Thoughts on traditionalism and the religious

[jmj1984]

Brother JR can correct me if I’m wrong, but for Franciscans it’s in the Rule. It cannot be changed.

Where in the Rule may I ask?

And are orders entirely forbidden from changing or setting aside parts of the rule? For example not every aspect of the rule of St Benedict is observed, at least not literally e.g physically punishing brothers, bowing or prostrating to guests etc…

 

[jwinch2]

True, but one must examine the facts to see if they match up to the conclusion or not. I am sure you are not accussing Romano Amerio of having a poor understanding of what he is writing about? That would be quite at odds with the reviews for the book which have generally lauded it and its inherent quality.

I have not read his writings to know for sure. From the information you have presented, I am suggesting that his conclusions do not appear to match up with Blessed John Paul II’s writings on the subject, nor Pope Benedict XVI’s. Furthermore, I am refuting the suggestion that you have made on multiple occasions that since he referenced adequately, then his conclusions must be correct. Specifically the statement you made here:

"You do of course know that this theologian references all his work meticulously, with reference to papal teaching, other theologians, official records, Doctors of the Church and saints. "

I’m sorry but this is a false argument. As I noted earlier, proper referencing and citation in no way protects one from error.

Furthermore I disagree with the statement you made that:

“I will read Vita Consacrata by Bl John Paul II, but just because it is official does not mean it is automatically more right or true than a theologians opinion.”

If both he and the Holy Father wrote on the same thing and came to divergent conclusions, who is correct? I have read VITA CONSECRATA and the Holy Father’s conclusions appear to be consistent everything I can find regarding Church Tradition on the subject. Furthermore, part of his holy obligation is to correctly teach and protect the deposit of faith. He is given the gift of the Holy Spirit to do exactly that. In this situation, we appear to have at least two Popes teaching consistently on the same topic. Again, I have not read Amerio, I am going off of your presentation of his conclusions.

I am definitely going look into Amerio’s writings but in return, I would ask the following: Have you read it VITA CONSECRATA? Your comments above suggest that you have not. Have you read the writings the various orders to see how their rule and constitutions have been interpreted over the centuries? Have you read Pope Benedict’s writings on the subject? Have you read the transcript of or listen to his statements on the subject?

 

[jwinch2]

And are orders entirely forbidden from changing or setting aside parts of the rule? For example not every aspect of the rule of St Benedict is observed, at least not literally e.g physically punishing brothers, bowing or prostrating to guests etc…

Certain orders can set aside part of their rule of the situation warrants it. For example, the Provincial of a Dominican priory can allow an individual Friar to miss praying the hours, or to have access to a vehicle or a computer if it is to accomplish their primary mission which is preaching the Gospel. Dominicans actually view this as a sacrifice rather than something to look forward to since living and praying in community along with sacrifice of personal wealth is considered far more desirable. fr. T. Radcliffe, OP talks about this quite eloquently in his writings, as does fr. W. Hinnebusch, OP. I am sure many others have as well.

However, my understanding of the Rule of Saint Francis is that it cannot be set aside. Brother JR can speak about this more accurately than I can, but I believe that I am correct.

 

[jmj1984]

I have not read his writings to know for sure. From the information you have presented, I am suggesting that his conclusions do not appear to match up with Blessed John Paul II’s writings on the subject, nor Pope Benedict XVI’s. Furthermore, I am refuting the suggestion that you have made on multiple occasions that since he referenced adequately, then his conclusions must be correct. Specifically the statement you made here:

"You do of course know that this theologian references all his work meticulously, with reference to papal teaching, other theologians, official records, Doctors of the Church and saints. "

I’m sorry but this is a false argument. As I noted earlier, proper referencing and citation in no way protects one from error.

Of course not, but it does mean one can check whether the statements made are true or false. At the very least someone writing his magnum opus is not going to write a total falsehood thereby ruining his reputation.

Furthermore I disagree with the statement you made that:

“I will read Vita Consacrata by Bl John Paul II, but just because it is official does not mean it is automatically more right or true than a theologians opinion.”

