J
Two priest of a diocese in Italy turn totally tradition is their own churches. Glorious!
- Status
S
simple_soul
Guest
No, I do not want to derail the thread so I will stop trying to wrap my brain around what it is you are trying to say…
Disagreeing isnt rude, now unless you want to derail this thread any further?
J
JReducation
Guest
This statute from the admonitioins of St. Francis may help.While I do not claim to grasp the finer points of Br. JReducation´s argument, I disagree with him on the issue of obedience. Of course he has a far deeper understanding of this, but to me as a layman I cannot accept that one can be lawfully commanded to do something that one knows is wrong, even if it does not as such constitute a sin.
Allow me to explain: saying the Novus Ordo Mass is not necessarily a sin in itself, yet one can argue that ditching the Tridentine Mass that every priest has every right to say, is a contribution to the destruction of the Faith. You start by “concelebrating” the new liturgy and you end up prancing around the altar to Bod Dylan songs. Of course, to see this argument you have to appreciate the flawed theology of the NO Mass, which Brother JR doesn´t. And, correct me if I´m wrong, but it would be right to disobey an order that a priest (religious or not) perceived as harmful to the Catholic Church and an offense to the Faith.
Whether a disobedient priest is correct in this assessment is another matter; if he judges in conscience that what is demanded of him is to the detriment of the Church, he should not do it.
Boy, I bet this comment will get some response!
**The Lord says in the Gospel: he “that doth not renounce all that he possesseth cannot be” a "disciple " and “he that will save his life, shall lose it.” That man leaves all he possesses and loses his body and his soul who abandons himself wholly to obedience in the hands of his superior, and whatever he does and says—provided he himself knows that what he does is good and not contrary to his [the superior’s] will—is true obedience.
And if at times a subject sees things which would be better or more useful to his soul than those which the superior commands him, let him sacrifice his will to God, let him strive to fulfil the work enjoined by the superior. This is true and charitable obedience which is pleasing to God and to one’s neighbor.**
St. Benedict, who is the Theologian of Obedience says the following
But this very obedience
will be acceptable to God and pleasing to all
only if what is commanded is done
without hesitation, delay, lukewarmness, grumbling, or objection.
For the obedience given to Superiors is given to God,
since He Himself has said,
“He who hears you, hears Me” (Luke 10:16).
The great spiritual fathers and masters make it very clear. The only question you can ask is whether something IS a sin. You can’t speculate that sometthing may be, can lead to. If you have certitude that an evil will result, then it woiuld be a sin to obey. If you think or believe that an evil will result, that is speculation and there is no reason to disobey.
As you can see in the Franciscan rule, Francis goes as far as saying that even if you know that authority is mistaken, simply sacrifice yourself and obey.
St. Gregory the Great said
“Obedience, is rightly placed before all other sacrifices, for in offering a victim as sacrifice, one offers a life that is not one’s own; but when one obeys one is immolating one’s own will.”
St. Thomas Aquinas separates sin from obedience. You don’t obey sin, but you do obey authority.
Obedience unites us so closely to God that in a way transforms us into Him, so that we have no other will but His. If obedience is lacking, even prayer cannot be pleasing to God.
St. Bernard of Clairvaux said that something must be EVIDENTLY contrary to God’s law. Again, the Cistercian tradition does not tolerate speculation or predictions.
The obedience which we render to a superior is paid to God, Who says, ‘He that hears you hears Me;’ so that whatever he who holds the place of God commands, supposing it is not evidently contrary to God’s law, is to be received by us as if it came from God Himself; for it is the same thing to know His Will, either from His Own, from an Angel’s, or from a man’s mouth.
If you look at every spiritual master, every founder and every doctor, they all exult obedience as the highest form of charity.
