Truly a sad state of affairs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Big_Feet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If his point is that he dissents, then no, I don’t disagree that he disagrees. 🙂
Maybe my assumption is incorrect. To me, when someone says, "I believe . . . " and "Some of us . . . " he is making a clear distinction between himself and the Magisterium. He may not use the word dissent. We can replace it with disagree. He disagrees with the Magisterium.
Yes, with that I agree. But he seemed to be drawing a distinction between Catholic Rites, which I interpret to specifically Rites with a capital R (Holy Communion, Mass, Reconciliation, Matrimony), and Catholic events.
I agree. When I think of rites, I think of liturgy, sacraments and LOTH.

But the law does not say that only rites can be celebrated in our churches. In fact, the law is very wide open as to what can be done in our churches and very specific as to what cannot be done. You cannot do anything that would show disrespect for the sacredness of the space.

This is where this archbishop has the higher ground. He can prove that what he convened does not disrespect the sacred space, because calling people to prayer and reflection takes nothing away from the sacredness of the Cathedral, even if if these folks are of mixed faiths.
 
Remember that the Blessed Mother, St. Joseph, John the Baptist, Elizabeth, the apostles, disciples and, yes, even Jesus Himself followed the practices of worship of the Jewish people. If you say that those practices today involve “worship of false Gods,” then that would mean that the foundation stones of the Church were involved in false worship. This, obviously, can not be true.
This was prior to the institution of the New Covenant. Their worship looked forward to the coming of the Christ. However, given that Christ has already come, their religion is a profession contrary to the Catholic faith which holds that Jesus is the Christ. It’s like a “covenant” between parent and child where the child earns his keep by chores. However, cutting his parents’ grass is not going to cut it in adulthood. He has to rise to the demands of a new situation.
As St. Francis told the brothers. If there was ever a conflict between them and the Muslims, Jews or Orthodox Christians, they were to avoid all manner of confrontation, all manner of arguments, all manner of disruptions and above all, they were to show themselves submissive to all men, regardless of their faith, because our humility and our penance is more pleasing to God than any great sermon that we can preach.
I don’t think St. Francis absolutely disregarded proselytism if the story of him and the Sultan is true. Of course, antagonizing people is wrong.
 
The Church says that the Jews are the original recipients of God’s revelation and that they are sons of God.

*839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the Word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” *

It is right out of the Bible.

They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen (Romans 9:4-5)

Jews are sons of God. St. Paul tells us (Romans 11:29) that this can never be taken away from them.

-Tim-
 
Jews are sons of God. St. Paul tells us (Romans 11:29) that this can never be taken away from them.

-Tim-
True. But we all are also. That’s half the revelation.

Saint Paul earnestly beseeched us early gentile Christians to love his compatriots. He reminded us of their glory by election: as you have already said, the law, the patriarchs, the covenant.

Notwithstanding, a light truly has arisen in Galilee that is the light of the world -or, better, of the nations. He is our saviour.

When I meet a Muslim or a Jew, it is easier to recognize a brother in them, because they recognize Abraham. Still, each one is a man in their own right. I find with any believer it is easier to establish a friendship. But then again, I have made friends with some young atheists who are struggling so hard internally because they seem lost or abandoned in this world. Be that as it may, good-will is the only passport necessary to be immediately admitted as my friend; ill-will does not make them my enemy, but only (at most) of necessity, as when it is necessary for me to help or protect my friends, family, etc., or simple justice: it is not out of desire, as I am sure is the feeling of most Christians here.

In truth, all men who seek are in their hearts seeking Christ. I think our best witness is to be honest and candid; and, above all, to truly be of good-will, God help us.
 
Not according to the Church.
I have a hard time seeing how “Jesus is not the Son of God” is anything but contrary to the Catholic faith. Where has the Church ever taught otherwise, that rejecting the divinity of Jesus Christ is within the bounds of orthodoxy?
The Church says that the Jews are the original recipients of God’s revelation and that they are sons of God.

