The Benedictine School

  • Thread starter Thread starter OraLabora
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Those are good questions. The answer to the first in my view is to give priests ongoing formation and training in spirituality and theology. The answer to the second is to have a parish based program which incorporates spiritual and theological training. Most programs I see at the parish level such as “why Catholic” etc. are about catechesis, which is certainly important. However, I really feel that we are missing the boat on spirituality. You can’t love what you don’t know. Studying about God’s Church, when you don’t know God, isn’t going to do any good.

Its also why I believe you see so many people looking to third/secular/lay orders/congregations, etc. because are searching for a spiritual framework which they can view their ongoing conversion through.
Do you think that the sanctification of the laity would be better served by trining in moral theology rather than spirituality - either at the level of the pastor and priest or the liaty?

It seems to me that there is a huge gap in between the Gospel and its practical application in the lives of individual Christians. One example is the difference between the objectivity of sin and the subjectivity of culpability to a particular sin in a particular situation.

I’m not challenging your thoughts, but simply asking the question. Would inner conversion be better served by teaching a more practical application of the Gospel through moral theology?

The reason I ask is because true knowledge of God is a gift, and not everyone will be a spiritual person. My own pastor seems as dry as a bone sometimes, a wonderful man, always smiling, but extremely practical, and I don’t think anyone will ever “Teach” him to be spiritual.

-Tim-
 
Good stuff.

I do think that the manner in which the Mass is celebrated, the architecture, the music, etc. have a good deal to do with things. It was an overwhelming, almost transcendent, set of experiences at Mass when I was visiting my family at home that caused me to first look into the Benedictines. However, you are of course correct, as is Brother JR, that focusing on these things too much can be detrimental.

Ideally, we would not have to worry about it because the Mass would be celebrated properly and with great reverence, the Church structures would be conducive to prayer, and the music would also. Alas, that is not always the case, in fact I get the impression that it is all too rare. It certainly has been in my experience. I often wonder if that is part of the reason we disassociate the spiritual and the liturgical in our time in the Church. Unlike some of the Traditionalists, I don’t blame the OF of the Mass, I blame how it is often done.

In a very real sense, we are fighting an uphill battle in that the rest of the world is starkly against what it is we are trying to become. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should be a slice of Heaven in the middle of that same world and all too often, its not. That, is a problem.

The Benedictines seem to recognize these things which is why I believe you see such a focus on the liturgy in the Benedictine Family.

As for the rest, I agree strongly.
 
Do you think that the sanctification of the laity would be better served by trining in moral theology rather than spirituality - either at the level of the pastor and priest or the liaty?

It seems to me that there is a huge gap in between the Gospel and its practical application in the lives of individual Christians. One example is the difference between the objectivity of sin and the subjectivity of culpability to a particular sin in a particular situation.

I’m not challenging your thoughts, but simply asking the question. Would inner conversion be better served by teaching a more practical application of the Gospel through moral theology?

The reason I ask is because true knowledge of God is a gift, and not everyone will be a spiritual person. My own pastor seems as dry as a bone sometimes, a wonderful man, always smiling, but extremely practical, and I don’t think anyone will ever “Teach” him to be spiritual.
Good questions Tim. I believe that if the ongoing catechesis is being done properly, things like moral theology would be covered. Our diocese has a program which comes to our parish and does discuss these things with regularity.

I really do feel what is often missing is the process of inner conversion. Its tough though isn’t it, when you have a priest that is already swamped with stuff to do, to expect him to be able to handle this also? Then, add in a priest such as you mentioned, and things get even less likely to go that route.

Peace,
 
Do you think that the sanctification of the laity would be better served by trining in moral theology rather than spirituality - either at the level of the pastor and priest or the liaty?

It seems to me that there is a huge gap in between the Gospel and its practical application in the lives of individual Christians. One example is the difference between the objectivity of sin and the subjectivity of culpability to a particular sin in a particular situation.

I’m not challenging your thoughts, but simply asking the question. Would inner conversion be better served by teaching a more practical application of the Gospel through moral theology?

The reason I ask is because true knowledge of God is a gift, and not everyone will be a spiritual person. My own pastor seems as dry as a bone sometimes, a wonderful man, always smiling, but extremely practical, and I don’t think anyone will ever “Teach” him to be spiritual.

