C
choliks
Guest
And this is one reason why I love the Jesuits:
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
Very often people speak about things without having all of the facts. It’s like sticking your nose in someone else’s business. That’s not a nice thing to do. Let’s look at some of the facts.
First:
There are 18,000 Jesuits around the world. The number of problem children among the Jesuits is not bigger than the number of problem children in your family or mine. Every family has that one relative that we wish would just stay home and not show up at a family event. The Jesuits have some too. Unfortunately, they get a lot of press, because they are Jesuits. Being Jesuit is like being Kennedy.
Second:
American Catholics love to paint Jesuit universities in the worse light possible. This is truly embarrassing, because it shows the ignorance of American Catholics. Jesuits do not own universities. The so called Jesuit universities are owned by corporations. The Society owns the property and sometimes not even that. The Society of Jesus has a custom of founding this great schools and when they’re up and running they give them over to lay body. This body has total control over the school. The Jesuits have no control. For a Jesuit to teach there or to stay on the faculty he has to apply and qualify like any other professor. The Society of Jesus is an order with solemn vows. Religious orders with solemn vows are not allowed to own that kind of property. They start them and they give them away as soon as they are viable.
This is an embarrassment, because it shows that Catholics don’t know how a Catholic university functions. They don’t know about religious in solemn vows. And they don’t know anything about the Jesuit’s sense of poverty and detachment.
Third:
Again, another embarrassment for Catholics. There are a few who hope that the pope will take control of the Jesuit Order and fix it. What these folks don’t know is that the pope does not have that kind of authority. Popes can suppress a religious community. They cannot take over the government of a religious community. This was ruled by Trent. There are some religious individuals who are exempt. Every Jesuit is an exempt religious. While it is true that an exempt religious answers only to his superior and to the pope, it is also true that popes have made it a policy not to meddle with exempt religious.
Fourth:
Another problem is our lack of knowledge of Catholic history. We repeat things without knowing what really happened. The Society of Jesus was suppressed by a Franciscan pope under the orders of the Franciscan Friars. The monarchs of Europe felt that the Jesuits were doing great harm to their people (a good political excuse to get rid of them). They took their complaint to the Franciscans, because they knew that the Franciscans had the pope’s ear. He was one of them, just as Pope Francis is a Jesuit.
The Franciscans were dumb enough to let themselves get caught in the middle of this conflict which was really political, not moral. They insisted with the pope that the Jesuits were dangerous. One by one, the pope suppressed different regions or provinces of the Jesuit Order. Many fled to the Scandanavian countries.
Finally, when the Franciscans realized that they had acted stupidly, they recanted. Little by little the Jesuits were reinstated. The Franciscans and Jesuits kissed and made up.
Fifth:
The disagreement between the Jesuits and the Dominicans. The two orders differ in their definition of grace. This disagreement went on for years, probably decades. They took their disagreement to the pope. The pope, being very wise, chose not to get in the middle of a theological debate between these two powerhouses.
The Jesuits and Dominicans took to calling each other heretic. Finally, the pope said that if both sides did not cease accusing the other of heresy, he would excommunicate both orders.
The popes have been asked, which is the correct definition of grace, the Dominican definition or the Jesuit definition. To this day, every pope has said that he will not come between these two orders.
Actually, there are four religious families that the popes have always treated with great respect and which the popes have helped rather than punish: Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits and Salesians. Together they make up more than 25% of the religious men and women in the Church. Despite their shortcomings, their contribution to the Church far outweighs those shortcomings. When they do something dumb, the popes prefer to weigh the good and the bad and try to work with them rather than slam them as some people would like the pope to do.
Slamming is faster, but not without casualties. The casualties will be among the laity. The Jesuits serve millions of people around the world. Those people could certainly suffer is an order like the Jesuits went on strike (in a manner of speaking). You can’t really go on strike, but I can’t find a better word. If you can, please insert it.
Thanks.
Continue to pray for me. I’m still grounded.
First:
There are 18,000 Jesuits around the world. The number of problem children among the Jesuits is not bigger than the number of problem children in your family or mine. Every family has that one relative that we wish would just stay home and not show up at a family event. The Jesuits have some too. Unfortunately, they get a lot of press, because they are Jesuits. Being Jesuit is like being Kennedy.
