Traditional Orders' Ordaining Bishops?

[JReducation]

Please elaborate here Brother JR.

I don’t agree with this statement as it seems to contradict the nature of the state of mortal sin as opposed to the state of grace, so I’d like to hear what you mean by it.

p.s. The paragraph in which this statement was embedded seemed very traditional and correct. Just this statement stood out to me,

As much as I’d like to take credit for this wonderful piece of spirituality, I have to admit that it comes from St. Benedict. Since St. Francis was educated by the Benedictines, he inherited this and passed it on to us. It’s funny, because we passed it on to Mother Teresa . . . talk about continuity.

The message is quite simple. One must always see Christ in the other person. One can never assume to know another person’s soul. When it doubt, the other person must get the benefit of the doubt, not us, because we know that we’re less worthy of charity than the other person. After all, we know our sins.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

As much as I’d like to take credit for this wonderful piece of spirituality, I have to admit that it comes from St. Benedict. Since St. Francis was educated by the Benedictines, he inherited this and passed it on to us. It’s funny, because we passed it on to Mother Teresa . . . talk about continuity.

The message is quite simple. One must always see Christ in the other person. One can never assume to know another person’s soul. When it doubt, the other person must get the benefit of the doubt, not us, because we know that we’re less worthy of charity than the other person. After all, we know our sins.

Thanks Brother JR.

If I understand correctly, it is not a matter of asserting that Christ actually lives in every human being, as if the state of mortal sin were not a state devoid of the life of God in the soul, but rather a metaphorical statement of treating our neighbor as we would treat Christ, acoording to His word “Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.”

 

[JReducation]

Thanks Brother JR.

If I understand correctly, it is not a matter of asserting that Christ actually lives in every human being, as if the state of mortal sin were not a state devoid of the life of God in the soul, but rather a metaphorical statement of treating our neighbor as we would treat Christ, acoording to His word “Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.”

This and Francis added, always presume that the person is not morally culpable, even if there is objective sin. He was very severe on separating objective sin and subjective culpability. Long before Aquinas ever wrote about it, the monks and mendicants already understood that one could commit a sinful act without culpability or with mitigated culpability. These men were geniuses.

Francis was also an opponent to the theory that we can turn over the tables of the vendors, because Jesus did it. Francis’ argument always was, “You’re not Jesus.” He was very clever with that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

This and Francis added, always presume that the person is not morally culpable, even if there is objective sin.

Yes this is the difficult part, especially when we are the injured party.

 

[JReducation]

Yes this is the difficult part, especially when we are the injured party.

This was what the Holy Father called Perfect Joy, to rejoice in the fact that you were injured instead of being guilty of injuring another.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

I find that, for me, the hard part isn’t with others. Rather, the hard part is with myself in my own life. There are times where objectively I know there’s reduced culpability for what I did (or failed to do), however in my mind there’s no difference between these actions. Essentially, I’m harder on myself than I am with other people. Some would say this is a good thing, however there’s certain character flaws that don’t respond well when it comes to being too hard on oneself.

I mean, one of the things for mortal sin is consent. Yet when we look at habitual sins, or sins that involve mental issues, there are times where the consent isn’t fully there. The grey area of what is venial and mortal at that point is what I struggle with, in the sense that in mind mind I still feel I made the choice, yet there’s reduced culibility. Yet I feel like I should be stronger than I am AND I know the action is wrong, so that negates the culpability. Not sure if any of the above made any sense.

Anyway, I’m taking the easy way out; Confession every week before Mass until I get this stuff figured out. No need to take chances when it comes to Salvation, after all.

/thread derail

 

[JReducation]

I find that, for me, the hard part isn’t with others. Rather, the hard part is with myself in my own life. There are times where objectively I know there’s reduced culpability for what I did (or failed to do), however in my mind there’s no difference between these actions. Essentially, I’m harder on myself than I am with other people. Some would say this is a good thing, however there’s certain character flaws that don’t respond well when it comes to being too hard on oneself.

I mean, one of the things for mortal sin is consent. Yet when we look at habitual sins, or sins that involve mental issues, there are times where the consent isn’t fully there. The grey area of what is venial and mortal at that point is what I struggle with, in the sense that in mind mind I still feel I made the choice, yet there’s reduced culibility. Yet I feel like I should be stronger than I am AND I know the action is wrong, so that negates the culpability. Not sure if any of the above made any sense.

Anyway, I’m taking the easy way out; Confession every week before Mass until I get this stuff figured out. No need to take chances when it comes to Salvation, after all.

/thread derail

If you’re so confused as to whether you’re culpable of mortal sin, you’re probably not. You may still be culpable of having committed an act that is objectively a mortal sin, but you may not be culpable at all or less culpable, in which case it’s a venial sin. Habitual sins, such as masturbation, drinking, drugs after a while lose their subjective gravity, because the person loses control. He struggles for control and tortures himself thinking that he should be in control, but the truth is that he does not have it. This is where one’s moral duty is to get help, because you can’t do it alone.