If both he and the Holy Father wrote on the same thing and came to divergent conclusions, who is correct? I have read VITA CONSECRATA and the Holy Father’s conclusions appear to be consistent everything I can find regarding Church Tradition on the subject. Furthermore, part of his holy obligation is to correctly teach and protect the deposit of faith. He is given the gift of the Holy Spirit to do exactly that. In this situation, we appear to have at least two Popes teaching consistently on the same topic. Again, I have not read Amerio, I am going off of your presentation of his conclusions.

Amerio would of course probably said that it was inconsistent with earlier papal teaching, I do not know however so I will definitely read it and check it with previous papal teaching.

I am definitely going look into Amerio’s writings but in return, I would ask the following: Have you read it VITA CONSECRATA? Your comments above suggest that you have not. Have you read the writings the various orders to see how their rule and constitutions have been interpreted over the centuries? Have you read Pope Benedict’s writings on the subject? Have you read the transcript of or listen to his statements on the subject?

I will read it, however I will also read previous papal teaching on the subject.

 

[jmj1984]

Certain orders can set aside part of their rule of the situation warrants it. For example, the Provincial of a Dominican priory can allow an individual Friar to miss praying the hours, or to have access to a vehicle or a computer if it is to accomplish their primary mission which is preaching the Gospel. Dominicans actually view this as a sacrifice rather than something to look forward to since living and praying in community along with sacrifice of personal wealth is considered far more desirable. fr. T. Radcliffe, OP talks about this quite eloquently in his writings, as does fr. W. Hinnebusch, OP. I am sure many others have as well.

However, my understanding of the Rule of Saint Francis is that it cannot be set aside. Brother JR can speak about this more accurately than I can, but I believe that I am correct.

Thanks for that, so it would be appear its not an absolute rule and that it depends from order to order? I can’t see the rule that they must only work with the poor in the rule of St Francis itself but I could be wrong.

 

[Melchior_1]

Certain orders can set aside part of their rule of the situation warrants it. For example, the Provincial of a Dominican priory can allow an individual Friar to miss praying the hours, or to have access to a vehicle or a computer if it is to accomplish their primary mission which is preaching the Gospel. Dominicans actually view this as a sacrifice rather than something to look forward to since living and praying in community along with sacrifice of personal wealth is considered far more desirable. fr. T. Radcliffe, OP talks about this quite eloquently in his writings, as does fr. W. Hinnebusch, OP. I am sure many others have as well.

However, my understanding of the Rule of Saint Francis is that it cannot be set aside. Brother JR can speak about this more accurately than I can, but I believe that I am correct.

I mentioned these things earlier in the thread, but thank you for adding the part that to dispense from the constitution to perform the primary mission is seen as a sacrifice.

A question though; is it the Rule and the Constitutions that can be put aside or just the Constitutions? Unless within Rule of Augustine allows for itself to be dispensed in need. From what I’ve read it’s “obligation or observance” which can be dispensed.

 

[Warrenton]

Bingo!

This is something that Bl. John Paul defended tooth and nail. Pope Benedict has as well.

Don’t ever try to make them all look alike or function the same way, you’ll hurt the Church and yourself. Even though I’m not a Jesuit, I benefit from the graces that they earn through their fidelity to their vision and mission. That’s how the Communion of Saints works.

So what about the hypothesis in post 48? Anyone?

 

[jmj1984]

It is also worth mentioning that many religious orders revised their constitutions in the light of ‘ecumenicism’, a word that was never heard of before 1960 or hardly ever and certainly had nothing to do with the founders intentions. Vita Consacrata, is a good example of this, within 3 paragraphs it’s already being mentioned.

 

[Melchior_1]

It is also worth mentioning that many religious orders revised their constitutions in the light of ‘ecumenicism’, a word that was never heard of before 1960 or hardly ever and certainly had nothing to do with the founders intentions. Vita Consacrata, is a good example of this, within 3 paragraphs it’s already being mentioned.

What we today call “ecumenicism” was practiced by Franciscans and Dominicans since their founding. One could say ecumenism is simply a word used to describe the methodologies of the two orders.

 

[jwinch2]

I will read it, however I will also read previous papal teaching on the subject.

Fair enough.

 

[jmj1984]

What we today call “ecumenicism” was practiced by Franciscans and Dominicans since their founding. One could say ecumenism is simply a word used to describe the methodologies of the two orders.