839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the Word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”

It is right out of the Bible.

They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen (Romans 9:4-5)

Jews are sons of God. St. Paul tells us (Romans 11:29) that this can never be taken away from them.
Tim, when it says these things belong to the Jews, it means that these gifts are proper to the Jewish people, but not that what we today call the Jewish religion (comparable to the Law) was sufficient for salvation apart from Christ. While the ancient patriarchs may not have had an explicit knowledge as we have today, this is different from an explicit denial of Christ such as the Jews today express. People aren’t on Easy Street solely on account of their race.

The CCC says in the very next paragraph:

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

Which is exactly what I said.
 
This was prior to the institution of the New Covenant. Their worship looked forward to the coming of the Christ. However, given that Christ has already come, their religion is a profession contrary to the Catholic faith which holds that Jesus is the Christ.
It is not contrary to the Catholic faith. It falls short. There is a difference. We share the same faith, but when they stop, we continue with Christ. The Church does not subscribe to that idea that the Jewish faith is contrary to our faith. Never say that to anyone, because you would be saying something that is contrary to the belief of the Church.
I don’t think St. Francis absolutely disregarded proselytism if the story of him and the Sultan is true. Of course, antagonizing people is wrong.
St. Francis was very much against proselytism. Ask the friars who have been in the Custody of the Holy Land for more than 750 years.

I fail to understand why you and other laymen keep wanting to teach us Franciscans that story about Francis and the Sultan, rather than let us teach it to you. After all, that story is part of our Franciscan legends.

That story has been distorted so many times that it’s sad.

St. Bonaventure first told the story in his biography of Francis. But if we read the letters from St. Bonaventure at the beginning of the biography, he makes it clear that he has chosen to put together Francis’ life by themes, not by historical facts. In other words, Bonaventure sets out to write a theological work on St. Francis. not a work of history in the strict sense.

Everything that he writes has an undercurrent. Everything in the work is connected to a theme.

That particular story Bonaventure takes and places it in the section of the biography where he deals with Francis’ love for Christ and desire for the cross. So strong was his desire for the cross that he was willing to accept martyrdom to do as St. Paul said, “Conform to Christ in all things, even in the cross.”

The point that St. Bonaventure wants the reader to take home with him is that Francis sets out to achieve two things and Bonaventure is not sure which one was more important to Francis.

One objective was to achieve martyrdom. If you walk into a Muslim camp preaching about Christianity, you are almost guaranteed martyrdom.

The other objective was to convert the Sultan, because he had heard the stories that the crusader brought back about the Muslims being practically demons. However, here is where Bonaventure points us in a different direction. Francis finds that the Sultan and his people are not devils. They are people of faith. They are also people of culture. The Sultan spoke fluent French. That’s how he and Francis communicated, because Francis is half French and spoke fluent French.

Francis also found that the Sultan was not out to kill him or every Christian, but that he also had some legitimate issues with the Christians. Not all of his issues were legitimate, but some were. Francis, being a mass of peace and justice, was open to listening to him.

Bonaventure points out that when they parted, Francis had failed to convert the Sultan, but they had parted as good friends and Francis left with a letter from the Sultan allowing him and his brothers safe passage through Egypt to Palestine. For centuries, the brothers have gone that route to Palestine, because the Moroccans murdered them when they try to go from west to to east.

Francis was delighted when he got to Jerusalem. He was so delighted that he did several things there. He created the Stations of the Cross to bring back to Europe. He adopted the method of prayer and meditation of the Muslims to teach to his friars, which we use to this day. He gave his brothers the command to avoid all forms of conflicts, arguments, and to be submissive to all men. They were to provide service to the Christians and to any Muslim, Jew or Orthodox who asked; but they were never to initiate conversion of the Muslims, Jews or Orthodox. To this day, the popes have upheld that mandate. Now it had become an official mandate of the Church to the Catholics in the region. It became so under Gregory IX.

