicing. Most of us are attached to things.

It is not a Traditionalist problem or the problem of the opposite end of the spectrum. It is a human problem and something we have to ask God to help us with.

Can you recommend a book by Jose Maria Escriva?

I am really interested in practicing detachment.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t necessarily equate detachment with indifference. For instance, you had previously mentioned the Mass, and how you mainly focus on scriptures at the Mass, and the sermon, words of the prayers, the sacrifice and the communion, and that you don’t notice what people often talk about such as what someone is wearing, or otherwise doing and that you never see any of it. You mentioned also that you were trained to detach and focus on the grace of the present moment, and that at that moment, nothing is more important than the liturgy.

Well, I don’t see that this is any different than what a traditional Catholic experiences at the EF. What you have described is certainly what I experience as well. I even tune out noisy children and crying babies, unless they are sitting right in front of me, which makes it a little more difficult. And no one trained me to do that. It just happened. Though I would have to add that I focus on Our Lord, and have no detachment whatsoever to Him. He is the focus of the Mass. How can we ever be detached from Him, whom we love more than life itself? You may worry that the nice vestments, incense, etc., takes away from this, but it does not. It helps it along.** A Franciscan may not be able to understand this, though, unless they are determined to understand it**.

You keep saying this and I keep telling you that a Franciscan can understand it very well. The point here is that this is not part of his spirituality or his culture. There is a difference between understanding something and making use of it.

It’s the same as we understand how married people achieve sanctity through marriage and family life. In fact, we have the largest order in the world for married people. Not every Franciscan is married, even though we understand it.

We understand how Gregorian Chant enhances the liturgy for many people. However, it is banned by St. Francis and St. Clare and it can only be used with an indult. There was very good reasons for banning it. That does not mean that the FSSP cannot use it. It means that if you attend an EF mass at a Franciscan house, you will hear classical hymns in Latin or English and you will hear a very monotone type of chant by the priest.

We understand the use of beautiful vestments and vessels. However, because we live among the poor and we try to be as poor as they are, we can’t always afford these things. We do without them. That’s detachment.

Where the SSPX may whisper the prayers of the mass, the Franciscan would use a microphone in a large church or simply speak loudly in a chapel, it’s not because of a lack of understanding. It’s because of a difference in culture. The fraternity must never be divided with the priest doing one thing and the other friars observing or praying quietly. The fraternity is one body and the priest is the servant to his brothers who is celebrating the mass, because it’s his duty to serve his brothers through the priesthood. Therefore, the brothers and the priest dialogue during the EF mass. The superiors have the right to change these rules according to the needs of the local community. A superior may allow the subvocalization while another does not. This is not a lack of understanding. This too is detachment. The community is not attached to any one way of doing this. Instead, it places itself in the hands of the superior as if he were Francis of Assisi.

Detachment goes beyond the mass. I’ll give you an example. When the sex abuse scandal broke. I remember visiting a very good friend of mine who is now a Trappist. I asked him how much he knew. He knew very little about it, because they did not have a need to know too much. They needed to know enough to pray for the Church. That’s detachment. To bring too much information into their environment would have simply upset them and frustrated them, because they could not do anything about it. Why bother bringing in more than they needed to know?

Detachment is putting aside what we cannot solve or do until we can do so or until God sends someone else to do so. It is also accepting our limitations and working within our given moment of grace. It does not mean that we don’t understand or don’t care.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Denise1957]

You keep saying this and I keep telling you that a Franciscan can understand it very well. The point here is that this is not part of his spirituality or his culture. There is a difference between understanding something and making use of it.

It’s the same as we understand how married people achieve sanctity through marriage and family life. In fact, we have the largest order in the world for married people. Not every Franciscan is married, even though we understand it.

We understand how Gregorian Chant enhances the liturgy for many people. However, it is banned by St. Francis and St. Clare and it can only be used with an indult. There was very good reasons for banning it. That does not mean that the FSSP cannot use it. It means that if you attend an EF mass at a Franciscan house, you will hear classical hymns in Latin or English and you will hear a very monotone type of chant by the priest.

We understand the use of beautiful vestments and vessels. However, because we live among the poor and we try to be as poor as they are, we can’t always afford these things. We do without them. That’s detachment.