I’m not pulling this out of my hat.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The obedience which we render to a superior is paid to God, Who says, ‘He that hears you hears Me;’ so that whatever he who holds the place of God commands, supposing it is not evidently contrary to God’s law, is to be received by us as if it came from God Himself; for it is the same thing to know His Will, either from His Own, from an Angel’s, or from a man’s mouth.”
–Saint Bernard Father and Doctor of the Church
S
santodomingo
Guest
Thank you Brother JR for those quotes.
All I can say is that the Devil´s plan worked a treat. He placed a few rotten apples at the top, and practically the whole Church followed down the road to modernism.
The religious priests all started offering the new Mass, participating in the new ecumenism, preaching the new doctrines on religious liberty, etc. Almost all of them threw their habbit in the rubbish, and changed their constitutions to become more “in tune with the world”. They began living in a way that is completely inconsistent with their vows, a U-turn in their understanding of their founder´s rule. I´m not saying that ALL religious congregations did this. I know some who remained faithful to their Rule, despite huge pressure to “adapt”. But I think you know what I´m referring to.
If what you say is true, then those religious who went along with this through obedience committed no sin, even if their obedience contributed to the diluting of the liturgy, the disorientation of the faithful and the secularization of the West.
All I can say is that the Devil´s plan worked a treat. He placed a few rotten apples at the top, and practically the whole Church followed down the road to modernism.
The religious priests all started offering the new Mass, participating in the new ecumenism, preaching the new doctrines on religious liberty, etc. Almost all of them threw their habbit in the rubbish, and changed their constitutions to become more “in tune with the world”. They began living in a way that is completely inconsistent with their vows, a U-turn in their understanding of their founder´s rule. I´m not saying that ALL religious congregations did this. I know some who remained faithful to their Rule, despite huge pressure to “adapt”. But I think you know what I´m referring to.
If what you say is true, then those religious who went along with this through obedience committed no sin, even if their obedience contributed to the diluting of the liturgy, the disorientation of the faithful and the secularization of the West.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s right. Mistakes were made. No one denies that. We have to fix what we may have broken. However, the great founders and masters: Benedict, Francis, Bernard, Augustine, Dominic, Teresa of Avila, Teresa of Calcutta, Francis de Sales, Bruno, Ignatius, Vincent and others commanded their sons to obey not matter what, unless the sin is evident. It has to be evident before you can disobey. You can’t speculate. Because what you speculate may never happen. In addition, if the authority is wrong, if the thing that authority is wrong about is not a sin, you must do it or your prayer is worthless.
These men did not mince words in denouncing your prayer life and even your other acts of charity. They realized that the call to perfection is the call to obey as Christ obeyed. They look at the cross. Christ submitted to injustice and sin out of obedience to the Father.
Whether you want to call them Modernists, which is being over used these days, you call them very confused people, or just products their times, these people did not sin.
Take a simple example. You say that religious abandoned their habits and changed their constitutions. However, you’re forgetting that they were doing what they were commanded to do. These constitutions were approved by the Holy Father. No religious order of Pontifical Right can promulgate a constitution without the pope’s signature. If the constitution says that you no longer have to wear a habit and the pope signs it, you are not being disobedient. You have been given permission to lay it aside. You have been given permission by the Vicar of Christ.
In addition, as Benedict said, who was the master theologian on obedience, the superior is Christ. Benedict applies to the superior what Christ said, “He who hears you, hears me.” The diocesan priest or the member of a religious order must always look at his bishop or his superior as if he were Christ, unless it is evident that the command is sinful.
There is no moral culpability here. Are there mistakes? Sure . . . many. Are there abuses? Many. Much was done that was not authorized; however, this is not new to the 20th century. This goes back to the time of the Apostles. Don’t think for a moment that the clergy, laity and religious were always compliant until the 20th century. Things were worse in the Middle Ages than they are today. They were worse in the early Church than they were in the Middle Ages. Each generation has it’s own problems and problem children.
However, as you say above, unless there was malice, there was no sin in obeying. The consequences were not foreseen. You may never disobey because you speculate. The most noble form of charity is obedience.