Second:
American Catholics love to paint Jesuit universities in the worse light possible. This is truly embarrassing, because it shows the ignorance of American Catholics. Jesuits do not own universities. The so called Jesuit universities are owned by corporations. The Society owns the property and sometimes not even that. The Society of Jesus has a custom of founding this great schools and when they’re up and running they give them over to lay body. This body has total control over the school. The Jesuits have no control. For a Jesuit to teach there or to stay on the faculty he has to apply and qualify like any other professor. The Society of Jesus is an order with solemn vows. Religious orders with solemn vows are not allowed to own that kind of property. They start them and they give them away as soon as they are viable.
This is an embarrassment, because it shows that Catholics don’t know how a Catholic university functions. They don’t know about religious in solemn vows. And they don’t know anything about the Jesuit’s sense of poverty and detachment.
Third:
Again, another embarrassment for Catholics. There are a few who hope that the pope will take control of the Jesuit Order and fix it. What these folks don’t know is that the pope does not have that kind of authority. Popes can suppress a religious community. They cannot take over the government of a religious community. This was ruled by Trent. There are some religious individuals who are exempt. Every Jesuit is an exempt religious. While it is true that an exempt religious answers only to his superior and to the pope, it is also true that popes have made it a policy not to meddle with exempt religious.
Fourth:
Another problem is our lack of knowledge of Catholic history. We repeat things without knowing what really happened. The Society of Jesus was suppressed by a Franciscan pope under the orders of the Franciscan Friars. The monarchs of Europe felt that the Jesuits were doing great harm to their people (a good political excuse to get rid of them). They took their complaint to the Franciscans, because they knew that the Franciscans had the pope’s ear. He was one of them, just as Pope Francis is a Jesuit.
The Franciscans were dumb enough to let themselves get caught in the middle of this conflict which was really political, not moral. They insisted with the pope that the Jesuits were dangerous. One by one, the pope suppressed different regions or provinces of the Jesuit Order. Many fled to the Scandanavian countries.
Finally, when the Franciscans realized that they had acted stupidly, they recanted. Little by little the Jesuits were reinstated. The Franciscans and Jesuits kissed and made up.
Fifth:
The disagreement between the Jesuits and the Dominicans. The two orders differ in their definition of grace. This disagreement went on for years, probably decades. They took their disagreement to the pope. The pope, being very wise, chose not to get in the middle of a theological debate between these two powerhouses.
The Jesuits and Dominicans took to calling each other heretic. Finally, the pope said that if both sides did not cease accusing the other of heresy, he would excommunicate both orders.
The popes have been asked, which is the correct definition of grace, the Dominican definition or the Jesuit definition. To this day, every pope has said that he will not come between these two orders.
Actually, there are four religious families that the popes have always treated with great respect and which the popes have helped rather than punish: Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits and Salesians. Together they make up more than 25% of the religious men and women in the Church. Despite their shortcomings, their contribution to the Church far outweighs those shortcomings. When they do something dumb, the popes prefer to weigh the good and the bad and try to work with them rather than slam them as some people would like the pope to do.
Slamming is faster, but not without casualties. The casualties will be among the laity. The Jesuits serve millions of people around the world. Those people could certainly suffer is an order like the Jesuits went on strike (in a manner of speaking). You can’t really go on strike, but I can’t find a better word. If you can, please insert it.
Thanks.
Continue to pray for me. I’m still grounded.
C
corsair
Guest
Good history lesson, Br. JR. The Jesuits do get a bad rap but they don’t seem to want to set the record staight. Their, magazine is an example of their “liberal bent”. They are certainly not the same order that their Founder created. Having said all that, I do know several Jesuit priests that are very traditional and holy men. I, also, know a couple SJ’s that are VERY modern.
Probably the same across the church.
Probably the same across the church.
B
brian614
Guest
I never knew this but always wondered whether the different orders had theological differences…
Could you please give both sides definitions of grace?
Thanks in advance.