I wish this was the case, sadly it is not. Ecumenicism is almost always distinguished from proselytism, indeed if it was not it would be entirely pointless as a word would already exist that meant exactly the same. Proselytism was indeed practiced by the orders since their founding, ecumenicism not so much.

 

[jwinch2]

So what about the hypothesis in post 48? Anyone?

This one?

Perhaps the traditionalist perspective now occupies a position in the life of the Church that stands in parallel to the Orders.

 

[Melchior_1]

I wish this was the case, sadly it is not. Ecumenicism is almost always distinguished from proselytism, indeed if it was not it would be entirely pointless as a word would already exist that meant exactly the same. Proselytism was indeed practiced by the orders since their founding, ecumenicism not so much.

The Dominicans preach through words and actions, and do so through constructive dialogues. Remember, Dominic made it clear that the Order of Preachers were forbidden from arguing. As a result, they had to detach themselves from emotion and remain objective. Some of this is acknowledging that yes, there are truths in other faiths and denominations. So one methodology is to meet them at the truth and begin the discussion. By finding these truths that are common, one can even work with, say, a Baptist. They like the Bible, why not attend a Bible meeting with them? The agreement is the Bible is the Word of God. From there you can have a dialogue about Scripture and the interpretation of said Scripture.

Promoting Christian unity without compromising the Truth of the Catholic faith isn’t a bad thing, and has been around since the Reformation.

 

[jmj1984]

The Dominicans preach through words and actions, and do so through constructive dialogues. Remember, Dominic made it clear that the Order of Preachers were forbidden from arguing. As a result, they had to detach themselves from emotion and remain objective. Some of this is acknowledging that yes, there are truths in other faiths and denominations. So one methodology is to meet them at the truth and begin the discussion. By finding these truths that are common, one can even work with, say, a Baptist. They like the Bible, why not attend a Bible meeting with them? The agreement is the Bible is the Word of God. From there you can have a dialogue about Scripture and the interpretation of said Scripture.

Numerous Dominicans engaged in debates, St Thomas Aquinas being the foremost example of this. Of course there is difference between arguing and debate. That said the fact remains ecumenicism is new and anyone saying it was done in the past is simply reading something into history that simply wasn’t there.

Promoting Christian unity without compromising the Truth of the Catholic faith isn’t a bad thing, and has been around since the Reformation.

Not true I’m afraid, calling ‘the erring and wayward’ as several popes have put it has indeed been around since the apostolic age, ecumenicism however has not, its been around for perhaps 60 years.

 

[Melchior_1]

Numerous Dominicans engaged in debates, St Thomas Aquinas being the foremost example of this. Of course there is difference between arguing and debate.

Exactly, there is a difference. One could say we’re having a debate right now, but I’m certainly not arguing. Arguing is due to passions taking control of things, and that is definitely something Dominic frowned upon.

That said the fact remains ecumenicism is new and anyone saying it was done in the past is simply reading something into history that simply wasn’t there.

Or perhaps ecumenism is an older practice, and saying that it wasn’t done in the past is simply reading something into history that simply wasn’t there? I’m pretty sure there have been joint events between Christians at some point after the reformation, and dialogue to try and unite Protestants back with Rome.

Not true I’m afraid, calling ‘the erring and wayward’ as several popes have put it has indeed been around since the apostolic age, ecumenicism however has not, its been around for perhaps 60 years.

You can promote Christian unity while still saying Protestants lack the fullness of the Truth is perfectly viable.

Saying ecumenicism has been around for 60 years is like saying charismaticism has been around for 40, when it’s clear that Franciscans and Dominicans were engaged in charismatic practices for a few centuries.

 

[jmj1984]

Exactly, there is a difference. One could say we’re having a debate right now, but I’m certainly not arguing. Arguing is due to passions taking control of things, and that is definitely something Dominic frowned upon.

Thanks, thats a good and interesting point.

Or perhaps ecumenism is an older practice, and saying that it wasn’t done in the past is simply reading something into history that simply wasn’t there? I’m pretty sure there have been joint events between Christians at some point after the reformation, and dialogue to try and unite Protestants back with Rome.

So I’m to believe its an older practice despite the lack of a single official document pre Vatican 2 that uses the word postively? And in fact the lack of any document that uses the word at all pre-20th century? And on top of this the only type of dialogue that occured with non-catholics generally involved the words ‘heretic’ ‘schismatic’ and called them back to the Catholic Church? Until evidence has been shown to the contrary it would be unreasonable for me to believe such a thing.

