|
1 members (Fr. Al),
293
guests, and
131
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,522
Posts417,618
Members6,172
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 522
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 522 |
DavidB, if you had read the site closely you would have seen it was divided into pro-OD and con-OD. It quoted the writings of the "saint" and a large selection of sources from all sides of the spectrum...conservative and liberal. Don
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,696
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,696 |
Dear Phil,
Thanks for your response. I'm sorry that I haven't been able to reply yet. Things are very busy for me at the moment.
I will reply as soon as I can make the time.
From your postings, it sounds like you're in a similiar situation. How're school and life in general going? Hope it's all good and your girl is doing well, too.
I will respond as soon as I can.
Thanks for your patience.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698 |
Originally posted by DavidB:
As a side note, I wonder what the adgenda of a group that choses to identify itself as the Opus Dei Awarness Network is......hmmmmm
Dear David, I wonder if the local Fire Department has an agenda? What I mean by that is that I wouldn't automatically impose an "agenda" on a group like ODAN (the connotation being that such an agenda is always bad). I haven't read much of the ODAN site, and don't know much about Opus Dei other than what Opus Dei puts out (and, based on what OD has said about OD, I've had a good impression of them). I've read some things written in an anti-OD tone, and have taken issue with some of their interpretations of Escriva's writings (and I have three of his books in front of me, which I've been going through along with these sites). But there are some things I cannot but see as shady. And I am for the most part a skeptic, and so I was entirely willing to give the Church and OD the benefit of the doubt. But now I'm beginning to see some things about OD that I don't feel comfortable with. I once could say that I would recommend OD if someone wanted to go that way; now I cannot say that: even if it is all one BIG misunderstanding, I don't think I would want to take that risk. A lot of the stuff written against OD is written by people who left. Could they be angry enough at OD for some reason that they would lie? Sure. But in one article, I read where representatives of OD were confronted with various charges, and they didn't really confirm--or deny--these things. And that is troubling. It is one thing to be charged of something. But do you just take it and move along? Wouldn't you want to clear the air and set the record straight? I suppose keeping quiet in imitation of Christ is an eminently humble thing to do for the individual, but I have a hard time stomaching such institutional humility in tandem with the other things I've heard about OD. The whole movement--and many of their policies regarding the lives of their members which I will not get into now out of a desire not to prolong my post--troubled me as soon as I read some of these allegations. But what troubled me most was that OD doesn't try to clear the air. Any defence I've ever read from them or their supporters is so vague one cannot help but be uneasy. I didn't understand why people were so suspicious of OD; I still don't know what is "the truth", but now I too am suspicious, and barring a definitive clarification from unbiased sources that none of the charges are true (since OD isn't giving any answers), I could not recommend the organisation to anyone, although I have no problem with most of the saint's writings. Another charge I heard, which I haven't been able to substantiate, is that the office of Advocatus Diaboli, the Devil's Advocate, has been abolished in the canonisation process, and so when people wanted to present negative testimony against Escriva, such wasn't allowed. Whether or not these people were denied the right to testify (as they claim) is not my concern. Has the office been abolished, and why? I think such an office is useful. If you're gonna allow miracles as proof of sanctity, why not subject the person's life to the scrutiny of the Church's shepherds to see if they truly were holy? As for people still doubting the sanctity of Saint Josemaria Escriva or the status of his sainthood, the clarification I posted yesterday should clarify things. Obviously, canonisations are covered by papal infallibility for Catholics. So the faithful Catholic has only one choice; namely, to recognise that Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer is a saint. To deny that, or to call that into question by referring to him as a "saint" (in quotes) calls into question one's faith in papal infallibility, it would seem, and that is not an option for the faithful Catholic. Dear Steve, School and life are going alright. The former is making the latter very busy and stressful.  But all is well with me and with "the missus" (I just call her that, we're not married or engaged or anything). I hope all is well with you, and look forward to hearing what you have to say when you actually find the time to say it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,696
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,696 |
Quote:
Dear Steve,
Thanks for the quotes. It still confuses me, though.
