Vatican on Society of St. Pius X: Position Insufficient to Restore Full Unity With Church at Present

[JReducation]

I think the approach is applicable for both inter-religious dialogue and ecumenism among Christian.

This is where one has to understand the true meaning of ecumenism. It’s not about siding with those who believe what you believe. It’s about Christ.

It’s very important to pay attention to the initial dialogue between Francis and the Sultan to understand this action.

The Sultan asked Francis, “Do you come on behalf of the Christians?”

Francis responded, “No. I come on behalf of Jesus Christ the Lord of Peace.”

He opposed all forms of war and all forms of violence. When he wrote his rule for the Secular Order, he forbade two things. They were never to bear arms, nor to pledge allegiance to any nation. His vision came from the Gospel. He constantly repeated Christ’s words, “That all may be one.”

It was not a matter of siding with the Muslims. It was a matter of leveling the playing field. In his mind, war was stupid to begin with. But if you were going to fight any way, you should both have the same chance of winning or losing. A surprise attack was a preemptive measure. For Francis, there was never a justification for a preemptive strike against anyone. It’s interesting, because Pope John Paul recently repeated this same idea.

This is important in our correct understanding of ecumenism. Ecumenism began with the mendicants. But they understood it to be based on justice, deeds of material kindness, humility, service, cooperation, dialogue, negotiating, and learning from each other.

Work and life among non Catholics was not about arrogance, condescension, bullyiing, proselytizing, emotions or piety. On the contrary, it is very rational and from the bottom up. You look at all men as superior to yourself, even the non-believer.

This fascinated the Sultan. It has fascinated the Jews and Muslims who have lived with the Mendicants in the Middle East. It attracts their attention to the point that they quietly come to ask questions about what drives these men.

One Muslim once said to me, “When I look at the brothers I’m attracted to Christianity. When I look at Christians, I only see a reflection of ourselves: arrogant, violent, condescending, emotional, unreasonable and not trust worthy. So I stay where I am.”

The Franciscans,Trinitarians and Carmelites which are the big mendicant communities in the Middle East have always said that the greatest obstacle between the Muslims and the Christians is their similarities. There was a Jewish Carmelite who wrote about this a long time ago. I read his thesis. It was very interesting. He said that everything that the friars built over centuries, the Muslims and Christians tore apart in a matter of hours. You had to start again, from the beginning, building trust and friendship. Trust and friendship are not built overnight.

This is the part of ecumenism that people don’t understand. It begins with trust and friendship. No one listens to someone whom they do not trust.

The SSPX has always been very critical of the Franciscans in the Custody of the Holy Land, but the friars there don’t really care. They do very good work and are a living example that Western Christians are not all barbarians. Interestingly enough, they always find a few Muslims and Jews who are equally unhappy with the violence and the constant terror between people, because of religion.

Unfortunately, this core of Jews, Muslims and Christians who want to start living in peace are always set back by some incident. It never fails.

What the Church did was bring this out of the mendicant world into the universal Church. Because a handful of people on either side is not as good as everyone on both sides trying to build trust that leads to peace, peace that leads to friendship, and friendship that leads to evangelization.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PhilOSophia]

But if you were going to fight any way, you should both have the same chance of winning or losing. A surprise attack was a preemptive measure. For Francis, there was never a justification for a preemptive strike against anyone. It’s interesting, because Pope John Paul recently repeated this same idea.

I’d disagree. War isn’t like football. You really do want to hammer the opposition into submission as quickly as possible. Betraying your own side to ‘level the field’ makes you a traitor. That is a terrible thing to be. Your compatriots get killed. An example in recent times: the communist sympathisers who sold secrets to the USSR, an atheist and vicious regime. I’m sure they thought they were being very pious.

I’d hope there were particular circumstances in St. Francis’ case; that not too many Christians were killed (what a funny statement!)

 

[TrueLight]

The final agreement between the Sultan and Francis was that the Catholic Church would not attempt to convert Jews or Muslims and in return the Sultan would agree to let the friars pass through his territory, which is today Egypt and Jordan. The friars would take residence in Jerusalem, where they would serve the Christians, protect the holy shrines of Christianity, and allow the Jews and Muslims liberty of movement without interference from the Church.

It makes sense to me that the Sultan and Francis eventually hashed out an agreement. You have to adapt to your circumstances.

Francis introduce certain Muslims customs into our community that we still have to this day, because he was very impressed by the piety of the Muslims.

Can you give an example of a muslim custom that was introduced into the Franciscan community?