Where the SSPX may whisper the prayers of the mass, the Franciscan would use a microphone in a large church or simply speak loudly in a chapel, it’s not because of a lack of understanding. It’s because of a difference in culture. The fraternity must never be divided with the priest doing one thing and the other friars observing or praying quietly. The fraternity is one body and the priest is the servant to his brothers who is celebrating the mass, because it’s his duty to serve his brothers through the priesthood. Therefore, the brothers and the priest dialogue during the EF mass. The superiors have the right to change these rules according to the needs of the local community. A superior may allow the subvocalization while another does not. This is not a lack of understanding. This too is detachment. The community is not attached to any one way of doing this. Instead, it places itself in the hands of the superior as if he were Francis of Assisi.

Detachment goes beyond the mass. I’ll give you an example. When the sex abuse scandal broke. I remember visiting a very good friend of mine who is now a Trappist. I asked him how much he knew. He knew very little about it, because they did not have a need to know too much. They needed to know enough to pray for the Church. That’s detachment. To bring too much information into their environment would have simply upset them and frustrated them, because they could not do anything about it. Why bother bringing in more than they needed to know?

Detachment is putting aside what we cannot solve or do until we can do so or until God sends someone else to do so. It is also accepting our limitations and working within our given moment of grace. It does not mean that we don’t understand or don’t care.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I don’t think that a Franciscan can understand the importance of the EF to traditional Catholics. Certainly I have not seen anything in your posts that would indicate this. When a Franciscan continually tries to correct trads and tell them that they are wrong, and that they must accept the Franciscan view, then that indicates that there’s a great lack of understanding, IMO.

You mentioned Gregorian chant, and I’m glad that you understand that the FSSP can still use it. But others use it, too. Thank goodness that the Church, in her wisdom, did not follow St. Francis and St. Clare in banning chant.

It’s fine if you want to be detached from vessels and vestments so that you can use the money for the poor. But why do you expect trads have to do the same thing? Remember when St. Mary Magdalene used the expensive oil on Our Lord’s feet after she had washed them? What did Our Lord say to those who complained that that money could have been better spent on practical things?

Yes, detachment goes beyond the Mass, but if you want to make a case about too much information in a person’s enviroment, that’s fine. But when you put down aspects of the EF, then that’s something else.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think that a Franciscan can understand the importance of the EF to traditional Catholics. Certainly I have not seen anything in your posts that would indicate this. When a Franciscan continually tries to correct trads and tell them that they are wrong, and that they must accept the Franciscan view, then that indicates that there’s a great lack of understanding, IMO.

You mentioned Gregorian chant, and I’m glad that you understand that the FSSP can still use it. But others use it, too. Thank goodness that the Church, in her wisdom, did not follow St. Francis and St. Clare in banning chant.

It’s fine if you want to be detached from vessels and vestments so that you can use the money for the poor. But why do you expect trads have to do the same thing? Remember when St. Mary Magdalene used the expensive oil on Our Lord’s feet after she had washed them? What did Our Lord say to those who complained that that money could have been better spent on practical things?

Yes, detachment goes beyond the Mass, but if you want to make a case about too much information in a person’s enviroment, that’s fine. But when you put down aspects of the EF, then that’s something else.

I’m not saying anything against the EF. I said that we celebrate it as well. Since the thread is about Orders their spirituality, then one has to explain why one order would not subscribe to the EF as a daily thing or may celebrate it differently. This is not to say that others have to do it the same way. Each order has its spirituality and its understanding of how it wants to celebrate the liturgy.

For example, I noticed that you interpreted my statement on poverty as giving the money to the poor instead of buy vestments, etc. I never said that. I said that Franciscans would not buy them when they don’t have the money to do so. The reason that they don’t always have the money to do so is because they live among the poor and like the poor. For example, if you walked into the chapel of the Franciscans of the Renewal in the Bronx or Harlem, you would not find such vestments and sacred objects. They don’t generate the kind of income to purchase such things. When the little they get barely feeds them and the people that they have to support.

You didn’t understand the point on Gregorian chant either. Again, this thread is about Orders their spirituality. Gregorian chant is foreign to Franciscan spirituality. There is nothing wrong with it. I never said there was. I said there was a very good reason for banning it among Franciscans. The reason was to avoid the scholas and the choir monks. Francis and Clare were called to build a community of equals. Scholas and choir monks created distinctions. The poverty of the Franciscans calls for an abolition of all distinctions. That the reason that the friars all dress the same, even though not all are priests and the reason that priests cannot be segregated neither in the community nor at mass. That would set the apart from their brothers, cleric and non-cleric. It had a purpose and still has a purpose.