If the Pope can declare something by himself exercising the Church's infallibility, then it seems to confuse things. It blurs the lines, seemingly equating "Church" with "Pope" and "Pope" with "Church". The Pope may not be infallible; he may only be exercising an ecclesial infallibility. But he is empowered to exercise it as a part of his office alone. The Archbishop of Cologne cannot exercise that ecclesial infallibility on his own. The entire episcopate cannot exercise that ecclesial infallibility on their own without the Pope. The Pope still is the necessary bishop. The Pope, with the episcopate, can infallibly declare something. But Pastor Aeternus and/or Vatican I would say that the Pope could infallibly declare something on his own, by virtue of his office, *without* the other bishops, but *still* exercising ecclesial infallibility. If I'm wrong, correct me.
But if I'm right, then there seems to be something wrong when the one can act on the part of the whole without the whole, but the whole cannot act on the part of the whole without the one, and all of this can still be called "ecclesial" (from a Greek word meaning assembly or gathering, I think?).
Dear Phil,
I understand your quandry. Your conclusion seems to be a reasonable one.
Infallibility is a tough issue.
As you point out, it is an ecclesial characteristic. I'd suggest that it is a most useful one and one that all of the Apostolic Chruches agree upon.
As I see it, infallibility is the guarantee that the Spirit will work with Churches to ensure that they do not present an erroneous representation of theological reality. They will not err when they teach about the things God has revealed about Himself and His working out of His ends within the Chruches and in the world. He wants us to know some essential things with certitude.
It appears that we all agree that the Spririt uses the Churches gathered in Council to present and to clarify what is truth in matters of Faith about those essentials. It also seems to be accepted that this is true as long as the Council is properly assembled and the teachings are somehow affirmed to be true.
Within Orthodoxy, if I understand correctly, the teachings of a Council must be received by the Churches. I have not learned how that is determined to be the case.
The ability to assure the Churches that something belongs to the body of certain knowledge that God wants us to know is an invaluable attribute for the Churches. It is within that context of service, it seems to me, that some form of Papal infallibility makes sense.
The Pope acting in his role as pastor of the members Body of Christ can make that assertion. The teachings of an Oecumenical Council of Bishops can be affirmed by the Pope.
Personally, that makes sense to me. The Pope asserts that Counciliar teachings in matters of essential faith have been received by the Churches when he confirms them. I believe this to be a proper exercise of the infallibility of the Church. The Catholic Communion teaches that this is so.
The Churches of our communion also teach that the Pope, by virtue of His office pastor, can affirm the truth of a teaching for the Churches. He can affirm that the teaching is truth has been held by the Churches even without the activity of a Council.
There is one sure instance where the Pope has provided this service without the activity of a Council. Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary to be true. The Pope sought the sense of the faithful from the bishops of the Churches, both Eastern and Western, in communion with him. Only then did he provide the service to the Churches.
Assuredly there is room for discussion about these issues. Perhaps the Spirit is using the perceived differences of understandinge about authority and infallibility by Orthodox and Catholic Communions to help to clarify things.
Hopefully the ecumenical discussions on the role the Pope among Catholics and Orthodox will begin in earnest. As things unfold, we might find that we share a common belief more than we know now. As the discussions with Assyrian Church of the East and the Catholic Communion have highlighted, at times our language poorly expresses the common truth we all hold or disguises it to the point we cannot recognize it.
It is my personal belief that the Pope is the Servant of the Churches. He is not apart from them or separate from them. His service is invaluable and essential to the good order and the teaching work of the Churches. He speaks for us by virtue of this role among the Churches. He affirms and strengthens the faith of his brothers and sisters. He speaks for us.
I hope that this makes sense.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,658
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,658 |
Maybe the Papacy has been too Western, it would have been better if the Papacy had been more neutral, like in the first centuries, with the Greek Popes, the Norhtern African Popes and their views weren't so westernized. If the Popes had understood the East in a better way, the schism could have been avioded.
Maybe my thoughts sound strange. :p
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641 |
Thank you, Father Elias. Very well said and accurate. Originally posted by Hieromonk Elias:
On a very interesting question, I believe infallibility is to be understood exactly as the Church has defined it, concerning some proclamations of faith and morals, which fit certain definite criteria.
It does not include aspects of Liturgy or Liturgical veneration of saints and blesseds. We must avoid the desire to extend this particular mystery beyond the wise and prudent way the Catholic Church has defined it.