-Tim-
I can only speak for myself. I think it can only work for a time. There is a notion of maturation in one’s faith. When newly converted, we feel a very strong inner pull and we are sort of in our “combatant” phase of faith. We’ve learned a taste of freedom, true freedom.

So we work hard to follow the rules, learn more about our faith, learn (and argue!) the doctrine. We’re young (in faith-years, not necessarily physical years), and we’re warriors.

We take a very mechanical approach to applying the Gospels. Or I should say, I did. You bury your most intimate sinfulness, refuse to talk about it, refuse to acknowledge it. That part of you is in the PAST, no longer any need to confront it. Or so you thought.

Then one day, BLAM! We fall back into our habitual sin. Really hard. We thought this religion business meant we were strong enough to overcome our habitual sin based on willpower alone. But it wasn’t.

When it happens, you feel God has abandoned you, and you are plunged into the dark night of your soul… and it lasts for YEARS.

We blame our temptation on Satan. But I often think it also comes from God. And I think He expects us to fall. It’s not a test. Rather He is compelling you to really examine your heart and He knows it takes a hard knock for you to finally agree to go there.

Some folks really do have the sheer willpower to keep their dark side under wraps all their lives. My experience is that they’re not a whole lot of fun to be around. I know I wasn’t fun to be around.

I don’t think teaching moral theology on its own will lead to inner conversion. The spark for inner conversion won’t come from without, it will come from within, and it requires going through that dark night.

I can say from experience I started to have a hard time believing in God’s mercy; that he would accept me as I am, as I repeatedly went to confession to try to climb out of my habitual sin during my dark night. My confessor repeatedly said God loved me just as I was, God forgave me, but don’t focus on the result, focus on the effort. God expects the effort, He knows we will always fall short of the perfect result. He knows it so well, He had to send His only Son to redeem us. It took me a long time to finally believe my confessor.

I can tell you that the dark night was a period of intense suffering for me. How I managed to still stay functional in my profession, I can only attribute to God’s help.

It was then I realized I was never going to “change” in the sense that the dark part of me was stuck with me for life, that things started to turn around. I somehow had to learn to accept it. Only then can God’s grace and Mercy find its way into your heart, and then start to find strength to actually make an effort. I can’t guarantee that this effort will make you perfect, but I can guarantee it will make you better.

I think divorcing confession from conversion, from a basic psychological understanding of ourselves, can at best only be a short-term band-aid. I had to be brutally honest with who I am. There’s good and bad in who I am, but both parts make up who I really am. They are unfortunately inseparable. But with conversion, they can be manageable.
 
What we see here on the Traditional forum is that seek is really a return to traditional parish life as they knew it or as their parents knew it. But that is only a very small slice of Church tradition.
I think this is it, exactly. It is why, I believe, many of us are drawn to becoming oblates/members of third orders. We are seeking to return to the time of my parents or perhaps grandparents. A time when everyone in a parish knew each other. Sure, family was first, but you knew Giuseppe. If he needed help with his crops you were there, at least in cases of major need. We have sadly lost that.

I belong to a pretty conservative parish (I am speaking religiously, not politically, although the parish seems to me to be pretty conservative politically, too). I am a fairly outgoing guy. I usher. And I can say that I “know” (besides my fellow ushers), maybe a half dozen other people. Sure, I know many by sight, but I couldn’t tell you the names of many of them. And that is sad. Again, my grandparents knew everyone (practically speaking) at their parish, which was only a bit smaller than mine.
 
I can say from experience I started to have a hard time believing in God’s mercy; that he would accept me as I am, as I repeatedly went to confession to try to climb out of my habitual sin during my dark night. My confessor repeatedly said God loved me just as I was, God forgave me, but don’t focus on the result, focus on the effort. God expects the effort, He knows we will always fall short of the perfect result. He knows it so well, He had to send His only Son to redeem us. It took me a long time to finally believe my confessor.
Me, too. I think it was Fulton Sheen who said that God’s mercy and love are too good to be true, but that they are true just the same.