I also said that you could get an indult. Some houses have an indult to use Gregorian chant, because the entire house knows how to do it. There is no need for a schola and there is no such thiing as a choir monk and a lay brother, which is part of the monastic tradition.

As to St. Mary of Magdala and the oils, you have to read that story with the context and audience in mind. The person making the claim was not interested in the poor. He was interested in himself. Jesus was challenging this sudden interest in the poor when they are always with us and Judas had never expressed a concern for them before. He was not saying that the poor should be denied anything so that it could be given to him. The target of the statement was Judas and the context was Judas’ sudden interest in the poor. Jesus is also making a connection between himself and the poor. He is emphasizing that he too is one of the poor. There is a lot of theology in this story. It does not say to put the poor on hold in order to give to God. Just the opposite. It places Jesus as one with the poor.

We see this very clearly when Jesus speaks about the final judgment. “I was hungry, naked, sick, in prison, etc” We see it again in Acts. “They laid everything at the feet of the Apostles” and everything was distributed so that the poor and the wealthy were provided for.

That’s why people like Mother Teresa describes the poor as Jesus in a distressing disguise. This is also why religious houses like those of the Missionaries of Charity have very simple chapels without too much in them. The Missionaries would not say that this is a statement against the EF. If a priest can celebrate the EF with the little that they have and with the simple vestments and vessels that they can provide, they certainly welcome it.

We’re not talking here against the EF. We’re talking about the differences between orders and their spirituality. These differences do not mean a lack of understanding. It means that each one has its own culture.

If you attend the EF at a Cistercian house, everyone stands around the altar. Their argument is that you become a Cistercian to be a monk, not to be a priest. The priesthood comes second to them. The monk who is a priest and is presiding at the mass, is not to stand alone, but to stand with his brothers. This does not mean that they don’t understand the EF. On the contrary, I think it means that many people who are lovers of the EF did not know that there are many variations to it, because most people only had secular priests in their parishes. How many parishes have friars or monks?

Do you see what I mean by a difference of culture rather than a failure to understand?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[choliks]

I don’t think that a Franciscan can understand the importance of the EF to traditional Catholics. Certainly I have not seen anything in your posts that would indicate this. When a Franciscan continually tries to correct trads and tell them that they are wrong, and that they must accept the Franciscan view, then that indicates that there’s a great lack of understanding, IMO.

You mentioned Gregorian chant, and I’m glad that you understand that the FSSP can still use it. But others use it, too. Thank goodness that the Church, in her wisdom, did not follow St. Francis and St. Clare in banning chant.

It’s fine if you want to be detached from vessels and vestments so that you can use the money for the poor. But why do you expect trads have to do the same thing? Remember when St. Mary Magdalene used the expensive oil on Our Lord’s feet after she had washed them? What did Our Lord say to those who complained that that money could have been better spent on practical things?

Yes, detachment goes beyond the Mass, but if you want to make a case about too much information in a person’s enviroment, that’s fine. But when you put down aspects of the EF, then that’s something else.

If I were to practice detachment here, I would detach myself from obsessing over how the Franciscans understand the importance of the EF to me as a traditional Catholic. For the sole reason that it’s causing more misunderstandings that could lead sin. Instead, I’ll appreciate how the Franciscans helped shape the Catholic faith throughout the Church’s history.

 

[Denise1957]

I’m not saying anything against the EF. I said that we celebrate it as well. Since the thread is about Orders their spirituality, then one has to explain why one order would not subscribe to the EF as a daily thing or may celebrate it differently. This is not to say that others have to do it the same way. Each order has its spirituality and its understanding of how it wants to celebrate the liturgy.

For example, I noticed that you interpreted my statement on poverty as giving the money to the poor instead of buy vestments, etc. I never said that. I said that Franciscans would not buy them when they don’t have the money to do so. The reason that they don’t always have the money to do so is because they live among the poor and like the poor. For example, if you walked into the chapel of the Franciscans of the Renewal in the Bronx or Harlem, you would not find such vestments and sacred objects. They don’t generate the kind of income to purchase such things. When the little they get barely feeds them and the people that they have to support.