So what Francis started out to do was based on distorted information. He gradually changed his approach as the time with the Sultan went on. By the time he left, his approach was very different from when he arrived.

Bonaventure is trying to point out to us the spiritual side of Francis, which is that love for the cross and his desire to bring all men to conversion from their sins, not from their religion. That seems to have been his starting point, but he did not end up there. By the end, he was much more tolerant and patient than most Catholics are today. He was willing to wait for them to come to us. Something that we don’t seem to want to do. We want to drag them into the Church.

If you have never had an animal, there is something called the opposition reflex. When you drag, the animal pulls in the opposite direction. Francis became very ware of this and told his brothers not to drag anyone. Why the rest of you folks don’t take this good advice is beyond us Franciscans. It is truly something that we don’t understand.

Some of you keep shoving that story in our faces out of context without paying attention to what Bonaventure is trying to do. According to Celana, who was an eye witness, Bonaventure emballishes the story with hagiography to drive home a theological point.
 
PS. Dominicans hate it when the laity tries to teach them Aquinas or Dominic.

Franciscans hate it when they try to teach us Francis.

Carmelites hate it when they try to teach them Teresa of Avila or John of the Cross.

Because all too often, people don’t know the whole story. There are many documents that are not available to the general public and will never be made available to the public. They are safe in the Vatican archives or the archives of each religious order.

Please don’t do that. It is better to ask questions than to try to teach those who have a lot of formation in these areas and on these folks. It only makes a conversation difficult.
 
It is not contrary to the Catholic faith. It falls short. There is a difference. We share the same faith, but when they stop, we continue with Christ. The Church does not subscribe to that idea that the Jewish faith is contrary to our faith. Never say that to anyone, because you would be saying something that is contrary to the belief of the Church.

St. Francis was very much against proselytism. Ask the friars who have been in the Custody of the Holy Land for more than 750 years.

I fail to understand why you and other laymen keep wanting to teach us Franciscans that story about Francis and the Sultan, rather than let us teach it to you. After all, that story is part of our Franciscan legends.

That story has been distorted so many times that it’s sad.

St. Bonaventure first told the story in his biography of Francis. But if we read the letters from St. Bonaventure at the beginning of the biography, he makes it clear that he has chosen to put together Francis’ life by themes, not by historical facts. In other words, Bonaventure sets out to write a theological work on St. Francis. not a work of history in the strict sense.

Everything that he writes has an undercurrent. Everything in the work is connected to a theme.

That particular story Bonaventure takes and places it in the section of the biography where he deals with Francis’ love for Christ and desire for the cross. So strong was his desire for the cross that he was willing to accept martyrdom to do as St. Paul said, “Conform to Christ in all things, even in the cross.”

The point that St. Bonaventure wants the reader to take home with him is that Francis sets out to achieve two things and Bonaventure is not sure which one was more important to Francis.

One objective was to achieve martyrdom. If you walk into a Muslim camp preaching about Christianity, you are almost guaranteed martyrdom.

The other objective was to convert the Sultan, because he had heard the stories that the crusader brought back about the Muslims being practically demons. However, here is where Bonaventure points us in a different direction. Francis finds that the Sultan and his people are not devils. They are people of faith. They are also people of culture. The Sultan spoke fluent French. That’s how he and Francis communicated, because Francis is half French and spoke fluent French.

Francis also found that the Sultan was not out to kill him or every Christian, but that he also had some legitimate issues with the Christians. Not all of his issues were legitimate, but some were. Francis, being a mass of peace and justice, was open to listening to him.

Bonaventure points out that when they parted, Francis had failed to convert the Sultan, but they had parted as good friends and Francis left with a letter from the Sultan allowing him and his brothers safe passage through Egypt to Palestine. For centuries, the brothers have gone that route to Palestine, because the Moroccans murdered them when they try to go from west to to east.