You can promote Christian unity while still saying Protestants lack the fullness of the Truth is perfectly viable.

I disagree but that is not really the issue, the issue is whether this has happened before. The answer to that question is no, it has not. For confirmation one only has to flip through Denzinger or read the 1949 instruction of Pope Pius XII on the ecumenical movement or read ‘Iota Unum’ for a more indepth analysis.

Saying ecumenicism has been around for 60 years is like saying charismaticism has been around for 40, when it’s clear that Franciscans and Dominicans were engaged in charismatic practices for a few centuries.

Yes, I’m aware of this comparision. Its fundamentally flawed however as neither the franciscans nor dominicans were born out of a non-catholic movement, nor did they seek truth or God from non-catholics whereas the charasmatic movement was born out of the pentecostal movement and did and continues to seek truth outside the Catholic faith.

 

[Melchior_1]

So I’m to believe its an older practice despite the lack of a single official document pre Vatican 2 that uses the word postively? And in fact the lack of any document that uses the word at all pre-20th century? And on top of this the only type of dialogue that occured with non-catholics generally involved the words ‘heretic’ ‘schismatic’ and called them back to the Catholic Church? Until evidence has been shown to the contrary it would be unreasonable for me to believe such a thing.

We have a lot of older practices that were done and later had a word attached to describe it. For example, we’ve always believed in Transubstantiation, but when was the word used to describe the bread becoming the Body of Christ?

I disagree but that is not really the issue, the issue is whether this has happened before. The answer to that question is no, it has not. For confirmation one only has to flip through Denzinger or read the 1949 instruction of Pope Pius XII on the ecumenical movement or read ‘Iota Unum’ for a more indepth analysis.

The ecumenical movement as practiced by the people during his time. As practiced by Dominic and Francis is a different matter entirely.

Yes, I’m aware of this comparision. Its fundamentally flawed however as neither the franciscans nor dominicans were born out of a non-catholic movement, nor did they seek truth or God from non-catholics whereas the charasmatic movement was born out of the pentecostal movement and did and continues to seek truth outside the Catholic faith.

Your statement is also a bit flawed, as charismaticism came from Franciscans, and to a lesser extent Dominicans. Protestants took eventually took this and ran with it. People saw what they were doing and are essentially “taking it back”. Brother JR had an excellent run-down on this earlier in this thread.

 

[JReducation]

Br

Perhaps but they are an isolated occurrences, as Romano Amerio and others have made clear the trend amongst religious over the last 40 or 50 years has to be have a laxer not a stricter observation of the rule or to put it another way laxer not stricter constitutions.

I also never said orders couldn’t move out, I merely couldn’t believe such a thing and questioned its wisdom, I still do.

First of all, you’re placing Amerio’s opinions over that of popes, religious founders, major superiors and general chapters. That’s not going to work. Amerio is very intelligent. Has made many good contributions to theology and philosophy and has areas of weakness too. As theologian and a former major superior, his understanding of religious life is weak. End of story.

[interruption]

According to the multiple bio’s of Saint Dominic that I have the Friars were to walk everywhere. In addition, the libraries came much later down the road. My understanding was that they were in places where the priories were attached to universities. The original priories were little more than shacks added on to Churches donated to them by the Holy Father or the local Bishop and consisted of one room to eat in and a number of 4x6’ cells to sleep in with no doors. I’m not sure if or when horses, libraries, larger priories, etc. came into the scene but they were not there in the beginning with Dominic and his original sons and daughters, at least from everything I can tell.

[/interruption]

Actually, I was not thinking about the first generation Dominicans, which you so aptly describe. I was thinking about Aquinas generation and forward. However, even that generation greatly valued poverty and still do. They have a lot of flexibility, because the Rule of St. Augustine gives them that kind of room. Dominic made it clear that the constitutions could be suspended when necessary for the good of the Church. Though he did say that the Rule of Augustine could not be suspended. It’s only the part that the friars create that they can also suspend. I don’t get the impression that they can blow it off. To suspend seems to be in isolated cases and temporary. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Where did I ever ask them to violate their rule? Far be it from me or anyone to say such a thing. I simply questioned the wisdom of working merely with a particular socio-economic class, thats entirely fair comment.

