Thoughts on traditionalism and the religious

[Melchior_1]

You know, I won’t even start, but (comma) you’re not looking at the totality of the Churches teaching. Start a new thread and we can all do it again…

There’s a lot of times where I think the exact same thing that you just did. Elements like use of the vernacular. Look no further than the hotly contested item known as the Luminous Mysteries, where some say that the Rosary can never change yet ignore that it has changed a few times during its lifespan. We have people who visit here who think that Our Lady’s Consecration to Russia “never happened”, the the Third Secret of Fatima has yet to be revealed. We have people who get upset about how LOTH has changed, but they forget how the last changes happened way back in 1910.

A danger I often see is people projecting their spirituality onto others, and personally I think that’s the greatest danger this sub-section has. People who refer to themselves as traditionalists are projecting what they view as “the right way to be Catholic” onto others, ignoring some crucial elements. As one who is a mendicant Order, I’m a proponent of austerity from the externals (both Liturgical and otherwise), and from that comes detachment. Whereas the Carmelites obtain their austerity through the detachment. I can learn a lot from Carmelites, and I’m not about to go over to one and say their strive for detachment first is wrong. I’m not going to tell a Benedictine their LOTH is wrong, or hwo they do it is wrong. A Franciscan isn’t going to tell me to stop reading and researching. No one will tell a Jesuit or a Dominican to stop teaching or preaching.

We can look at the recent “Is it a sin to pray with Protestants?” thread. We had a Franciscan, Dominican, and a Benedictine all say what their respective orders did, and how they handled things. We were told by a couple of people flat out that we were wrong. Ignoring that the Franciscans are the custodians of the Holy Land because they know how to handle and work with other Faiths, and also ignoring that Dominicans are an order of preachers. It’s what we do, and we do it well.

I recently saw someone say that St. Louis de Monfort would have never accepted the Luminous Mysteries, as it wasn’t the original Rosary. This ignores the fact that the Franciscans have their own version of the Rosary, which obviously means it has changed. Further, with the new translation of the Apostles Creed it has changed again if you recite it in English.

Someone said once “I don’t think that a Franciscan can understand the importance of the EF to traditional Catholics”. Franciscans had a hand in forming the Tridentine Mass, so tell me how that works?

I mentioned in another thread that the “charismatic renewal” has been around for 2000 years, just without using the name. People scoffed at this, and proceed to ignore that both the Franciscans and Dominicans had several of their members (founders included) who had the charismatic gifts. Steubenville is a part of that legacy. They said “it started in 1960 something”, which shows they aren’t the totality of the Churches teaching. It’s like some people think the Church is in a bubble from Trent to 1880, and ignore the orders.

All of this ties into people who ignore the longstanding traditions of the religious. In the case of the Dominicans, our methodologies come from 750+ years of refinement and development from the time of Dominic. He took aspects he felt were missing or got lost, and tried to bring them back. I am but one of the fruits of his labour, and I will join his family soon enough.

The most critical portion of being traditional is to be faithful to Tradition. Orders are a part of Tradition. We have our own traditions, of which I’m only starting to scratch the surface on. So please keep that in mind during our discussions, in any discussion you may have, even if it is not here. That there is more to the Church than the commonly perceived traditions.

EDIT: Here’s a thread with more discussions on this kind of topic.

 

[TrueLight]

The most critical portion of being traditional is to be faithful to Tradition. Orders are a part of Tradition. We have our own traditions, of which I’m only starting to scratch the surface on. So please keep that in mind during our discussions, in any discussion you may have, even if it is not here. That there is more to the Church than the commonly perceived traditions.

At the same time, should the Religious tout their traditions as the right way to do things or should we all listen to each other?

For example, if the Franciscans and Dominicans believe or insist on austerity in the mass or Church buildings, does it mean others can’t build really fancy buildings and have extraordinary high masses?

 

[Melchior_1]

At the same time, should the Religious tout their traditions as the right way to do things or should we all listen to each other?

I have yet to see any of the Religious or those who follow Religious practices do anything of the sort. I have seen them answer questions and explain how they do things on their end. I’ve also seen people remind others that just because something is “different” doesn’t mean it isn’t traditional.

 

[TrueLight]

I have yet to see any of the Religious or those who follow Religious practices do anything of the sort. I have seen them answer questions and explain how they do things on their end. I’ve also seen people remind others that just because something is “different” doesn’t mean it isn’t traditional.

Sorry. I added a paragraph. Take another look please.

 

[Melchior_1]

For example, if the Franciscans and Dominicans believe or insist on austerity in the mass or Church buildings, does it mean others can’t build really fancy buildings and have extraordinary high masses?

A recent discussion was had on this in our thread about spirituality (link is in the OP, near the end). It’s on Pages 8 or 9 I think.