Francis was delighted when he got to Jerusalem. He was so delighted that he did several things there. He created the Stations of the Cross to bring back to Europe. He adopted the method of prayer and meditation of the Muslims to teach to his friars, which we use to this day. He gave his brothers the command to avoid all forms of conflicts, arguments, and to be submissive to all men. They were to provide service to the Christians and to any Muslim, Jew or Orthodox who asked; but they were never to initiate conversion of the Muslims, Jews or Orthodox. To this day, the popes have upheld that mandate. Now it had become an official mandate of the Church to the Catholics in the region. It became so under Gregory IX.

So what Francis started out to do was based on distorted information. He gradually changed his approach as the time with the Sultan went on. By the time he left, his approach was very different from when he arrived.

Bonaventure is trying to point out to us the spiritual side of Francis, which is that love for the cross and his desire to bring all men to conversion from their sins, not from their religion. That seems to have been his starting point, but he did not end up there. By the end, he was much more tolerant and patient than most Catholics are today. He was willing to wait for them to come to us. Something that we don’t seem to want to do. We want to drag them into the Church.

If you have never had an animal, there is something called the opposition reflex. When you drag, the animal pulls in the opposite direction. Francis became very ware of this and told his brothers not to drag anyone. Why the rest of you folks don’t take this good advice is beyond us Franciscans. It is truly something that we don’t understand.

Some of you keep shoving that story in our faces out of context without paying attention to what Bonaventure is trying to do. According to Celana, who was an eye witness, Bonaventure emballishes the story with hagiography to drive home a theological point.
Peace is made over tea, gentlemen!
 
PS. Dominicans hate…

Franciscans hate…

Carmelites hate…
That is too much hate, Br.

The religious orders are at the service of the sheep the Lord bought with His blood. And none of the saints or founders of a religious order are anyone’s private property because we all belong to the communion of saints and (ultimately) and accurately, to the good Lord. But perhaps I upset a Domincan who will accuse me of trespassing on pretending to teach Saint Thomas. Or maybe an Augustinian.

But then again patience is only said proverbially to be a virtue.
 
That is too much hate, Br.

The religious orders are at the service of the sheep the Lord bought with His blood. And none of the saints or founders of a religious order are anyone’s private property because we all belong to the communion of saints and (ultimately) and accurately, to the good Lord. But perhaps I upset a Domincan who will accuse me of trespassing on pretending to teach Saint Thomas. Or maybe an Augustinian.

But then again patience is only said proverbially to be a virtue.
Knowing Br. JR (or, at the very least, his posts), I think he was using “hate” figuratively, as in Luke 14.
 
Dear Br. JR. I certainly did not intend to teach the story of St. Francis to anyone. You will see my uncertainty in referecing that story by my words “if the story is true,” so I thank you for elaborating on it. But, unless I still misunderstand, I have to ask if St. Francis disregarded proselytism entirely (I am asking sincerely, not rhetorically)? Let me clarify that I am using the word as opposed to “evangelize” because I often see the word used as simply “living the faith by doinng good deeds,” as if good deeds are unique to Christianity. By “proselytizing,” I had more in mind preaching the faith than simply seeking converts. Did St. Francis not believe in preaching to those of other faiths?

Also, if St. Francis did not believe in proselytism in any sense, was this a judgment of prudence that their efforts could be better spent elsewhere, or a moral judment that proselytism is wrong? If the second, this is hard for me to understand. Both before and after St. Francis men of the Church proselytized in the fullest sense of the word. For example, St. Paul proselytized the Jews and Greeks, and St. Francis de Sales proselytized the Calvinists. Was this wrong of them?

In the post I was originally responding to, it appeared as though you were proposing St. Francis’ rule as a rule for all Christians (though I see now you may have onpynintended itnfor Franciscans), and it appeared as though you were saying that preaching and dialoging on matters of faith were not desirable. I am sure this is an overly simplistic reasing, but I am not sure what your exact opinion is. I would be glad for clarification. Thanks.
 