I know I have to be careful here because one is not allowed to criticize a Religious Order on this forum. But I hope it is okay to say even to this day, I find the Franciscans to be very open about certain things

 

[JReducation]

It makes sense to me that the Sultan and Francis eventually hashed out an agreement. You have to adapt to your circumstances.

Can you give an example of a muslim custom that was introduced into the Franciscan community?

I gave the two more obvious ones above. But there are a few others.

1. He took the kneelers our of our chapels and the friars kneel on the floor.
2. He brought back a type of bench that is about 8" off the ground. It straddles your legs when you kneel, so that you can recline back and rest your bottom on it, rather than resting it on the back of your legs.
3. We’re not too sure about this one, but we believe it may have come from Islam as well. The friars had to take off their footwear before entering a church or chapel. This is common among Muslims, not among Catholics.
4. He introduced the name Allah into our vocabulary. It took hold among the Spanish friars more than anyone else. To the point that in Spain, Catholics say Ojalá, which means “May Allah make it happen”. The original was “O Allah”. In Catholicism we say it from the Hebrew, “Would God . . .” or "Would that God . . . " You insert what your wish God would do. That’s because we translate the Psalms from Hebrew to Latin. They translate them from Hebrew to Arabic. At that time, the Romance languages were in their infancy. They did not have much of a vocabulary. It was the period of transition from Latin to the Romance languages. There was not an equivalent to this, until later as we translated from Latin to the Romance languages. Spanish has a blend of Latin and Arabic. It remained with the Spanish friars who passed it on to the people of Spain.

They’re little things that over 800 years we do without even thinking about them or their origin. It’s sort of like the Christmas creche, Stations of the Cross, Passion Play, or the Christmas Pageant. Christians do these things, but if you ask them where they came from, not many know that Francis of Assisi started them. As centuries pass, things become part of your daily life and you don’t think about their roots. They just seem very normal to us.

To the people back then, seeing the friars taking off their footwear and leaving it outside the door of a church or chapel was rather strange. Walking into a chapel or church that has no kneelers,feels strange to many Catholics. To a Franciscan, it’s very normal to kneel on the bare floor, if you want to kneel.

The same thing happened with the tabernacle. We do all of this hollering about the tabernacle being moved to the side. The truth was that it was always on the side. Francis saw it in the center while visiting the Jewish synagogues in Jerusalem. Seeing as this was a biblical custom and seeing as his chapels were very small, this was the perfect solution. The friars and nuns could have their small chapels and still have adoration by placing the tabernacle on a pedestal on the front wall directly behind the altar of sacrifice. He knew that in ancient times they had hung a dove over the altar of sacrifice and placed the Blessed Sacrament in the belly of the dove. Later, the Benedictines would move it to a side chapel adjacent to the sanctuary. This practice caught on all over Europe.

Francis came back from Jerusalem and put the tabernacle front and center and this practice became more popular than the Benedictine practice that had existed up to then. The reason being that the Franciscan were a larger number. Their influence was greater than that of the Benedictines.

But ask any traditional Catholic and he’ll fight tooth and nail defending that “we always did it this way.” Not true. Francis brought it back from Jerusalem 800 years ago and the Church is 2,000 years old. It’s less than half the age of the Church. That’s not the same as always.

These are the types of things that happen when an ecumenical exchange is done correctly. Francis never heard the word ecumenism, just as St. Peter never heard the word transubstantiation. As time passes, these things are given names rather than describing them in long sentences.

It’s from examples like this to which Pope John Paul refers to when he says that there is mutual enrichment to be found in Ecumenism. Francis was not the only one to enter into a relationship with non Christians and learn adopt some customs. So did the Jesuits, Dominicans,Carmelites, Trinitarians and Dominicans. These orders had missionaries go to places very far from Christian Europe. To survive, they had to co-exist. At the beginning, many were martyred, because of the lack of understanding. The local viewed the missionaries as a threat. The missionaries treated the local with condescension because they were not Christians. As time passed from then to now, mutual understanding is improving. We’re not where we want to be, but we’re much further along.

For example, Catholicism in Okinawa and Nagasaki caught on much more quickly than any other part of Japan. When St. Maximilian Kolbe arrived to take over the mission, the first thing he did was to take the Franciscan habit away from the friars and dress them in local clothing. They wore a type of uniform worn by servants. He changed the name from the Immaculate Conception to the Sinless Mother. The Immaculate Conception was very difficult to translate into Japanese. Missionaries had tried to teach it to the Japanese converts, but they did not quite get it, because it does not translate well into Japanese.