Very often, the more you beat yourself up, the less control you have. There reason is rather strange, but it makes sense. The more you beat yourself up over a sin, the more you think about the sin. The more you think about it, the more likely you are to just say, “The heck with it. I can’t do this,” because you’ve talked yourself into a frenzy.

There is also another problem that we must always avoid . . . pride. I can be very proud that I’m not like the rest of men. I’m a bigger and greater sinner than all. Ridiculous as it sounds, it happens. It’s a form of pride. For most of us, the reality is that I can’t even get that right. In other words, I can’t make it to the top 10 sinners nor the top 10 saints. I’m with everyone else, on the road again.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

Habitual sins, such as masturbation, drinking, drugs after a while lose their subjective gravity, because the person loses control.

I would be interested to know if this idea was ever taught before, say, 1960.

 

[Melchior_1]

If you’re so confused as to whether you’re culpable of mortal sin, you’re probably not. You may still be culpable of having committed an act that is objectively a mortal sin, but you may not be culpable at all or less culpable, in which case it’s a venial sin. Habitual sins, such as masturbation, drinking, drugs after a while lose their subjective gravity, because the person loses control. He struggles for control and tortures himself thinking that he should be in control, but the truth is that he does not have it. This is where one’s moral duty is to get help, because you can’t do it alone.

I’ve been told this by four different priests, so you’re not alone in this thought process I’m seeing two medical professionals, plus I finally made some arrangements to get myself a spiritual director.

There is also another problem that we must always avoid . . . pride. I can be very proud that I’m not like the rest of men. I’m a bigger and greater sinner than all. Ridiculous as it sounds, it happens. It’s a form of pride. For most of us, the reality is that I can’t even get that right. In other words, I can’t make it to the top 10 sinners nor the top 10 saints. I’m with everyone else, on the road again.

Doesn’t sound ridiculous at all. The same four priests have told me this, along with a Deacon.

 

[JReducation]

I would be interested to know if this idea was ever taught before, say, 1960.

This goes all the way back to Bonaventure.

I’ve been told this by four different priests, so you’re not alone in this thought process I’m seeing two medical professionals, plus I finally made some arrangements to get myself a spiritual director.

Doesn’t sound ridiculous at all. The same four priests have told me this, along with a Deacon.

You see, we brothers are not dumb as some people think. And we do make good spiritual directors.

If you say these priests were Dominican Friars, you’ll make my day.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

PS. I don’t know if they recognized drug addiction and alcoholism as biological illnesses in Bonavanture’s time. I hard doubt it. They did know about habitual sins and degrees of culpability. I can’t recall who first put it on paper. I know that Bonaventure taught it in our formation program. He was the first to teach it. But I don’t think it was his reasoning. I believe it may have been Albert.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

wasserfall.

CCC: 2352:

***To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

---

That’s regarding masturbation. I’m sure stuff like drugs and alcohol are probably in the same boat.

You see, we brothers are not dumb as some people think. And we do make good spiritual directors.

If you say these priests were Dominican Friars, you’ll make my day.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

Three priests with the Companions of the Cross, one permanent deacon, and one diocesan priest.

The odds are good I won’t be going through formation with the Dominicans after all (I mentioned this in the Vocations section), but I’m sure they’d say the same thing.

 

[JReducation]

wasserfall.

CCC: 2352:

***To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

---

This is old. They added a few words: “pastoral action”, immaturity, psychological. Those words didn’t exist in Albert’s time. The concepts did, but the language was different. Instead of pastoral action, they would have said, “appropriate penance”. Instead of immaturity, they would have said “degree of discipline”. Instead of psychological, they would have said, “temperament”.

That’s regarding masturbation. I’m sure stuff like drugs and alcohol are probably in the same boat.

Drugs and alcohol are in a boat by themselves in that they are both acquired habits, but they are also biological illnesses. Think of it as a sleeping giant that you awaken by starting to drink or use drugs. Your initial engagement is obviously objectively disordered. But once biology kicks in, the personal freedom is diminished. One hundred years ago, we did not know that addiction had a biological component. We also did not know that excessive drinking or use of drugs could be a form of self-medication to soothe other mental problems. We just labeled people a drunk. I don’t even know if the word addict existed 200 years ago. There were certainly addicts. Half of England was addicted to Laudanum.

Three priests with the Companions of the Cross, one permanent deacon, and one diocesan priest.

The odds are good I won’t be going through formation with the Dominicans after all (I mentioned this in the Vocations section), but I’m sure they’d say the same thing.

I got my doctorate from Opus Dei priests, Society of the Holy Cross. Companions of the Cross are close.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

wasserfall.

CCC: 2352:

***To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

---

That’s regarding masturbation. I’m sure stuff like drugs and alcohol are probably in the same boat.