That is too much hate, Br.

The religious orders are at the service of the sheep the Lord bought with His blood. And none of the saints or founders of a religious order are anyone’s private property because we all belong to the communion of saints and (ultimately) and accurately, to the good Lord. But perhaps I upset a Domincan who will accuse me of trespassing on pretending to teach Saint Thomas. Or maybe an Augustinian.

But then again patience is only said proverbially to be a virtue.
A few things. I’m using the word hate as I would in conversation when I would say, “I hate it when it rains.” This is not the sin of hate.

Second, do not confuse orders and congregations. Congregations are at the service of the sheep as you put it. Orders were founded for their own service. They are self-serving. The purpose of an order is to live a particular way of life, not to perform a particular service with only two exceptions: Dominicans who were founded to preach and Jesuits who were founded to be missionaries. The other orders: Benedictines, Augustinians, Cistercians,Trappists, Carthusians, Franciscans, Servites, Trinitarians and Carmelites were founded for the salvation of their own members. Ministry that flows out of the order is for the purpose of sanctifying the members of the order.

Congregations, were founded specifically to serve the laity. They adapt their entire way of life around the service of the laity.

The orders adapt the service of the laity around their way of life. If one were to explain why orders even go out among the laity, the best answer is to bring the laity into the spirit of the order. The share their life with the laity.

The saints belong to the Church, but their stories are part of the story of their religious institutes. To take their stories and their work out of that context does it harm. To attempt to teach those stories or to teach what these men or women taught to their own sons, daughters or brothers and sisters, is rude. It’s like me teaching you about your family without you asking me to do so. It feels like an intrusion and puts people off.

Religious are as protective of their founders and saints as a parent is of his spouse and children. This is his or her family. When someone approach him or her and starts to teach him and the teaching is incorrect, it does not improve relations between religious and lay.

A few years ago, a Dominican Friar wrote about the rosary and St. Dominic in CA magazine. He explained that the Dominican order is absolutely convinced that Mary never gave St. Dominic the rosary, that Dominic received what was a rather primitive version of the rosary already in use at the time that the order was founded. The rosary as we know it today, developed among Dominicans long after Dominic’s death.

Well you should have seen the number nasty posts by laymen trying to teach Dominican history to a Dominican scholar. It was disrespectful and unnecessary.
Dear Br. JR. I certainly did not intend to teach the story of St. Francis to anyone. You will see my uncertainty in referecing that story by my words “if the story is true,” so I thank you for elaborating on it. But, unless I still misunderstand, I have to ask if St. Francis disregarded proselytism entirely (I am asking sincerely, not rhetorically)? Let me clarify that I am using the word as opposed to “evangelize” because I often see the word used as simply “living the faith by doinng good deeds,” as if good deeds are unique to Christianity. By “proselytizing,” I had more in mind preaching the faith than simply seeking converts. Did St. Francis not believe in preaching to those of other faiths?
It was never the intention of St. Francis that the friars go out and convert people of other faiths and it has never been a practice among Franciscans of any branch. We avoid it at all costs. The command was very clear, to live in peace with people of all faiths and those of no faith, but to preach by our presence and the way that we live the Gospel so that these may see and come looking. Hence the famous story of St. Francis who wanted to teach a novice how to preach and he took him on a walk through a town. The novice kept waiting to stop and preach. When they left the town the novice asked Francis why they had not stopped to preach. Francis responded that they had preached by their presence.

There is an interesting little incident between Francis and Clare when Francis returns from the Middle East. He is discussing his experience with Clare and she directs him to preach to Catholics. It was her opinion that Catholics were in greater need of preaching than the Saracens as they were called then. Hence you have Poor Clares like Mother Angelica evangelizing Catholics and anyone else who cares to listen, but the target audience is Catholics.

When Franciscans go out among the laity, we preach to Catholics, not to non Catholics. We serve the material needs of all and we share in the poverty of all men by living among the poor and working alongside them.
 