A few months ago, maybe a year ago, the Holy Father blasted the bishops of Italy, something that they did not enjoy. The message that he gave them was that they should feel shame for not being as obedient as Francis of Assisi who always obeyed the pope without questioning. He basically read them the riot act. Don’t ask me what they did, because I’m not sure what got the pope so angry. Rumor says that it was liturgy. My guess is that it had to be more. Liturgical problems exist everywhere and the only groups that he has blasted were the Irish bishops and the Italians. The Irish, we know why. The Italians, he kept calling them to obey as Francis of Assisi obeyed. If you know history, Popes Innocent III, Honorius III and Gregory IX were not saintly popes. But Francis did not allow himself to see their weaknesses. He obeyed and so did these other great masters and religious fathers.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
santodomingo
Guest
OK Brother JR, I have a tricky question for you;
if your superior tells you to drive a young lady somewhere, and you accidentally learn that this “somewhere” happens to be an abortion clinic, that the young lady is pregnant, and that she wants to get an abortion, are you right to disobey?
Obviously it´s not a sin IN ITSELF to drive any place. But if you cooperate with someone else´s sin, you also fall into sin. See what I mean? I don´t know if this qualifies as “speculation”, as you put it. When you are told to do something that cleary involves cooperation with evil, even though the act in itself is not wrong, I don´t see how God could want religious or non-religious to obey.
Of course, I say this because the religious and secular priests who went along with the post-Vatican II innovations out of obedience, were cooperating with evil. They contributed to the destruction of the Church and the erosion of the Faith. It wouldn´t have needed much “speculation” to grasp this in the 1970´s, when false Masses were being offered with juice and currant buns, and doctrine was being watered down to suit ecumenical purposes.
There´s a quote I like from Mgr. Lefebvre which you will probably rip appart; he spoke of religious being “led into disobedience through obedience”.
if your superior tells you to drive a young lady somewhere, and you accidentally learn that this “somewhere” happens to be an abortion clinic, that the young lady is pregnant, and that she wants to get an abortion, are you right to disobey?
Obviously it´s not a sin IN ITSELF to drive any place. But if you cooperate with someone else´s sin, you also fall into sin. See what I mean? I don´t know if this qualifies as “speculation”, as you put it. When you are told to do something that cleary involves cooperation with evil, even though the act in itself is not wrong, I don´t see how God could want religious or non-religious to obey.
Of course, I say this because the religious and secular priests who went along with the post-Vatican II innovations out of obedience, were cooperating with evil. They contributed to the destruction of the Church and the erosion of the Faith. It wouldn´t have needed much “speculation” to grasp this in the 1970´s, when false Masses were being offered with juice and currant buns, and doctrine was being watered down to suit ecumenical purposes.
There´s a quote I like from Mgr. Lefebvre which you will probably rip appart; he spoke of religious being “led into disobedience through obedience”.
J
JReducation
Guest
If my superior asks me to drive someone to an abortion clinic, I am not bound to obey. Cooperation with abortion is evident evil, to use St. Bernard’s words.
If my superior gives me an address and tells me to drive someone there, then I have to do so. I have no idea what the place is until I get there. I have done nothing wrong. If the superior did not know what the address was, he did nothing wrong. If he knew, then is culpable, not I.
That’s where the Archbishop was wrong, which always amazed me about him. When he was the Superior General of his order, he ruled with an iron fist. There was no room for equivocating with him.
You also have to remember here that the changes in liturgy and other rites were approved by the Church. Therefore, if you implemented them, you are not disobeying. You have been given permission to do so by those who are in positions of authority and who have the authority and right to give such permission.
The first a priori assumption is incorrect. It was never a sin to implement the liturgical reforms. On matters of discipline, a pope can bind and unbind. It was objectively sinful to go beyond the permission given. That’s what Pope Benedict referred to as “creative”.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status