Melchior, that is famously not pre-1960

The reason I asked the question is because I have read several books in which the author discussed the progression from venial sin to mortal sin to habitual sin, without (at least that I recall) mentioning any reduced culpability for habitual sin.

You may be assured that these books I have read are from previous centuries. That is why I am particularly curious to know of similarly aged expressions of the idea that habits of sin reduce culpability.

 

[JReducation]

Melchior, that is famously not pre-1960

The reason I asked the question is because I have read several books in which the author discussed the progression from venial sin to mortal sin to habitual sin, without (at least that I recall) mentioning any reduced culpability for habitual sin.

You may be assured that these books I have read are from previous centuries. That is why I am particularly curious to know of similarly aged expressions of the idea that habits of sin reduce culpability.

Remember that in Christian Spirituality, what we used to call habitual sin had nothing to do with addictions. Habitual in Christian spirituality meant repetitive sins. That I can assure, because that’s my STD. For example, fornication. What may begin as a one night stand can become habitual. It’s no longer a one night stand. Lying, violence, not going to mass was the biggest one of the habitual sins.

Spiritual theologians knew nothing about addictions. Medicine was not that advanced. We didn’t really understand addictions until the 20th century beginning with alcoholism in the 1940s or 50s.with Sister Ignatia and Dr. Bob who worked with alcoholics in Akron and founded AA.

However, we did know about compunction and the loss of freedom. The language is not the same, even though the theological principles are the same. To better understand Christian Spirituality in today’s language I would recommend an author like Fr. Benedict Groeschel, CFR. He speaks about the same principals as the masters, but in 21st century terminology. He’s also one of the Vatican’s leading professional consultants in beatification and canonization cases.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

Melchior, that is famously not pre-1960

Oh, I forgot. The book that has the comprehensive belief structure of the Catholic Church within it’s pages apparently isn’t good enough. My bad!

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Direct personal account to you is still hearsay in a court of law and repeating it is gossip.

Unless you are directly involved then you should really keep it to yourself.

Because even with a personal account given to you, you do not have the whole story, you just have one side of it from a disgruntled party.

That is exactly why I didn’t give names (of seminarians, or seminaries) or dates.

I also acknowledged my hearsay accounts (which are not just hearsay to me, but reports of the actual people involved) would not justify my issuing blanket condemnations.

They do justify being cautious, and I would definitely urge seminarians to be careful about expressing their trad leanings, except they already know to be careful.

Let’s use an analogy. I cannot impugn the City of Detroit, or claim any one person there is a murderer. I can’t identify streets, or blocks, or victims, or dates. But if I go to Detroit, based upon legitimate things I have heard, I am going to be extremely careful.

That’s all I’m saying. It’s not paranoia, or calumny, just caution that I want to convey.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

I’m not offended at all. I thank you for the kind words. I believe my brothers may disagree with you on “gentle”, especially those in formation. I’m a stickler for law and for preserving the Franciscan tradition.

What you perceive of naive may be a different way of approaching the world I can’t recall who the bishop was. I read this about five years ago. There was a bishop who made a on month retreat at one of our houses. He later wrote that when he first arrived, his impression was that we were “not in the real world.” He said that after a month, it was he and the secular Catholics who were not in the real world. He pointed to the friars’ world and the world of monks and cloistered nuns. His comment was, “This world is as real as it’s ever going to get.”

I mention the experience of this bishop, because often we get this feedback. We’re naive. We don’t live in the real world. We out of touch with the laity and other things like this. I think the reason that we may give that impression is because we have been formed to maintain total inner silence. What is happening in the world cannot be allowed to enter our mind or our space, because it distracts from the more important, which is contemplating God’s presence in the here and now.

We’re also trained to be very disciplined. Discipline means not to react to crisis and to problems. One looks and sees where one can do some good. What is out of one’s reach, one trusts that God will send the right person or people to deal with it.

I always tell the brothers that even though Jesus put the Pharisees in their place a few times, we’re not Jesus. We’re as sinful or perhaps more than the Pharisees. Christ lives in every human being, even the most sinful. I tell them never to say to a person or say anything about a person that one would not say to Jesus or about Jesus. At the end of the day, every human being is superior to us. If we were not wretched, we would not be in religious life. We would have no need to live a life of penance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

This all makes sense, and I appreciate it greatly. I could use more discipline, I know!

I still would advise caution for seminarians . Am I stubborn or what!

 

[JReducation]

This all makes sense, and I appreciate it greatly. I could use more discipline, I know!

I still would advise caution for seminarians . Am I stubborn or what!

How about a one week fast and abstinence? Would that put a dent on your stubbornness?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[newyorkcatholic]

How about a one week fast and abstinence? Would that put a dent on your stubbornness?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I’m sure I could benefit from that! Abstinence is easy for me but the fasting, oh the fasting.