Also, if St. Francis did not believe in proselytism in any sense, was this a judgment of prudence that their efforts could be better spent elsewhere, or a moral judment that proselytism is wrong?
The word “proselytism” probably did not even exist in the 13th century. But the idea of going out to convert others was viewed by Francis and Bonaventure with a double lense, almost with a binocular type vision. On the one hand, they were comfortable with the idea of Catholic missionaries going to foreign lands to take the Gospel to those who did not know the Gospel. On the other hand, they were very uncomfortable with missionaries actually initiating evangelization. Their vision, not only for our friars, but for the Church was that the missionary must establish himself within the community as a member of the community, earn the trust of the people and their admiration by his exemplary Christian life. This was enough to trigger curiosity and questions, which would open the door to catechesis (another word unknown to them, but helpful for our understanding of their vision).

They were not wrong. The best missions succeeded when the missionaries took a very passive approach. St. Francis Xavier himself wrote back to Ignatius that he had made a mistake by trying to bring Catholic Europe to Asia, rather than become Asian and bring Asia into Catholicism. In other words, the same thing that Francis and Bonaventure believed. Go move into the neighborhood, become one with the people, without keeping your faith a secret and let the grace of the Holy Spirit set things in motion. Many communities of missionaries adopted this model as time passed. I wouldn’t call it a moral position. I would call it a fraternal position. It was the mind of Francis and the early Franciscans that the missionary is a brother, not a teacher.
St. Francis de Sales proselytized the Calvinists.
Actually, he did not. He was very Franciscan. For one thing he was a Franciscan of Penance. His approach among the Calvinists was that of a teacher. He taught and as he taught, he corrected errors. But he avoided all forms of conflict. The few times that he found himself in conflict it was not because he went out to preach to a Calvinist and the Calvinist got angry. It was because of the hostility on the part of the Calvinist toward the Catholics. We must also remember that the Calvinists were Catholics. This was the time when Catholics were falling into all of these different heretical movements. These were not Protestants as we know them today.

Protestants today are legitimate faith communities. This is the faith that they know, the faith that has been handed down to them and it is their firm belief that to be outside this box is contrary to the mind of God. They see us a heretics, because we’re outside of this box that allegedly defines Christian. This was not the reality of Francis de Sales time. He was trying to rescue Catholics who were turning heretic. Today’s Protestants are not heretics. They subscribe to heresies that they inherited. Unless they have been Catholic first, the word heretic does not apply to them. Canon Law only applies this term to Catholics. Canon 1 is very clear that everything in Canon Law only applies to Catholics in the Latin Church, not even to Catholics in the other 22 Catholic Churches. So when it defines heretic, it only applies to us.
 
In the post I was originally responding to, it appeared as though you were proposing St. Francis’ rule as a rule for all Christians (though I see now you may have onpynintended itnfor Franciscans), and it appeared as though you were saying that preaching and dialoging on matters of faith were not desirable. I am sure this is an overly simplistic reasing, but I am not sure what your exact opinion is. I would be glad for clarification. Thanks.
My position is this. Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans and Salesians have a proven track record in this area. We have done it without the conflicts, without offending the Jew, the Muslim, the atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. The Holy Spirit raises families in the Church for the benefit of the Church. It may be to benefit one segment of the Church. For example, the orders are meant to benefit its members before anyone else. The congregations benefit the sick, children, elderly, families and so forth.

When facing these issues, it seems frivolous that people are trying to devise some way of drawing in those who are still outside of the Church, when there is an existing and successful paradigm. The paradigm began with St. Francis. This is easy to understand. St. Francis came shortly before Dominic (not by much), long before the Jesuits and Salesians. They all borrowed from what had been tried, tested and proved to work.