J
JReducation
Guest
Interesting and complex. That’s why I stay away from it. :yup:
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
I’m creating this thread as a spin-off another thread on the Jesuits, just to give the subject a more positive direction. Feel free to contribute.
C
Cojuanco
Guest
As from the previous thread: define liberal. I haven’t seen them recently actually deny anything connected to faith and morals. Now they might take other positions left-of-center to the average American, but that isn’t necessarily something that somehow makes them less orthodox. Being left-of center is not in and of itself a crime (and before someone points me to the book ‘Liberalism is a Sin’ the line adopted by America magazine does not fall under the liberalism the author critiques.
C
choliks
Guest
Journeying with Ignatius of Loyola in July
" ‘Magis’ or ‘more’ is something that appeals to us all. St Ignatius, too, wanted more-- to be a saint, even better than those he read about while he was recovering at Loyola.
In order to be a saint, he thought about fasting more, praying more, doing more penance… until he came to realize that that wasn’t what God wanted.
The more that Ignatius discovered was one which helps in making proper decisions. He grasped that the difficult choices we normally have to make are not between good and bad (taking for granted that we must always choose the good), but between one good thing and another.
In such dilemmas he understood the magis as being to choose that which is ‘for the greater glory of God’. In other words, whichever brings us closer to what God hopes in us."
" ‘Magis’ or ‘more’ is something that appeals to us all. St Ignatius, too, wanted more-- to be a saint, even better than those he read about while he was recovering at Loyola.
In order to be a saint, he thought about fasting more, praying more, doing more penance… until he came to realize that that wasn’t what God wanted.
The more that Ignatius discovered was one which helps in making proper decisions. He grasped that the difficult choices we normally have to make are not between good and bad (taking for granted that we must always choose the good), but between one good thing and another.
In such dilemmas he understood the magis as being to choose that which is ‘for the greater glory of God’. In other words, whichever brings us closer to what God hopes in us."
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I thought the Pope was above the law and policies of other Popes or even Councils. So unless the above idea is doctrinal (which seems very unlikely), the Catholics would be correct in assuming that a Pope can take control and fix the issues if he wanted to.
Now if I may state the problem with Jesuits to you in a more clearer manner, it is as follows.
Jesuits, because of their education level, usually enjoy very high academic positions in Universities. This also means that they enjoy a lot of public attention and their teachings and positions do get heard more than usual.
Now our younger generations are taught by these Jesuits. The problem here is that if we were to take the number of problem cases from the Jesuit teaching community in Universities, the number seems sufficient enough to get noted. Their impact is devastating because they teach our upcoming generations. This is why the Jesuits get a bad name compared to other orders that have a similar number of problem children.
It is also worth mentioning that Jesuits are sometimes viewed at times as an elite order in terms of intellectual knowledge and their formation. So having people who are apparently looked up to as wiser and well formed undermining the Church in their academic work is very destructive to the faith.
So to summarize the problem, it has to do with having many Jesuits who are in powerful academic positions presenting unorthodox ideas to young Catholics. In my eyes, the solution has to do with having much stricter standards and faster enactment of disciplinary measures among the Jesuit order due to its unique nature. So while we can afford to have a straying Franciscans who carries out primarily charity work, we cannot afford to have a Jesuit academic who always writes against the authority of the Church.
J
JReducation
Guest
It sounds like there is a great deal of misunderstanding here coupled with wishful thinking. Let’'s begin with the simplest point, your statement about Franciscans. Whoever told you that primarily charity work knows nothing about Franciscan men. Franciscan women are predominantly apostolic. This is true. Franciscan men are predominantly university educators, theologians, preachers, writers, retreat masters and contemplatives. There are many in other works of charity, but that is not the main thrust of the order. It’s main thrust is to live in poverty as an end in itself. The Franciscans have the greatest number of doctors in the Church. All of them have been educators. There are far more Franciscans and Dominicans in higher education than Jesuits.