You didn’t understand the point on Gregorian chant either. Again, this thread is about Orders their spirituality. Gregorian chant is foreign to Franciscan spirituality. There is nothing wrong with it. I never said there was. I said there was a very good reason for banning it among Franciscans. The reason was to avoid the scholas and the choir monks. Francis and Clare were called to build a community of equals. Scholas and choir monks created distinctions. The poverty of the Franciscans calls for an abolition of all distinctions. That the reason that the friars all dress the same, even though not all are priests and the reason that priests cannot be segregated neither in the community nor at mass. That would set the apart from their brothers, cleric and non-cleric. It had a purpose and still has a purpose.

I also said that you could get an indult. Some houses have an indult to use Gregorian chant, because the entire house knows how to do it. There is no need for a schola and there is no such thiing as a choir monk and a lay brother, which is part of the monastic tradition.

As to St. Mary of Magdala and the oils, you have to read that story with the context and audience in mind. The person making the claim was not interested in the poor. He was interested in himself. Jesus was challenging this sudden interest in the poor when they are always with us and Judas had never expressed a concern for them before. He was not saying that the poor should be denied anything so that it could be given to him. The target of the statement was Judas and the context was Judas’ sudden interest in the poor. Jesus is also making a connection between himself and the poor. He is emphasizing that he too is one of the poor. There is a lot of theology in this story. It does not say to put the poor on hold in order to give to God. Just the opposite. It places Jesus as one with the poor.

We see this very clearly when Jesus speaks about the final judgment. “I was hungry, naked, sick, in prison, etc” We see it again in Acts. “They laid everything at the feet of the Apostles” and everything was distributed so that the poor and the wealthy were provided for.

That’s why people like Mother Teresa describes the poor as Jesus in a distressing disguise. This is also why religious houses like those of the Missionaries of Charity have very simple chapels without too much in them. The Missionaries would not say that this is a statement against the EF. If a priest can celebrate the EF with the little that they have and with the simple vestments and vessels that they can provide, they certainly welcome it.

We’re not talking here against the EF. We’re talking about the differences between orders and their spirituality. These differences do not mean a lack of understanding. It means that each one has its own culture.

If you attend the EF at a Cistercian house, everyone stands around the altar. Their argument is that you become a Cistercian to be a monk, not to be a priest. The priesthood comes second to them. The monk who is a priest and is presiding at the mass, is not to stand alone, but to stand with his brothers. This does not mean that they don’t understand the EF. On the contrary, I think it means that many people who are lovers of the EF did not know that there are many variations to it, because most people only had secular priests in their parishes. How many parishes have friars or monks?

Do you see what I mean by a difference of culture rather than a failure to understand?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You are further explaining the difference in culture, but culture isn’t at the heart of what I’m getting at. If it were only a matter of culture, then perhaps you could appreciate that the Franciscans view may not be superior to the traditional view. Each order or fraternity indeed does have it’s own sprituality and its own way of celebrating the liturgy. The EF is a legitimate expression of the Catholic faith, and it is not inferior to the Franciscan view. Now you will no doubt say to this that the Franciscans celebrate the EF, but that’s a small fraction of Franciscans who do so. You yourself will continually put up little criticisms of the EF, and then deny that you have done so, or deflect away from the subject by moving the conversation in a different direction. But in a way that’s okay, because in the process, we may learn more about each other’s viewpoint. Though I sometimes find traditionalists to be annoying, they are at least forthright, and will speak without equivocation.

 

[jwinch2]

I don’t think that a Franciscan can understand the importance of the EF to traditional Catholics. Certainly I have not seen anything in your posts that would indicate this. When a Franciscan continually tries to correct trads and tell them that they are wrong, and that they must accept the Franciscan view, then that indicates that there’s a great lack of understanding, IMO.

You mentioned Gregorian chant, and I’m glad that you understand that the FSSP can still use it. But others use it, too. Thank goodness that the Church, in her wisdom, did not follow St. Francis and St. Clare in banning chant.

It’s fine if you want to be detached from vessels and vestments so that you can use the money for the poor. But why do you expect trads have to do the same thing? Remember when St. Mary Magdalene used the expensive oil on Our Lord’s feet after she had washed them? What did Our Lord say to those who complained that that money could have been better spent on practical things?

Yes, detachment goes beyond the Mass, but if you want to make a case about too much information in a person’s enviroment, that’s fine. But when you put down aspects of the EF, then that’s something else.

Denise,

This has gone on long enough.