On the other hand is this written into their rules or their constitutions? Of course they can violate neither but whereas one can change the other cannot.

Those rules that have Papal Bulls cannot be touched by any man except the pope. The Rule of Carmel was ammended by Pope Innocent. The Benedictine Rule has never been amended, but the Holy See has dispensed from different observances. Such as the ones that you mention below. The Rule of St. John de Matha has never been touched. The Rule of St. Francis has never been touched. There have been five recorded requests to amend the Rule of the Friars Minor and in each case the popes have come back with a definitive “No.” Pope Pius XII went as far as to say, “Don’t ever ask again. The Rule of St. Francis was inspired by the Lord to Francis and the Church recognizes it as it was given to him.” That’s the end of that.

Pope Paul VI said that he would allow a review of the Rule of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance, but the final revision had to be approved by him. He refused to allow any discussion on the Rule of the Friars Minor. Bl. John Paul also refused any discussion on the Rule of the Friars Minor.

The General Chapters were given a mandate to look at their constitutions and to bring them into harmony with the Rule of the Friars Minor. If it’s in the Rule, it cannot be in the constitution or it cannot say anything different. If it’s not in the rule, the constitution has to address it, but whatever is written must comply with three points: it cannot be in conflict with what Francis wrote. It cannot be in conflict with what Francis taught through his actions. And it cannot be in conflict with Canon Law. The final draft of the constitutions must be approved by the Holy Father, since he is canonically the Superior General of the Franciscan family. If the Holy Fathers say, “go back to the earlier observances of the rule, then you go back.”

Brother JR can correct me if I’m wrong, but for Franciscans it’s in the Rule. It cannot be changed.

As I said above. The rule can only be changed by the pope. Even the General Chapter, which is the highest juridical authority in the order cannot overrrule Francis. Francis wrote his Rule and Testament in such a way that everyone of his brothers and sisters are bound to obey his voice, even from the grave. He was very smart. He wanted to maintain complete control over the order. To do so, he ensured that the rule was sealed by the Pope and that only a pope could touch it. Only a pope can approve any constitutions. Because writing constitutions is such monumental task, because it requires precision and the documents go back and forth until the pope is happy, they have only been revised five times in 800 years.

Where in the Rule may I ask?

And are orders entirely forbidden from changing or setting aside parts of the rule? For example not every aspect of the rule of St Benedict is observed, at least not literally e.g physically punishing brothers, bowing or prostrating to guests etc…

See above. Every time you want to make a change, it has to directly to the Apostolic See. You seem to want to go over the head of the Apostolic See or tell the Holy Father what he should be pushing regarding religious life, based on one writer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

We have a lot of older practices that were done and later had a word attached to describe it. For example, we’ve always believed in Transubstantiation, but when was the word used to describe the bread becoming the Body of Christ?

About 800 years ago and it could point to a solid pedigree of belief in the real presence, ecumenicism cannot.

The ecumenical movement as practiced by the people during his time. As practiced by Dominic and Francis is a different matter entirely.

Would you care to provide some proof for your assertion that St Dominic and St Francis practiced ecumenicism? Or even for that matter that the church practiced or allowed it prior to the 1960’s?

Until you can based on the numerous papal statements to the contrary, it would be unreasonable for me to believe such a thing.

Your statement is also a bit flawed, as charismaticism came from Franciscans, and to a lesser extent Dominicans. Protestants took eventually took this and ran with it. People saw what they were doing and are essentially “taking it back”. Brother JR had an excellent run-down on this earlier in this thread.

Would you care to prove this?

You are confusing charismaticism, with people having the charismata. The former has very little to do with any orthodox church movement, the latter most certainly does have a solid pedigree in The Church.

 

[Melchior_1]

Would you care to provide some proof for your assertion that St Dominic and St Francis practiced ecumenicism? Or even for that matter that the church practiced or allowed it prior to the 1960’s?

You mean outside the Franciscans working side-by-side with non-Christians and Christians alike in the Holy Lands for how many years?

Would you care to prove this?

You are confusing charismaticism, with people having the charismata. The former has very little to do with any orthodox church movement, the latter most certainly does have a solid pedigree in The Church.

I’m not confusing anything at the moment. I suggest you look at this post for more details.