Next, let’s look at the issue about the pope taking control of an order. The Right of Exemption stems from a doctrine. While the Right of Exemption explained by Trent is not a dogma, it is based on the belief of the Church that solemn vows place an individual in a state in life that is more intimately united to Christ and to the Church. That’s why those vows are solemn. The number of religious allowed to make solemn vows are very few. Among those are the Jesuits. In fact, the Society of Jesus was the last religious order ever founded. Therefore, they are the last religious individuals to make solemn vows. No order has been founded after the Jesuits.
The pope is not bound by previous popes, canon law, councils, encyclicals or any other legislation except that which comes through Revelation itself. Here is where solemn vows enters the picture. Solemn vows comes from the religious life of Christ himself. They are revealed to us in Christ’s life, just as is the priesthood, just like other points that are part of our faith. Solemn chastity, solemn obedience, and solemn poverty are part of Christ’s human identity. When a man or woman makes solemn vows, he or she enters into a covenant where his goal in life is to live the Gospel. Teaching, nursing, gardening, preaching, administering, etc are all part of his life, because they are responses to the demands of the Gospel. They are not the motive for which a person makes solemn vows. As St. Paul says, we put on Christ and we conform to Christ in all things, even the cross. That’s the impact of a solemn vow. One vows to do perfectly what everyone is called to do. Intentional failure to obey perfectly is a double sin. It is a sin of disobedience. It is a breach of the covenant to obey as perfectly as Christ obeys in the Gospels.
After the last debacle with the Jesuits, when the Holy See tried to suppress them, popes have made it a policy not to interfere in the affairs of exempt religious. That has always made popes, bishops and other authorities in the Church very hesitant to interfere with exempt religious.
Take for example the investigation of women religious in the USA. It does not include exempt women religious. Only sisters in simple vows are under the mandate issued by the CDF, not nuns in solemn vows.
This creates another very delicate situation for popes. To interfere in the internal affairs of exempt religious of one order can create an impression that this is now going to be par for the course. This would send such negative ripples through the orders with exempt religious that it would take years to undo the damage.
For centuries exempt religious have operated autonomously with the direct guidance of their superior general who operates under obedience to the Holy Father. To interfere would upset that chain of command. Essentially, the pope would be going over a superior general’s head.
As the successor of St. Peter he has the right to do it. But would it be in the best interest of the Church? Unlikely. The popes have always given them plenty of latitude to self-direct and to redirect themselves when they are off track. This is not easily done overnight. We have to be patient. This is what is often lacking today. We live in a world where so much happens so fast, that we forget that in the Church an hour is a decade, a decade is a century, and a century is a millenium.
Very often such negative reports come from people who have heard or read something, but have never sat down with a Jesuit in their lives. They have never asked a Jesuit to explain why something was said or done.
It is too easy for all of us to become experts without ever having been in contact with the subject, just be reading the Internet, a newspaper, a blog or a complaint on a forum. The real expert on a problem is the person who is in direct contact with the alleged problem. He has firsthand experience. of the situation.
This is not a denial that there are problem children among the Jesuits. It’s just a recognition that many of those who are reporting the alleged problems are problem children themselves. In light of the fact that there are problem children everywhere, among the Jesuits and among their accusers, it is in the best interest of the Church to proceed very cautiously.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
This may come as a surprise but I was actually under the impression that Franciscans were great evangelizers through what I had come to read about the likes of St. Anthony and even St. Francis (in the historical sense rather than the modern legends).
But after joining CAF, you single handedly changed my mind about Franciscans from what you post
I am not sure I agree with you that Right of exemption is doctrine. You cannot have a vow that contradicts Papal authority over you. To have such a vow would essentially make that person a self-Pope. So what you say cannot be logically true.
Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. If there has been any revelation after that, it is not publicly binding revelation on the Church let alone on the Pope, is it? Now I understand men and women giving assent to these later revelations by their own choice. But there can never be a situation that makes them immune from Papal authority.
I am actually arguing that it is indeed in the best interest of the Church that the Pope takes action. Why? Because any order that preaches and teachers error or undermines the authority of the Church is a problem for the entire Church.
Lets not think about this from a purely doctrinal perspective. If a person belonging to a certain order was engaged in child abuse but the superior refuses to act, should not the Pope step in? I would think there is a moral obligation to do so.