I think that if you sincerely try to be converted, and keep trying and keep falling short, and are tempted to just say “to hell with it” but still keep trying, really trying, that our Lord is happy with us. I hope:D
 
Coming from an Evangelical upbringing, many times, I was encouraged to “seek God” in a myriad of ways by the sermons I heard on Sunday mornings. I would hear the sermons, which would cut straight into my heart, and then I would go home and seek more.

Seeking more would include reading the Bible, buying spiritual books, listening to music that blessed me and kept God on my mind.

Is it not possible for a homily to not only “open the word” but also, teach spirituality/morality?
 
Is it not possible for a homily to not only “open the word” but also, teach spirituality/morality?
Well, yes, it should be possible but keep in mind that priests are human and not all are excellent and inspiring homilists. One that I know is, is the rector of St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal. On the rare times he presided the 7 am Mass, he would give a homily even on weekdays. It was short. Generally only one or two sentences. But they were sharp, incisive, and you would be meditating what he said all day. Far more effective than a long rambling homily even if the latter had solid content.

But it won’t ever be enough just on its own.

Also unlike Evangelicals, our Mass is very much Eucharist-centred and not so much preaching-centred. Frankly if we weren’t Eucharist-centred, I’m not sure I would have managed to haul my sorry butt through my dark night.

But that doesn’t mean there can’t be quality preaching/teaching.
 
Well, yes, it should be possible but keep in mind that priests are human and not all are excellent and inspiring homilists. One that I know is, is the rector of St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal. On the rare times he presided the 7 am Mass, he would give a homily even on weekdays. It was short. Generally only one or two sentences. But they were sharp, incisive, and you would be meditating what he said all day. Far more effective than a long rambling homily even if the latter had solid content.

But it won’t ever be enough just on its own.

Also unlike Evangelicals, our Mass is very much Eucharist-centred and not so much preaching-centred. Frankly if we weren’t Eucharist-centred, I’m not sure I would have managed to haul my sorry butt through my dark night.

But that doesn’t mean there can’t be quality preaching/teaching.
Not every Protestant preacher is a good preacher either and preaching good homilies doesn’t mean the mass is homily centered.

It is however, a chance for people to be taught spirituality because they are already there.
 
Not every Protestant preacher is a good preacher either and preaching good homilies doesn’t mean the mass is homily centered.

It is however, a chance for people to be taught spirituality because they are already there.
That isn’t what he is suggesting. He is suggesting that unlike most protestant services, the Mass spends very little time on preaching. In protestant services that I have been to the preaching could last for hours, but if you take the average Mass time of an hour, the homily likely only lasts for about 15 minutes.

Yes, the homily can be a chance to teach spirituality. The retreat I was just recently on saw the Abbot relating the Mass readings to the Holy Rule which was very edifying. Having said that, I don’t think it is necessarily the best venue. Particularly if the homilist is also making an attempt to break open the scriptures from a doctrinal standpoint.

Its probably why you see the Order of Preachers spending so much time these days working on preaching apostolates outside of Mass, because there just isn’t enough time in Mass to teach everything they wish to get across.

Peace,
 
That isn’t what he is suggesting. He is suggesting that unlike most protestant services, the Mass spends very little time on preaching. In protestant services that I have been to the preaching could last for hours, but if you take the average Mass time of an hour, the homily likely only lasts for about 15 minutes.

Yes, the homily can be a chance to teach spirituality. The retreat I was just recently on saw the Abbot relating the Mass readings to the Holy Rule which was very edifying. Having said that, I don’t think it is necessarily the best venue. Particularly if the homilist is also making an attempt to break open the scriptures from a doctrinal standpoint.
Exactly. Preaching a good homily doesn’t make the mass preaching-centred. But the Mass remains Eucharist centred, compared to Evangelical services, no matter how good the homily is. And good homilies certainly are possible and very much welcomed!
 
That isn’t what he is suggesting. He is suggesting that unlike most protestant services, the Mass spends very little time on preaching. In protestant services that I have been to the preaching could last for hours, but if you take the average Mass time of an hour, the homily likely only lasts for about 15 minutes.