The cliff notes; of course others can build huge buildings and have high masses. But there are times when there is too much emphasis placed on the external, and that is where the concern lies.

 

[corsair]

Take a look at the vimeo vid on this Dominican site. beautiful solemn High Mass at Blessed Sacrament in Seattle. They celebrate this Dominican rite Mass twice a year; Feast of St. Dominic and All Souls.

dominican-liturgy.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-10-21T10:59:00-07:00&max-results=7

Not exactly “austere” and plain.

 

[jam070406]

I mentioned in another thread that the “charismatic renewal” has been around for 2000 years, just without using the name. People scoffed at this, and proceed to ignore that both the Franciscans and Dominicans had several of their members (founders included) who had the charismatic gifts. Steubenville is a part of that legacy. They said “it started in 1960 something”, which shows they aren’t the totality of the Churches teaching. It’s like some people think the Church is in a bubble from Trent to 1880, and ignore the orders.

This paragraph is NOT honest and ignores every post that was made to your assertions.
I don’t appreciate your condescending attitude against people that disagree with you either.
This thread is completely lacking of respect and charity and is being reported to the moderators as nothing more then a thread to stir trouble.

 

[Melchior_1]

Take a look at the vimeo vid on this Dominican site. beautiful solemn High Mass at Blessed Sacrament in Seattle. They celebrate this Dominican rite Mass twice a year; Feast of St. Dominic and All Souls.

dominican-liturgy.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-10-21T10:59:00-07:00&max-results=7

Not exactly “austere” and plain.

I never said that Dominicans do “plain” Masses all of the time. Franciscans likewise can do Masses with all the bells and whistles.

Austerity can be an internal thing. For a mendicant, it’s of extreme importance. yes, they can do high Masses. But the mendicant is equally comfortable saying Mass in an oversized outhouse wearing a sackcloth if need be.

 

[Melchior_1]

This paragraph is NOT honest and ignores every post that was made to your assertions.
I don’t appreciate your condescending attitude against people that disagree with you either.
This thread is completely lacking of respect and charity and is being reported to the moderators as nothing more then a thread to stir trouble.

I’m not being condescending, and my apologies if it comes across that way. The paragraph you highlighted contains points that were ignored when I brought them up in the other thread. I specifically mentioned (twice) that Dominicans and Franciscans had charismatic elements throughout their history, including the founders, and this was ignored.

I can see no more than three to five threads on the first page that can be seen as “stirring up trouble”, and this was not meant to be one of them. Again, my apologies if you feel that way, but it isn’t the case.

 

[TrueLight]

I’m not being condescending, and my apologies if it comes across that way. The paragraph you highlighted contains points that were ignored when I brought them up in the other thread. I specifically mentioned (twice) that Dominicans and Franciscans had charismatic elements throughout their history, including the founders, and this was ignored.

I can see no more than three to five threads on the first page that can be seen as “stirring up trouble”, and this was not meant to be one of them. Again, my apologies if you feel that way, but it isn’t the case.

I don’t think it was ignored. I myself said that I didn’t see mysticism as the same as charismaticism.

I’m actually interested in seeing some examples.

 

[Melchior_1]

I don’t think it was ignored. I myself said that I didn’t see mysticism as the same as charismaticism.

I’m actually interested in seeing some examples.

I thought you were referring to my comment about how charismaticism (is that even a word?) taps into the mystical side of the Church, and not about the two orders.

Anyway, I wasn’t saying they were one and the same, but that one is tapping into the other.

In my studies I have found it isn’t the same per-say, more that the charismatic renewal is tapping into the mystic side. When you see some of our Church mystics like Francis, Dominic, Kolbe, Catherine, they certain exhibit similar attributes of the charisms found in Corinthians. In fact, I believe Francis actually had specific instances of these which were recorded. Things like the gift of prophecy, for example, has been evident a few times.

There’s systematic theology and mystical theology. In my opinion, I think too much emphasis on the traditional side is on the systematic. Whereas on the charismatic side, I think too much emphasis is placed on the mysticism. I noticed with myself that I was starting to emphasis the systematic side too much, so I’ve started reading some of the Church mystics to try and balance things.

 

[TrueLight]

I thought you were referring to my comment about how charismaticism (is that even a word?) taps into the mystical side of the Church, and not about the two orders.

Anyway, I wasn’t saying they were one and the same, but that one is tapping into the other.

In my studies I have found it isn’t the same per-say, more that the charismatic renewal is tapping into the mystic side. When you see some of our Church mystics like Francis, Dominic, Kolbe, Catherine, they certain exhibit similar attributes of the charisms found in Corinthians. In fact, I believe Francis actually had specific instances of these which were recorded. Things like the gift of prophecy, for example, has been evident a few times.