In the same way, think of the more grave damage done by spreading errors of the faith. That too would seem to come under the moral obligation of the Pope to correct.
C
choliks
Guest
Journeying with Ignatius of Loyola in July
Prayer to St. Ignatius
Jonathan Vigliaturo:
Prayer to St. Ignatius
Jonathan Vigliaturo:
C
choliks
Guest
Journeying with Ignatius of Loyola in July
Raul J Bonoan:
Raul J Bonoan:
When your plans do not push through and your projects remain unfulfilled, do not despair nor give up. Perhaps God is showing you something else – a bigger plan, a better project, a dream far greater than yours.
J
JReducation
Guest
Francis was definitely a preacher. Anthony, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Peter of Alcantara and many others were preachers and university professors. Evangelist is not a word that Franciscans have ever adopted, because it sounded too much like Protestantism. That’s a newer term and I have not seen any of the Franciscan congregations use it, YET.
I said that it is grounded in a doctrine. The doctrine being Christ’s solemn way of living obedience, poverty and chastity. Those who make solemn vows, make a covenant to live the Evangelical Counsels as they are in the Gospels, without gloss. Those are doctrinal. The exemption is granted by Trent out of respect for the solemn vow.
No one said that. You’re misunderstanding. The vow of obedience in those who are solemnly professed is very broad. The highest authority is always the pope. The superior general has the freedom to disagree with the pope. Until the pope commands him to back down, he can maintain his disagreement. We saw this between Clare and several popes. She respectfully disagreed with what they wanted for her order. She complied, always under protest. Finally, a Franciscan was elected pope and he granted her the privilege of poverty that she had been requesting for almost 40 years.
We’re not speaking about a new revelation. When speaking of the solemnity of the Evangelical Counsels, we’re speaking about something that is contained in the Gospels. What Trent did was to codify a law that said that those who solemnly vowed to observed the counsels as revealed in the Gospel were exempt from all authority except their major superior and the pope.
You’re entitled to have that opinion. But it is not an opinion which the pope shares with you, nor the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life, nor the Sacred Congregation for the Defense of the Faith, nor the International Council of Superiors General. These are the folks who determine if there should be intervention over the head of a superior general.
The pope can certainly go over all of these heads, but he will have to deal with the consequences, which may be more damaging than you can ever imagine.
This comparison does not work. The scenario is not even parallel to the complaint you have against the Jesuits.
You’re asking the pope to micromanage the Church. This is the very thing that popes have always avoided since the time of Peter. The reason that they avoid it is because every bishop is the head of a Church. That bishop should be respected. Every religious superior of an exempt order is the canonical successor of its founder. In this case, the Superior General of the Jesuits is the canonical successor of St. Ignatius of Loyola. That must be respected. Unless a bishop or a superior general is personally guilty of a grave offense, the Holy See considers it imprudent and disrespectful to try to manage their jurisdiction over their heads.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Well the vows cannot grant immunity from Papal authority though. It is similar to a vow being unable to grant immunity from commands of God I would think, no?
So yes, this I understand. I also think Clare’s case is a classic example of assent to the authority while disagreeing with it.
But here we are speaking mostly of doctrine itself rather than merely legally authoritative statements. In this context, if that had been the case, even Clare would have had to give full assent without protest, no?
Yes, I admit I made a mistake in inferring that you meant they were bound in obedience to the superior only or in so far as the Pope agreed with the superior.
I understand. But from what I can see, this damage is going to be nothing like the damage that is caused through person’s who undermine the authority of the Church. Many souls would be lost to Apostasy or different heresies because these people hold high academic positions that can influence others.
Let me give you a devastating example. Take the Philippines, a country predominantly Catholic and where most of the faithful are very loyal to the Church. This is how the Jesuits acted with respect to birth control in the country.
news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1870&dat=19731222&id=O-geAAAAIBAJ&sjid=eswEAAAAIBAJ&pg=793,2382636
or take this
philippines.ucanews.com/2010/10/19/jesuits-urge-dialogue-on-contraception-bill/
(what “both sides should move away from hardline positions” mean is anyone’s guess)
Now imagine how much it undermined the push against legalizing contraception?