These are forms of mutual enrichment that lead to trust and friendship that aides in evangelization. This takes years to build. However, today, Christian move freely in and out of many parts of the Middle East and Asia, especially Israel, Jordan, Japan, and India thanks to these mendicant missionaries who without knowing the word ecumenism, broke the ground by being ecumenical.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I’d disagree. War isn’t like football. You really do want to hammer the opposition into submission as quickly as possible. Betraying your own side to ‘level the field’ makes you a traitor. That is a terrible thing to be. Your compatriots get killed. An example in recent times: the communist sympathisers who sold secrets to the USSR, an atheist and vicious regime. I’m sure they thought they were being very pious.

I’d hope there were particular circumstances in St. Francis’ case; that not too many Christians were killed (what a funny statement!)

It’s funny that you should say this, because when the USA invaded Iraq, the Holy Father condemned the USA in the strictest terms and he quoted St. Francis. He said, “A preemptive strive is never morally justifiable.” He did so in writing by sending a letter to President Bush via the Papal Nuncio to the USA.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[floresco]

Actually, there is much more to this story than is in your citation and there are things in the citation that never happened.

Francis never volunteered to walk through fire. Thomas of Celano inserted that into the hagiography. It was later denied by the four friars who traveled with Francis. But it was left in the hagiography, because Celano’s intention is not to give you an historical account, but to present to the reader Francis’ passion for the faith.

Since Thomas of Celano is a Franciscan and he reported that St. Francis said “If you yet waver between Christ and Mohammed, order a fire kindled and I will go into it with your priests that you may see which is the true faith” this suggests that Thomas did not have the modern attitude to other religions. This casts doubt on the claim that the modern attitude is the same as a long-standing Franciscan one.

I have noticed there are a lot of different versions of the events of the life of St. Francis. What people say happened and never happened tends to reflect their personal opinions. Here is another account of this story from “Verba fratris Illuminati socii b. Francisci ad partes Orientis et in cospectu Soldani Aegypti”, Codex Vaticanus Ott.lat.n.552:

The same sultan submitted this problem to him: “Your Lord taught in his gospels that evil must not be repaid with evil, that you should not refuse your cloak to anyone who wants to take your tunic, etc. (Mt 5,40): All the more Christians should not invade our land!”. And Blessed Francis answered: “It seems to me that you have not read the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in its entirety. In fact it says elsewhere: “if your eye causes you sin, tear it out and throw it away” (Mt 5 , 29). With this, Jesus wanted to teach us that if any person, even a friend or a relative of ours, and even if he is dear to us as the apple of our eye, we should be willing to repulse him, to weed him out if he sought to take us away from the faith and love of our God. This is precisely why Christians are acting according to justice when they invade the lands you inhabit and fight against you, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and strive to turn away from his worship as many people as you can. But if you were to recognize, confess, and worship the Creator and Redeemer, Christians would love you as themselves instead”."

 

[floresco]

I know I have to be careful here because one is not allowed to criticize a Religious Order on this forum. But I hope it is okay to say even to this day, I find the Franciscans to be very open about certain things

It depends on the Franciscans. I know Franciscans who have a significantly different take on their order and on Catholicism than that of Brother JR.

 

[JReducation]

Since Thomas of Celano is a Franciscan and he reported that St. Francis said “If you yet waver between Christ and Mohammed, order a fire kindled and I will go into it with your priests that you may see which is the true faith” this suggests that Thomas did not have the modern attitude to other religions. This casts doubt on the claim that the modern attitude is the same as a long-standing Franciscan one.

I have noticed there are a lot of different versions of the events of the life of St. Francis. What people say happened and never happened tends to reflect their personal opinions. Here is another account of this story from “Verba fratris Illuminati socii b. Francisci ad partes Orientis et in cospectu Soldani Aegypti”, Codex Vaticanus Ott.lat.n.552:

The problem with the early writings on St. Francis is the same problem that we often have with the Synoptic Gospels. The writers are telling us the same story, but from different points of view. For that reason, Bonaventure tried to write the definitive biography on Francis and ordered the previous ones burnt. Thank God someone kept them.

Today, we look at them and realize that there are pieces missing here that are found there. We also realize that there are other pieces of information that were not available to Bonaventure, because no one thought they were important, such as letters and journals by people outside of the order, including the Sultan himself, the popes who knew Francis, the laity around him and even other religious. We are still finding pieces in very remote places where Francis never lived, such as libraries in Spain and Paris.

Many friars took their letters, journals and other memorabilia with them as they moved around. When they died, this stuff remained in the place they died. It was not available to Bonaventure as he tried to correct the historical problems. Over the centuries they were lost or forgotten, until Franciscan Studies became an independent branch of theology. Then it took off like a rocket and all kinds of things were uncovered and people brought things out that they had in libraries and friaries for centuries and thought were not important.