Elias
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641 |
Okay... now I'm really confused. We're going to have to draw a Venn diagram for all this. I still think what Fr. Elias said was correct... Not to change gears, but I was wondering: Is Opus Dei and Order like the Franciscans, Benedictines, Carmelites, etc? Is there a Rule that undergoes Vatican scrutiny and approval. As you can tell from my handle I'm a Franciscan. (Third Order Secular.) I went through a period of inquiry, a period of novitiate, and a one year temporary profession of the Rule before becoming a fully professed member. I know about my own Order and what it expects, but not as much about the others. What is Opus Dei, precisely? An Order? A group? A fraternal organization? A club? Can anyone enlighten me without making a value judgment about Opus Dei? Originally posted by Mor Ephrem:
Haven't had a chance to read everything yet, late to class, but I thought I'd post this, or else I might forget...
VATICAN CITY, SEP 12, 1997 (VIS) - Today the Holy See Press Office made public the following note on canonical
procedure for causes of beatification and canonization:
(after some were skipped)
"6. For canonization another miracle is needed, attributed to the intercession of the Blessed and having occurred after his
beatification. The methods for ascertainment of the affirmed miracle are the same as those followed for beatification.
Canonization is understood as the concession of public worship in the Universal Church. Pontifical infallibility is involved. With
canonization, the Blessed acquires the title of Saint."
Not sure, but I think pontifical and papal are the same thing in this context, and so papal infallibility extends to canonisations.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
Dear Annie-SFO: My previous post sometime in March on the question: "What is the OPUS DEI?" might help initially clarify the Prelature's "enigma". It is the ONLY personal prelature in the Catholic Church. You may want, also, to visit their website at: http://www.opusdei.org Dear Daniil:
The "Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei," or OPUS DEI for short, is the first (and, I think, the only one so far) personal prelature in the Catholic Church. It was erected by Pope John Paull II as his personal prelature on 28 November 1982. It was founded by Bl. Escriva in Madrid, Spain on 02 October 1928. It is international in membership having about 80,000 from more than 70 countries, and about 3,000 to 4,000 of them from the U.S.A. As can be gleaned from the name of the organization, it is composed of both the clergy and laity. It has its main center in Rome and is under the control of the Pope thru the Sacred Congregation for Bishops. Contrary to Dr. John's opinion, I think it is open to ALL Catholics, and to all, Christians and non-Christians alike, as "Cooperators." (Phrase in bold added 10/11/02.)
To quote Fr. John Trigilio:
"Opus Dei is neither a religious order, like the Dominicans, Franciscans & Jesuits, nor is it a Secular Institute or religious movement, like
Cursillo or Charismatic. It is a Personal Prelature, 95% which is laity and only 5% clergy. It was founded by the late and recently beatified Blessed Jose Maria Escriva in the early thirties in Spain. Well before Vatican II taught the UNIVERSAL CALL TO HOLINESS of all the baptized, Msgr. Escriva sought to promote a spirituality for the laity. Previously, the only spirituality was that of the religious monks and nuns. The monastic life, especially the rule of St. Augustine and St. Benedict was the keystone of spirituality. The mendicant orders, Dominican & Franciscan, were a modification of these. The parish priest, i.e., the Diocesan (Secular) Priesthood was a further modification of those. Hence, all Priests, regular (religious) or secular (diocesan), must pray the Divine Office. The Liturgy of the Hours is designed in a monastic style, with the hours of the day broken up as the monks divided their day.
The laity had to adapt and dilute the already attenuated monastic spirituality for themselves. Consequently, laypeople had no spirituality
which was uniquely their own. It was nothing more than a watered down version of a religious spirituality. Msgr. Escriva found this
unacceptable, save for those laity who felt called to embrace the Third Order (tertiaries) of Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, et al. He
devised a spirituality of and for the laity. OPUS DEI, the Work of God, is a means by which the Catholic Faithful sanctify themselves and the
world in which they live and work. It is comprised of all walks of life, doctors, lawyers, homemakers, teachers, students, bus drivers, retirees, etc. The goal is for each member of Opus Dei to bring their Roman Catholic Faith into their WHOLE life, home, work & play. As leaven in the world, the laity being IN the world bring Christ and the Catholic Faith INTO that same world by the way they practice their Faith. The clergy's function is to HELP the laity find their spirituality and to help them bring the FAITH to the world.