Now take in to consideration the drastic effects this will have. First it will just be contraception → casual sex → undermining of the family → faith not getting passed down to children in these weak families → support of gay marriage and all kinds of other immoral acts
Can you imagine what destruction that represents? An entire country that was predominantly Catholic will get reduced to just another clone of any Western country you would like to pick.
Well, all I am saying is that there is ample empirical evidence available today of bad apples destroying and undermining the Church. In the past, perhaps it was tolerable. few bad apple is not a problem because the world’s communication infrastructure will limit the damage.
That is not the case today. One man, positioned high enough, can change minds and lead millions astray.
Now if the Pope is uncomfortable with micromanaging, then he must micromanage the superiors. If anyone in the order is acting weirdly and the superior is not doing anything, then change the superior or send a warning. This too is micromanagement but it at least gets rid of having by pass him. However, why don’t we even see such action today?
As a note, the Reproductive health bill did pass in the Philippines from what I understand and is only delayed because the Supreme-court has held it up. Do we know of any action taken by the superiors of the Jesuits against these lose canons? I am unaware of any.
J
JReducation
Guest
Wait a minute. Let’s not go to the silly extreme or the obsessive extreme. Neither you nor I are Jesuits. I have no direct relationship with the Jesuits. Do you?
As far as I’m concerned, the Jesuits can say that the moon is made of cottage cheese. That’s not my problem. I have over 200 dads in crisis pregnancies to worry about. I have a community to worry about. I have to stay alive. I have papers to write. I have this apostolate to care for. And I have my own spiritual life to deal with. I can’t make the Jesuit’s concerns my concerns. The best that I can do here is to help people understand their order and to understand how these things work. I can’t spend time on wishing for or discussing what will never happen.
a. Grave matter - check
b. Full understanding of the gravity - not checked, most people follow because they trust, not because they really understand.
c. Full freedom to give consent - doubtful, can someone consent to something he does not fully understand?
If any soul is going to be lost is that of the person who INTENTIONALLY misleads. Notice that I capitalized the term. There has to be the intent to mislead. Just saying something heretical without the intent to mislead is not enough for that speaker to lose his soul either.
Now let’s take the second issue. Imagine a pope who goes over the head of superior general of one of the major orders of men, such as the Jesuits. Think of the ripple effect.
100,000+ Franciscan men
18,000 Jesuits
15,000 Dominicans
150,000 + Salesians
15,000 Augustinians
All saying, "If you want to manage things directly, then so be it. Here are your schools, parishes, hospitals, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and everything else that we run for you. We don’t own them. You do. Therefore, we don’t have to manage them.
If they did that for just one 24 hour period, the chaos and catastrophe would make the Lutheran Revolution look like child’s play. Think about it. The SSPX has gotten away with this for more than 25 years. Why can’t others do it?
I think that we should stop this discussion here because we’ve derailed this thread. The OP was to understand the Jesuits not to send the pope on a mission to search and destroy any Jesuit that we don’t like. I’m starting to feel kind of goofy now. I don’t like spending time discussing what will never happen or what I cannot make happen.
Someday, you may be fortunate as me. Some doctor will tell you that there is no more that he can do for you other than maintain you. Then you realize the precious gift that is time. You realize that whether you have 10 days left or 10 years left, your time is running out. God will ask you what you did with it. Saying that you spent it worrying about the Jesuits is not going to pass. He’s going to ask, what about the things that I put directly in your path? Were they not enough?
As far as I’m concerned, the Jesuits can say that the moon is made of cottage cheese. That’s not my problem. I have over 200 dads in crisis pregnancies to worry about. I have a community to worry about. I have to stay alive. I have papers to write. I have this apostolate to care for. And I have my own spiritual life to deal with. I can’t make the Jesuit’s concerns my concerns. The best that I can do here is to help people understand their order and to understand how these things work. I can’t spend time on wishing for or discussing what will never happen.
For a soul to be lost there must be certain conditions in place.
a. Grave matter - check
b. Full understanding of the gravity - not checked, most people follow because they trust, not because they really understand.
c. Full freedom to give consent - doubtful, can someone consent to something he does not fully understand?