I think that what frustrates some Traditionalist Catholics is the mistaken believe that conversions happen en masse. This is not the case. Such cases are rare. It looks that way when we look back, because we’re not seeing the lapse in time. But in reality, conversions came in trickles. These missionaries were not in a hurry. They were very patient, very gentle, kind, respectful and above all, confident. They never felt the need to get aggressive in their attempt to bring others into the faith. The few that did become aggressive were the exception, not the norm. Even someone like St. Francis Xavier who did something stupid like breaking up pagan idols would later regret it. He would later write to Ignatius about it and explain what a stupid move that had been. He never did it again. It was an isolated event that some people love to bring up as if it were Xavier’s daily routine. Far from it.

My point is why are people on this forum and other trad sites on the internet looking to create or invent (not sure of the right word) some method of preaching to non Catholics, when it has been done for us and it works?

As I said, it began with Francis and others picked it up. Why go back to Francis and not to Dominic or Ignatius? For the simple reason that Francis’ method was actually developed by non clergy (religious and laymen). Dominic’s and Ignatius’ method is a spinoff of Francis method adopted for clergy. Most Traditionalists are not clergy.

There is a missionary school for the layman. Just look at the Franciscan school. It is a lay school. We have one of the largest and most successful missionary networks in the world. It requires patience and humility. I plant the seed. Someone comes behind me and waters it. Another person comes and pulls the weeds. The next person comes and adds a little fertilizer. The process can take several generations or it can take a few years. Each situation is different. The point is that the process is peaceful, respectful and without the need to go out and pull someone over to tell him about the Christian faith. If you do it right, they come to you.
 
Does it really matter or even surprise anyone? The sspx were born in disobedience; such is the result.

And to use the rosary in such a way is shameful.
So was altar girls and COTH. Also, Anglicans were disobedient as well, do we give up on them? Edited by moderator
 
A few things. I’m using the word hate as I would in conversation when I would say, “I hate it when it rains.” This is not the sin of hate.

Second, do not confuse orders and congregations. Congregations are at the service of the sheep as you put it. Orders were founded for their own service. They are self-serving. The purpose of an order is to live a particular way of life, not to perform a particular service with only two exceptions: Dominicans who were founded to preach and Jesuits who were founded to be missionaries. The other orders: Benedictines, Augustinians, Cistercians,Trappists, Carthusians, Franciscans, Servites, Trinitarians and Carmelites were founded for the salvation of their own members. Ministry that flows out of the order is for the purpose of sanctifying the members of the order.

Congregations, were founded specifically to serve the laity. They adapt their entire way of life around the service of the laity.

The orders adapt the service of the laity around their way of life. If one were to explain why orders even go out among the laity, the best answer is to bring the laity into the spirit of the order. The share their life with the laity.

The saints belong to the Church, but their stories are part of the story of their religious institutes. To take their stories and their work out of that context does it harm. To attempt to teach those stories or to teach what these men or women taught to their own sons, daughters or brothers and sisters, is rude. It’s like me teaching you about your family without you asking me to do so. It feels like an intrusion and puts people off.

Religious are as protective of their founders and saints as a parent is of his spouse and children. This is his or her family. When someone approach him or her and starts to teach him and the teaching is incorrect, it does not improve relations between religious and lay.

A few years ago, a Dominican Friar wrote about the rosary and St. Dominic in CA magazine. He explained that the Dominican order is absolutely convinced that Mary never gave St. Dominic the rosary, that Dominic received what was a rather primitive version of the rosary already in use at the time that the order was founded. The rosary as we know it today, developed among Dominicans long after Dominic’s death.

Well you should have seen the number nasty posts by laymen trying to teach Dominican history to a Dominican scholar. It was disrespectful and unnecessary.
My apologies Brother, and thank you for this instruction.
 
Does it really matter or even surprise anyone? The sspx were born in disobedience; such is the result.

And to use the rosary in such a way is shameful.
Actually, Timothysis, the SSPX was NOT born in disobedience.

If you do not know about the origin of the Society, then perhaps in charity you should refrain from making false statements about it that support a particular viewpoint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top