Yes, the homily can be a chance to teach spirituality. The retreat I was just recently on saw the Abbot relating the Mass readings to the Holy Rule which was very edifying. Having said that, I don’t think it is necessarily the best venue. Particularly if the homilist is also making an attempt to break open the scriptures from a doctrinal standpoint.

Its probably why you see the Order of Preachers spending so much time these days working on preaching apostolates outside of Mass, because there just isn’t enough time in Mass to teach everything they wish to get across.

Peace,
I have to say that the FSSP really teach during their homilies.

Anyway. All I’m saying is that courses are great, but the homuly is also an obvious place.
 
I have to say that the FSSP really teach during their homilies.
Lots of good priests do, and they should. That isn’t the same as giving spiritual direction. In my opinion, a good homily is developed from the readings of the day or perhaps from the life of a saint if their feast day falls on that day, which may not always tie in to teaching spirituality which probably needs to be done in a more structured format and for longer than 15 minutes a week.

Peace,
 
My advice might be more practical that spiritual. Nothing wrong with wanting to feed your family and work at getting a higher salary.

However my experience is with advancement, stress is inevitable. I guess you really need to determine what’s important for you and your family and how much stress you can handle. I used to be able to handle a fair bit, but as I got older, not so much anymore.

Also money impact tends to be exaggerated. A 10% increase in salary for example (pretty typical for a job change) does not really make that big an impact on family finances. It’s often not worth the extra stress.

I don’t know how old you are but ambition and the desire to get ahead is pretty normal in the first half of life.

So too is slowing down in the second half, and that’s where I am, so my advice now might not be so appropriate for your stage.

In the past if a job no longer met my expectations, I’d move on. I do place a big value on stability because of the Rule of St. Benedict but one must be careful to not confuse stability with stagnation. Stability is an inner disposition.
Just came back to thank you for your advice.
 
My job is something I struggle with a lot. If someone looks at my job from the outside, it looks like a good job. I too work in IT. I’m not micromanaged, I can take time off very easily, I have room for a lot of creativity in my job and I pretty much define what I do. We have good benefits, including a children’s tuition benefit.

So why am I unhappy? My ambition. My job does have elements of both racism and sexism and so there is a ceiling on how far I can advance.

So I struggle with either being happy at a pretty decent job even though my salary is stagnant, or applying for a job which may have more opportunities for advancement, but maybe more stress.

Any advice in looking at this dilemma spiritually?
I believe that this is where one must practice the virtue of poverty. St. Benedict would agree that there is no sin in having wealth and possessions, which means doing what one needs to do in order to achieve it. Some Benedictine abbeys are quite wealthy. In fact, thanks to the wealth and generosity of the Benedictines the Franciscans got San Damiano, the Portiuncula and Mt. Laverna. They were all Benedictine properties. The Benedictines gave them to Francis.

The spirit is to have what one needs, not what one wants. The extras are for those who have less. In looking at careers the Benedictine paradigm works very well. It is OK to wish for more, if one needs more and if one is wiling to share the surplus, not horde it. Just to make more money so one can have it, turns money into a idol.

Sometimes, we need to make career changes just to make a greater contribution to the world in which we live. That too is legitimate. One must discern if God is calling us to do this or if it’s just our will trying to drive God.
So I have a couple questions (These are things that have been on my mind for awhile)

1.) How does the Church reach the greater laity with the message of inner conversion?

and

2.) How will the Church teach the laity to do it?
I don’t have a magic answer to your question, but I’ll share two things that happened to me this week.

Sunday, I was sitting in a prayer garden that the local parish has for St. Maximilian. Actually, I was praying. We have a custom of putting up our cowls to block off distractions when we pray, including mass. It only comes off during the Eucharistic prayer and at communion.

I heard what were clearly ladies footsteps coming toward me and I looked up. The woman said, “I just want to say hello.” At this point, I’m breaking my noggin’ thinking, “Who is she?” I often forget people’s names. It’s part of my circulatory problem, not enough oxygen to the brain. I forget certain things such as names and numbers.

She must have noticed the look on my face. She said, “Oh, we have never met before.” To which I gave a sigh of relief. “Are you a monk?”

“No Mam, I’m a mendicant.”

“But you’re a religious, right?”

“Yes Mam, I’m Franciscan.”