The job of the Franciscan historian is to do the same thing as the scripture scholars do, try to figure out what piece goes where and what piece is a fact and which is a message. The had a very interesting way of teaching at the time, which is not so strange. We just don’t use it as much today. They taught through stories, because so many people did not read. Often, many stories of the saints ere edited and even embellished for the sake of the audience. The intent of the story teller was not to teach an actual event, but to teach a great truth. The fact would be in the truth, not necessarily in the even. Historians have to sort out one type of writing from the other.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[floresco]

The job of the Franciscan historian is to do the same thing as the scripture scholars do, try to figure out what piece goes where and what piece is a fact and which is a message. The had a very interesting way of teaching at the time, which is not so strange. We just don’t use it as much today. They taught through stories, because so many people did not read. Often, many stories of the saints ere edited and even embellished for the sake of the audience. The intent of the story teller was not to teach an actual event, but to teach a great truth. The fact would be in the truth, not necessarily in the even. Historians have to sort out one type of writing from the other.

Establishing the historicity of the accounts of the life of St. Francis certainly involves challenges. However, it is far easier to identify the attitudes and beliefs of the authors of these accounts. There are clearly Franciscan authors whose attitude to other religions is not at all like the modern one. This casts doubt on the claim made earlier in this thread that the modern attitude corresponds to Franciscan tradition.

 

[JReducation]

Establishing the historicity of the accounts of the life of St. Francis certainly involves challenges. However, it is far easier to identify the attitudes and beliefs of the authors of these accounts. There are clearly Franciscan authors whose attitude to other religions is not at all like the modern one. This casts doubt on the claim made earlier in this thread that the modern attitude corresponds to Franciscan tradition.

The modern attitude is very eclectic. If you look at the Franciscan family itself, you’ll find that we have not deviated from our original methods. If you look at the universal Church, you’ll find all kinds of methods and theories as to how to best go about ecumenism. Some do work. The Jesuit method was different from the Franciscans, but it did work. The Dominicans, Franciscans and Carmelites are closer to each other, but they are also very close in theology too. Then some methods and premises don’t work at all, because they’re too far to the right or to the left.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PhilOSophia]

It’s funny that you should say this, because when the USA invaded Iraq, the Holy Father condemned the USA in the strictest terms and he quoted St. Francis. He said, “A preemptive strive is never morally justifiable.” He did so in writing by sending a letter to President Bush via the Papal Nuncio to the USA.

Ah, so the Crusaders were about to start a war with the Muslims and St. Francis warned them? Sill, I wouldn’t be wild about warning an opposing religion.

The Iraq war is well known to be unjustifiable. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Al-Queda nor did he have WOMD. Frankly, I was surprised by the cynicism of it.

I think one should pray that one’s country is never invaded by a foreign army or that another doesn’t come to ‘free your from your oppressors’; your house might go up in smoke either way!

 

[JReducation]

Ah, so the Crusaders were about to start a war with the Muslims and St. Francis warned them? Sill, I wouldn’t be wild about warning an opposing religion.

The Iraq war is well known to be unjustifiable. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Al-Queda nor did he have WOMD. Frankly, I was surprised by the cynicism of it.

I think one should pray that one’s country is never invaded by a foreign army or that another doesn’t come to ‘free your from your oppressors’; your house might go up in smoke either way!

You have to look at it from his point of view. From his perspective, the issue was not religion. The issue was that there was going to be a surprise attack, which he felt was not the moral thing to do. He was completely against war to begin with. He knew the horrors of war. He had been a soldier and a prisoner of war.

From his perspective such an attack was wrong whether it was the Christians or the Muslims who initiated it. One of Francis’ important lessons to the Church is that one does not choose sides because of faith. For this reason, he wrote into his rule that no secular member of his order could bear arms, serve in the armed forces or pledge allegiance to any nation, to avoid brother and against brother. This was a man of peace. His mission was to bring peace.

It’s very risky to look at things from the point of view of our era when you’re looking 800 years past. The worldviews are very different.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[archangel04]

Unknown to the Christians, as Francis was returning from Jerusalem, he saw that the Christians were getting ready to launch an attack on the Muslims and catch them by surprise. Francis had heard the Muslim soldiers send warning signals using that horn. He took the horn, blew as he had heard. The Christians invaded and the Muslims won the battle.

Wait so Francis warned the Muslims? As someone who is very into military I think that is a low-blow.

 

[pnewton]

Wait so Francis warned the Muslims? As someone who is very into military I think that is a low-blow.