This is a thread about spiritualities of religious orders of which obviously the Franciscans are one. Brother has explained multiple times the Franciscan position and at no time has he stated that others are required to follow it. He has merely contrasted it with those who feel that if you don’t have those things in the Mass, you are not traditional. You personally asked him to explain the issue of detachment from a Franciscan point of view, which he has. Multiple times.

Please, it is time for you to stop derailing this thread by turning it into a debate on chant and vestments and their place in the EF of the Mass.

 

[Denise1957]

Denise,

This has gone on long enough.

This is a thread about spiritualities of religious orders of which obviously the Franciscans are one. Brother has explained multiple times the Franciscan position and at no time has he stated that others are required to follow it. He has merely contrasted it with those who feel that if you don’t have those things in the Mass, you are not traditional. You personally asked him to explain the issue of detachment from a Franciscan point of view, which he has. Multiple times.

Please, it is time for you to stop derailing this thread by turning it into a debate on chant and vestments and their place in the EF of the Mass.

You are right, it has gone on long enough, so I won’t post further on this thread. But it was Br. JR who brought up the subject of traditionalists not understanding detachment on this thread, as well as other things having to do with the traditionalist view which I did not address.

Carry on.

 

[TimothyH]

Br. Jr,

I guess the point is that most people have issues with detachment - both understanding and practicing. Most of us are attached to things.

It is not a Traditionalist problem or the problem of the opposite end of the spectrum. It is a human problem and something we have to ask God to help us with.

Can you recommend a book by Jose Maria Escriva?

I am really interested in practicing detachment.

I am reasonably familiar with the work of St. Josemaria. One in my parish is a member of Opus Dei and I attend the Men’s Evening of Recollection here in Atlanta when I can. But I too would be interested in hearing if there is a specific plan outlined by St. Josemaria, which perhaps I missed or handn’t seen yet, or if the plan which Brother JR referenced is more of the saint’s general mission in founding Opus Dei, finding holiness in ordinary life. I get the sense, from what I know about St. Josemaria, that it is the latter, rather than the former, and would be surprised to find out if there was a book with a plan outline or something like that.

TrueLight, all of St. Josemaria Escriva’s written works are available online at escrivaworks.org/. He is probably most known for “The Way” which is a collection of quotes, browsable by subject. The quotes on detachment are at escrivaworks.org/book/the_way-subject-62.htm

**It has been a long trial this time. Perhaps — and without the perhaps — you haven’t borne it well so far, for you were still seeking human consolations. And your Father— God tore them out by the roots so as to leave you nothing to cling to but him. **
The Way 722

Detach yourself from people and things until you are stripped of them. For, says Pope Saint Gregory, the devil has nothing of his own in this world, and naked he comes to battle. If you go clothed to fight him, you will soon be pulled to the ground: for he will have something to catch you by.
The Way 149

All the things of this world are no more than earth. Place them in a heap under your feet and you will be so much the nearer to heaven.
The Way 676

-Tim-

 

[TrueLight]

I am reasonably familiar with the work of St. Josemaria. One in my parish is a member of Opus Dei and I attend the Men’s Evening of Recollection here in Atlanta when I can. But I too would be interested in hearing if there is a specific plan outlined by St. Josemaria, which perhaps I missed or handn’t seen yet, or if the plan which Brother JR referenced is more of the saint’s general mission in founding Opus Dei, finding holiness in ordinary life. I get the sense, from what I know about St. Josemaria, that it is the latter, rather than the former, and would be surprised to find out if there was a book with a plan outline or something like that.

TrueLight, all of St. Josemaria Escriva’s written works are available online at escrivaworks.org/. He is probably most known for “The Way” which is a collection of quotes, browsable by subject. The quotes on detachment are at escrivaworks.org/book/the_way-subject-62.htm

***It has been a long trial this time. Perhaps — and without the perhaps — you haven’t borne it well so far, for you were still seeking human consolations. And your Father— God tore them out by the roots so as to leave you nothing to cling to but him. ***
The Way 722

Detach yourself from people and things until you are stripped of them. For, says Pope Saint Gregory, the devil has nothing of his own in this world, and naked he comes to battle. If you go clothed to fight him, you will soon be pulled to the ground: for he will have something to catch you by.
The Way 149

All the things of this world are no more than earth. Place them in a heap under your feet and you will be so much the nearer to heaven.
The Way 676

-Tim-

Awesome! The Way it is, then!

Thanks.