Then she hit me between the eyes, “When I saw you there praying, I had to stop my car and come over to say hello. It’s something that I need to do more often.”

To which I responded, “Stop your car or pray?” and I grinned. She laughed and said, “It’s good to see a person who can pray and have a sense of humor. Thank you. You’ve taught me a lot.” The she left. 🤷

This afternoon, I interviewed a young man who is interested in the Franciscans of Life. After about two hours of questions and answers from both sides he said, “I never thought that one could return to the 13th century; but you guys have do that everyday. I’ve met a few of your brothers over the past few months. Each of them seems to be here, but not here, if you know what I mean. I bet that if a nuclear bomb exploded next to them, they would not stop what they’re doing.”

I said, "I hope not. They have more important things to worry about, if they survive a nuclear strike. "

Then he asked, “Are you born with this ability?”

I explained that is was a journey of conversion. You practice until you get right. You’ll know that you got right six days after you’re dead.

My point is that teaching conversion is not quite something that you do from a book or in a classroom, but it’s something that you learn by changing one thing at a time. You can certainly read the spiritual masters. That will help. But Benedict himself underwent a conversion process. When he was first asked to be the abbot, he told the monks that this was not a good choice, because he would be too hard on them. He was right too. He was very hard on them. Gradually, he went from being the superior to being the Abba.
Simply brilliant.

I have always thought that this why the Gospel writers mention our Lord’s smashing things up at the money changers. It was remarkable, because it showed him using another emotion (righteous anger) and because it must have been rare.

The image of our Lord that I hold in my heart is of a man (who is God, obviously), not some either aloof autocrat or, even worse, pansy.
When we get too ethereal, we run the risk of forgetting that Jesus is the God-Man. His had an intact and perfect human nature. A perfect human nature is not always somber. A perfect human nature is disciplined. It responds appropriately to each situation. The Christian vocation is to achieve that same type of perfection.
Coming from an Evangelical upbringing, many times, I was encouraged to “seek God” in a myriad of ways by the sermons I heard on Sunday mornings. I would hear the sermons, which would cut straight into my heart, and then I would go home and seek more.

Seeking more would include reading the Bible, buying spiritual books, listening to music that blessed me and kept God on my mind.

Is it not possible for a homily to not only “open the word” but also, teach spirituality/morality?
You have to consider several things. One has already been mentioned. Some priests and deacons are not good communicators no matter how many classes of homiletics they take.

There are also very strict Church rules about sermons. This applies to all forms of the mass in the Latin Rite: EF, OF, Dominican, Carmelite, etc.The homily is not supposed to be catechesis. The homily is to break open the Word of God, not to teach doctrine, morals, traditions, laws, or systems of spirituality. A homily can certainly speak about prayer, conversion, penance, sin, and so forth, as long as it does not turn into a lesson. This requires skill.

I’ve known three preachers whom I truly admire, because they could pull this off. Only one of them is a priest, Archbishop Fulton Sheen. His preaching was not a lesson, but it always gave you something to think about. The other is Billy Graham. He too was an awesome preacher who left you thinking. The third person is someone whom I cannot name, because he may not like the publicity. There is a Cistercian brother (not a priest) who does the priest retreats for our diocese. He’s absolutely great. He’s like leaves you with something to think about and yet, his style is like someone who is thinking aloud. You can tell this man is a contemplative. He just starts thinking about a subject and it rolls off his tongue. The content is always something that you never thought about before.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Sometimes, we need to make career changes just to make a greater contribution to the world in which we live. That too is legitimate. One must discern if God is calling us to do this or if it’s just our will trying to drive God.
Yes, this is something I am really praying about.
A homily can certainly speak about prayer, conversion, penance, sin, and so forth, as long as it does not turn into a lesson. This requires skill.
Brother, what is the difference between a lesson and speaking about prayer, conversion, penance etc. What is the reason that it cannot be a “lesson”. Can’t breaking open the word not be instructional? Help me understand please.
 
One of the priests I knew when we lived in Tennessee regularly states that he believes, that when all is said and done, it will be revealed how the prayers of contemplatives throughout the centuries have influenced and helped to shape our world and bring about God’s Kingdom.

A nice way to look at things.

Peace,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top