You weren’t part of the crusades, though. It is not possible to impose today’s standards on 800 years ago. Sometimes military action was battle. Other times it was rioting and looting. I would trust the noble St. Francis to have a better idea of the morality of the day than we can.

As with all thing, historical context is critical.

 

[archangel04]

You weren’t part of the crusades, though. It is not possible to impose today’s standards on 800 years ago. Sometimes military action was battle. Other times it was rioting and looting. I would trust the noble St. Francis to have a better idea of the morality of the day than we can.

As with all thing, historical context is critical.

Who says I wasn’t? Lol JK

Yeah you make a point. Perhaps it could have been a massacre or he knew many innocent people would be killed, I will leave that up to God.

 

[jwinch2]

I know that the committee of theologians for the Holy See were selected from among the Dominicans, Jesuits, Opus Dei (Holy Cross), and a Diocesan priest. I don’t remember if the names were ever made public.

Bishop Charles Morerod, OP
Cardinal Karl Becker, SJ
Mgr. Fernando Ocáriz (Opus Dei)

annaarcosdiary.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/a-jesuit-a-dominican-and/

Those are the three I have been able to track down so far. I haven’t been able to come up with the name of the Diocesan priest.

Peace,

 

[JReducation]

Wait so Francis warned the Muslims? As someone who is very into military I think that is a low-blow.

You weren’t part of the crusades, though. It is not possible to impose today’s standards on 800 years ago. Sometimes military action was battle. Other times it was rioting and looting. I would trust the noble St. Francis to have a better idea of the morality of the day than we can.

As with all thing, historical context is critical.

It’s important to understand several things.

1. He had just made an alliance with the Muslims that he was carrying back to Rome.
2. He knew that the Crusades were more about power, than about faith.

The Muslims wanted to extend their power to Europe, which is wrong. The Europeans were trying to protect themselves form invasion, which is good.

However, the Europeans were not trying to stop the Muslims so that they could live in peace. Once the Muslims were no longer a threat, the Europeans would go back to invading each other, raping, looting, plundering as they had done before. The Europe of the13th century was not the European Union of today. They were barbarians with each other.

Francis was able to see through the Muslim and Christian charade of “defending their faith.”

The only person who had a real interest in the faith was the pope, who wanted to protect the holy sites. Even his approach was troublesome to the Franciscans. Because the Holy See wanted to govern Palestine, not just have access to the holy sights.

As it worked out, the Franciscans got their way, which I believe was God’s plan. The Catholics would have the Custody of the Holy Land, giving them the right to oversee and protect the holy sights and minister to the Christians, without having legal power over the local citizens. The Jews and Muslims were left to resolve their issues with each other without the intervention of the Church. Thus it has been for 800 years. That’s why to this day, Catholics may enter and leave Israel without problems. Because the Church does not get involved in Muslim - Jewish issues. She serves both of them along with her service to the Christians. The Orthodox, have problems, because they have an on-going battle with the Muslims since the Muslims invaded Constantinople. Some people just can’t let the past die.

When you stop to think of the motives driving both factions, Francis was right. Neither deserved justification or his protection and that of his brothers. They were equally greedy and could be equally barbaric. He wanted to see an end to the barbarism. He wanted peace. Think of him as a Bl. Mother Teresa or Bl. John Paul of the 13th century.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Bishop Charles Morerod, OP
Cardinal Karl Becker, SJ
Mgr. Fernando Ocáriz (Opus Dei)

annaarcosdiary.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/a-jesuit-a-dominican-and/

Those are the three I have been able to track down so far. I haven’t been able to come up with the name of the Diocesan priest.

Peace,

Cardinal Levada is the diocesan.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

Cardinal Levada is the diocesan.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Ah, excellent.

Peace,

 

[Pork_Roll]

1. He knew that the Crusades were more about power, than about faith.

This is your opinion. Show evidence that any pope held to this. You say that St. Francis blew a horn which led to the deaths of Christian crusaders. Can you give us evidence that St. Francis sided with the Muslims over Christians by blowing a horn which alerted them that Christians were going to attack?

Maybe he did but it sounds very suspicious.

the Europeans were not trying to stop the Muslims so that they could live in peace. Once the Muslims were no longer a threat, the Europeans would go back to invading each other, raping, looting, plundering as they had done before. The Europe of the13th century was not the European Union of today. They were barbarians with each other.

Admittedly there were catholics who did such things but it wasn’t authorized by the church. The sacking of Constantinople comes to mind. But the Muslims if you remember ultimately took the Holy Land back from the crusaders. Islam is an enemy of the church whether you want to admit it or not. The middle east is the original home of Christianity. Jesus didn’t say he was going to bring peace, but division.