There’s systematic theology and mystical theology. In my opinion, I think too much emphasis on the traditional side is on the systematic. Whereas on the charismatic side, I think too much emphasis is placed on the mysticism. I noticed with myself that I was starting to emphasis the systematic side too much, so I’ve started reading some of the Church mystics to try and balance things.

This has the makings of another thread.

 

[JReducation]

At the same time, should the Religious tout their traditions as the right way to do things or should we all listen to each other?

I think that what is happening with the laity is very similar to what happened with children and youth. We passed laws and created programs to protect the rights of children and youth and to encourage them to take their rightful place in society and contribute according to their state in life. Before we knew it, parents no longer had rights, just duties and the young dominated and still dominate the world’s economy. The economy targets people under 40.

In the Church, Vatican II was meant to be the Council for the laity. It has produced many wonderful results. Laymen are involved in Church life to degrees that they were never involved before. We never had lay theologians, lay canon lawyers, lay chancellors of dioceses, lay directors of diocesan ministries or lay apologists. We have many great and needed apostolates run by the laity, such as the pro-life movement, the Emaus Movement, the Charismatic Movement, the Cursillo Movement, the Legion of Mary, LifeTeen and others. In my own dioceses, we have five pregnancy centers and we run pro-life activities and education out of 111 parishes. We have only 11 brothers working in this ministry. We had 50 sisters, but they had to move to other apostolates, because their religious community does not allow them to serve middle class or up. This left a void that was filled by over 40 lay people, including the Diocesan Directorship, which was always in the hands a priest or brother.

The problem has become that just like many young people have become dismissive of the older generation and its wisdom and experience, many laypeople have become dismissive of religious life and its wisdom and experience in the spiritual life. What makes this worse in the Church is that religious life is part of the Church’s doctrine. One cannot simply say that it’s just another spirituality along with many or that the way that religious do things are just an option among many. When the Church points to something as essential to her life, we must pay attention to it.

Oxygen is essential to human life. We take care of the environment. Water is essential to life. We create irrigation systems to take water to dry places. Education, medicine and food are essential to human life. We don’t take these things lightly nor do we treat them as if they were of equal value with everything else.

Let’s observe what the Church says about religious life and the place of religious in the life of the Church. This is a doctrine from the Council of Trent, not an opinion.

917 "From the God-given seed of the counsels a wonderful and wide-spreading tree has grown up in the field of the Lord, branching out into various forms of the religious life lived in solitude or in community. Different religious families have come into existence in which spiritual resources are multiplied for the progress in holiness of their members and for the good of the entire Body of Christ."

927 All religious, whether exempt or not, take their place among the collaborators of the diocesan bishop in his pastoral duty. From the outset of the work of evangelization, the missionary “planting” and expansion of the Church require the presence of the religious life in all its forms. "History witnesses to the outstanding service rendered by religious families in the propagation of the faith and in the formation of new Churches: from the ancient monastic institutions to the medieval orders, all the way to the more recent congregations."

It’s not a matter of touting, but a matter of tradition. Religious have always led the lay faithful in the life of worship. They have set the pace and introduced the faithful to different expressions of worship, from the very solemn monastic tradition to the very austere mendicant tradition.

 

[JReducation]

For example, if the Franciscans and Dominicans believe or insist on austerity in the mass or Church buildings, does it mean others can’t build really fancy buildings and have extraordinary high masses?

Not at all. What it means is that the Church has always listened very carefully to these orders and incorporated their contribution into her life of worship. She has never simply patted them on the head and said, “That’s nice.”

Part of our return to tradition or recovery of tradition is to recover the place that these orders have had in the life of the Church. For example, were it not for the Franciscan Order, we would not have the EF as we know it.

The EF as it was organized by Pope Pius V came from the Franciscan Form. Pope Pius added some Benedictine elements, one of them being the use of Gregorian Chant. It’s at that point in history that the Tridentine Form is born and the Franciscans continue with their form of the mass, which was really a simpler and earlier expression of the Tridentine Form. The Franciscans certainly did not begrudge the fact that Pope Pius V took the mass that they had made very common throughout the Latin Church and embellished it with many Benedictine customs and canonized it so that it would be the dominant form in the Church of the day.

At the same time, Pope Pius, being a good Dominican, did not touch the austere mass form of the mendicants, because he was a mendicant. Had he touched that, he would have been betraying his own tradition. In fact, he continued to celebrate the Dominican Rite. He rarely used the Tridentine form himself. He not only did this, but he even imposed many Dominican customs on the Office of the Pope which continue in place to this day. One being the white habit. The other being the use of a Franciscan as the official preacher to the pope, because the Dominicans had a mandate to revere the Franciscans. To this day, the pope wears the Dominican colors and has a Franciscan preacher.