If any soul is going to be lost is that of the person who INTENTIONALLY misleads. Notice that I capitalized the term. There has to be the intent to mislead. Just saying something heretical without the intent to mislead is not enough for that speaker to lose his soul either.
You’re doing it again. You’re attempting to micromanage the pope. Basically, you attempting to state what he MUST do. But you and I have no authority to make such a statement.
Let’s take this in little pieces. Firs piece, which is quite significant, the Jesuit Superior general was elected by our current pope’s vote. He has been known to express how happy he was when the current superior general was elected. When the superior general visited the Vatican to pay his respects to the newly elected pope, Pope Francis said (in front of witnesses) Let’s do whatever we can do for the spread of OUR order. In simple language, he is very much a Jesuit and very faithful to his brothers. That’s as it should be. Je did not cease to be a Jesuit when he became pope. They did not stop being his brothers.
Now let’s take the second issue. Imagine a pope who goes over the head of superior general of one of the major orders of men, such as the Jesuits. Think of the ripple effect.
100,000+ Franciscan men
18,000 Jesuits
15,000 Dominicans
150,000 + Salesians
15,000 Augustinians
All saying, "If you want to manage things directly, then so be it. Here are your schools, parishes, hospitals, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and everything else that we run for you. We don’t own them. You do. Therefore, we don’t have to manage them.
If they did that for just one 24 hour period, the chaos and catastrophe would make the Lutheran Revolution look like child’s play. Think about it. The SSPX has gotten away with this for more than 25 years. Why can’t others do it?
Because the pope disagrees with you about what’s best for the Church.
I think that we should stop this discussion here because we’ve derailed this thread. The OP was to understand the Jesuits not to send the pope on a mission to search and destroy any Jesuit that we don’t like. I’m starting to feel kind of goofy now. I don’t like spending time discussing what will never happen or what I cannot make happen.
Someday, you may be fortunate as me. Some doctor will tell you that there is no more that he can do for you other than maintain you. Then you realize the precious gift that is time. You realize that whether you have 10 days left or 10 years left, your time is running out. God will ask you what you did with it. Saying that you spent it worrying about the Jesuits is not going to pass. He’s going to ask, what about the things that I put directly in your path? Were they not enough?
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I understand that you are not a Jesuit. Neither am I a Jesuit. This whole discussion is because of your original reply which I disagree with. In that reply you claimed things against what many want to see as action. Now it may well be that these actions will never transpire but the point was that to desire such actions were legitimate. I thought we disagreed on that?
I am actually glad that you brought this up. I would now like to ask you as to who do you think ever qualified according to the above interpretation of your “who has lost his soul”.
The problem I have with what you said above is it seems to fly in the face of 1500 years of Tradition. Under your definition, it is almost impossible that anyone is lost. But as we both know, Tradition (including the great saints in it) are very clear that many are lost.
So perhaps the problem lies much deeper in the way you and I have come to see the gravity of immoral acts. I see them as possibly damning many. You see it as not a big deal.
But you and I both have an intellect to determine what should be done given the doctrinal truths. That is not a question of authority per se.
In other words, I do not need to be president to know what a president should have done in a certain event.
I would like to transcend our discussion beyond one particular Pope to all Pope in general (future, present, and past). So there is still a matter of what happened to the Jesuits in the Philippines.
Because SSPX were excommunicated until it was recently lifted while the other are enjoying full communion in the eyes of the rest of the faithful.
I think this is rather unfair. You are pretty much asking people to turn a blind eye to a big problem. If I were to go and tell a person one thing and the Jesuit were to say another, the person will believe the Jesuit. So it is critical that Jesuits or anyone else in authority be swiftly disciplined in the event that they are spreading error.
Why does this seem like an extraordinary request?
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Just noticed that this thread got reset back to yesterday and all the posts I made were gone. Was this thread split in to a new thread?
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
This thread was cleaned up because it derailed into a campaign. That’s not the purpose of the thread. Please see my note in post #6
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Hmm, understandable about the possible derailment. Is it ok if I create a new thread regarding something I thought that was important that came up (the presumption that many are damned vs. many are saved)?
- Status