Opus Dei, then, is a vehicle by which its members sanctify the world by sanctifying themselves in whatever situation and condition and vocation
they find themselves. The so-called "secret" of Opus Dei is that the members do not wear their religion on their armsleeves. They are very
well read in the Magisterial teachings of the Church, are very loyal to the Holy See, and they quietly but effectively defend Church dogma and
faithfully practice their Catholic Faith 24 hours a day without crediting it to Opus Dei,
necessarily. Their absence of self-publicity breeds contempt from their enemies who see them as clandestine. In reality, it is nothing more than humility. Opus Dei members study the Faith and they INFUSE Catholic virtues into a secular world and secular society. Rather than selling out to the social mores of the pagan culture like modern sycophants, Opus Dei members uphold the moral and doctrinal teachings of the Church and encourage all men and women of all faiths to obey the Natural Moral Law. Due to their resistance of diluting Church law, many opponents accuse Opus Dei of being anti-ecumenical.
All in all, Opus Dei is a superb method for any Catholic Christian to know their Faith more fully, to create a concrete strategy for Christianizing the world and to build up the kingdom of God via ALL members of the Church, lay and clergy. As it is more cerebral and
intellectual, it may not attract everyone just as the Cursillo and Charismatic Movements are not for everyone either. It is fully legitimate and fully recognized by the Church, from the Roman Pontiff on down. All I can say is to check it
out by attending a day of recollection, make a retreat or talk to some members of Opus Dei to see if it is for YOU. Read Msgr. Escriva's
monumental work, "THE WAY" and see if it helps you in developing a spirituality; a plan of life. If not, at least it won't be a waste of
time by any means." AmdG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,775
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,775 |
It seems to me that Opus Dei is a type of "autocephalous" entity. It has its own hierarchy and structure. Unlike the RC religious orders, they are not a cloistered community that lives in community under a real abbott or prior, but rather a community outside the cloister.
For us Easterns, we don't have this kind of structure. One is either a member of a diocese as a layman or some other function, or one is a monastic subject to the rules and regulations of the monastery. Personal prelatures are a Latin thing. Their "existence" is the result of Latin perspectives.
Personally, I don't give a darn about their existence or their 'saints'. They're Latin Church not us'n Church. Unless we as Easterns decide to adopt this Latin stuff, it is irrelevant. Let the Latins deal with Opus Dei. It's their spiritual child.
If the Opus Dei decides to intervene in Eastern Church affairs, then we've got to unholster our firearms and wait to see what they have in mind for us. If they wish to impose their Western Church discipline (i.e., against married clergy, chrismation, crowning in marriage, etc.) then we have to be prepared to fight by expelling the third-columnists among us and demanding that our bishops stand up for us without compromising. It will truly be the dividing between the sheep and the goats.
Blessings!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177 |
I've only had limited exposure to Roman Catholicism (4 yrs of High School) so I'm a bit lost on some terminology. In many of these OD posts I see it described as the only 'personal prelature'. What is a personal prelature, and how is it different from any other type of prelature (whatever that is)?
Clueless,
Andrij
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641 |
Thanks for the info, Amado - I checked out the info on the O.D. website. I guess I've never encountered a member of that organization and was more familiar with the older Orders within the Latin church.
I know there are a few other Byzantine Franciscans here at the forum. I'll be the first to admit, I'm spiritually "simple folk." I admit that I returned to school to study theology and church history at some length after graduating from law school - and am fascinated with the details - but I always found myself wandering back on the simplest spiritual path. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Andrij, "Clueless?" Do you live in Seattle? In actual fact, the Personal Prelature only really means they are under the direct authority of the Pope and answer only to him. They are, in fact, like the Jesuits when they first began as a traditional, papally-centred Order, soldiers of the Counter-Reformation and all that. I don't think they're like that any more . . . But Opus Dei people are! Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Dr. John (El Greco), Well, we took on the Jesuits when they tried the same thing - what is Opus Dei by comparison? Wait a minute . . . you and the . . .and the . . .Jesuits? Say it isn't so! Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
Dear Annie-SFO:
OPUS DEI can be likened to your own SFO, a laity's serious but humble attempt at monastic spirituality.
Only, some members of the OPUS DEI seem to take a "holier-than-thou" attitude?
Yes, the Prelature (i.e., the Head of the Prelature) answers "personally and directly" to the Pope, through the Vatican's Congregation for Bishops.
AmdG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
Dear Alex:
In addition to Dr. John (if he in some way remains a Jesuit confrere), we might need and we, therefore, might have to resurrect the "Black Pope" to take on the OPUS DEI.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!
|
|
|
|
|