My point is that these orders have always had a very visible place and active role in the life of the Church at many levels: liturgy, education, missions, papacy, catechesis, healthcare, government, economics, science, diplomacy and more. After Vatican II, there was a shift from the religious to the secular (as in the non-religious, not the other secular) and religious and lay people made a big mistake. They began to look at the spirituality and customs of the religious orders as other options among many. They ignored the age, wisdom,experience and place of these schools in Catholic Tradition. They lost sight of the fact that these orders are gifts from the Holy Spirit, not human fabrications and that the Church considers them essential to her life, not an accident.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Melchior_1]

This has the makings of another thread.

We both know how that thread would turn out in this sub-section, so I’ll decline thanks

 

[po18guy]

I was going to make a comment about the oil and water incompatibility between nature of two seemingly diametrically opposed factions in Catholicism, but I see it has already flared up.

 

[Melchior_1]

I was going to make a comment about the oil and water incompatibility between nature of two seemingly diametrically opposed factions in Catholicism, but I see it has already flared up.

They’re not diametrically opposed, traditionalism and charismaticism. To say that they are would be like saying the systematic and the mysticism are not compatible.

I know several charismatics who engage in traditionalist practices. I know people who attend the Extraordinary Form and are charismatic.

This thread is going to get closed or deleted soon, so it’s a moot point in discussing it further.

 

[JReducation]

I was going to make a comment about the oil and water incompatibility between nature of two seemingly diametrically opposed factions in Catholicism, but I see it has already flared up.

They’re not diametrically opposed. To be so, they would have to be in doctrinal and moral juxtaposition, which they are not. In fact, the original Protestant Evangelical (Charismatic) movement was a carry over from Franciscanism. This was a very common form of prayer among the four Franciscan Orders: Friars Minor, Poor Clares, Secular Franciscans and Third Order Regular Friars dating back to Francis himself. I have never seen any proof that it originated with Francis. Francis seems to have picked it up in his travels from some other source.

You may want to read the writings and work of Fr. Michael Scanlon, TOR, the chancellor of Franciscan University. He used the Charismatic spirituality in conjunction with Franciscan tradition to turn around a university that had become a party school and is now one of the most faithfully Catholic universities in the nation.

Here is a little about Father Michael

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[po18guy]

They’re not diametrically opposed. To be so, they would have to be in doctrinal and moral juxtaposition, which they are not. In fact, the original Protestant Evangelical (Charismatic) movement was a carry over from Franciscanism. This was a very common form of prayer among the four Franciscan Orders: Friars Minor, Poor Clares, Secular Franciscans and Third Order Regular Friars dating back to Francis himself. I have never seen any proof that it originated with Francis. Francis seems to have picked it up in his travels from some other source.

You may want to read the writings and work of Fr. Michael Scanlon, TOR, the chancellor of Franciscan University. He used the Charismatic spirituality in conjunction with Franciscan tradition to turn around a university that had become a party school and is now one of the most faithfully Catholic universities in the nation.

Here is a little about Father Michael

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

Sorry! Bad choice of verbiage. It’s just that, for some odd reason, the two seem incompatible in these forums. I learned this, having dared to expound on the benefits of a charismatic faith. I can tell you that the charismatic movement, and even the nature and purpose of the charisms, is greatly misunderstood these days.

Thank you for the link!

 

[JReducation]

Sorry! Bad choice of verbiage. It’s just that, for some odd reason, the two seem incompatible in these forums. I learned this, having dared to expound on the benefits of a charismatic faith. I can tell you that the charismatic movement, and even the nature and purpose of the charisms, is greatly misunderstood these days.

Thank you for the link!

I can certainly agree that there are many things that are being misunderstood. That’s this whole question about “traditionalism” and religious. If you stop and think of it, there is no such thing as Catholic Tradition without religious. Many people misunderstand this and believe that you can have Catholicism without the presence of religious orders and religious congregations. Heck, people don’t even know that these are two forms of religious life. Most Catholic laymen and diocesan priests use the terms order and congregation interchangeably.

Catholic Tradition has been shaped by religious, taught by religious and studied by religious for centuries. Even today, most of the Pontifical Universities in the Catholic Church are handed over to religious to run, because prior to the 20th century, secular priests were rarely theologians and philosophers. Most theologians and philosophers were religious. Therefore, they ran the Church’s universities and schools of theology.

Many of the Protestant customs are carryovers from religious life, which have evolved over the centuries. They evolved in a way that is unfamiliar to the average lay Catholic, because the Catholic layman was never part of these forms of prayer.

For example, the typical Evangelical Protestant service with scripture and praise is an evolved form of Lectio Divina practiced by many religious communities even today. In the absence of a mass, the Evangelicals developed a communal form of Lectio Divina. In our Catholic faith, we sit quietly with the Scripture and engage in meditation and prayer. Whereas the Evangelical Christian does this with others. It acquired an interactive quality that was not present in the original practice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF