 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
mea_maxima_culpa
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | Concord, New Hampshire USA |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Peter | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | U.C.C./Congregational, American Baptist, & now home in Rome! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29th, 2007 12:17 pm |
|
Hi all,
A still "green" Catholic here with a question.
I realize the Catholic church is a very big house, and there are room for lots of folks and opinions and points of view. And, in this house, there are many rooms, and you don't have to go in to all of them, and actually, there are some you should really stay out of (IMHO).
I want to ask a question out of ignorance,, and don’t mean by any inflection that my words should be taken to imbue any malice, just a lack of knowledge with that caveat,
Can anyone tell me about the Paulist Fathers? I know they are a unique to North America. I have read that it was started by Fr. Issac Hecker, and in his lifetime he had some brushes with Church authority, and after his death, some used his persona to forward an agenda that in the long run was denounced by Pope Leo XIII as the unique heresy of Americanism.
I don’t want to use terms like “Liberal,” as it has so much baggage to it. However, some of the things I have heard and read that have had their source from the Paulists, that I am particularly troubled by, with regard to the dilution of the truth found in THE church, and how we as Catholics should live out our Catholic faith.
I’d rather stay away from specifics if I can, but I am sure if there is a particular phenomenon inherent in this order, those more elder in the faith should pick up on my feelings and concerns. If there is no response, or a negative response, I’ll know it’s just me, and I apologize.
Maybe it’s a “convert” thing, and my love for the fullness of truth, and when I see or hear something or someone that I perceive to be seeking to dilute that truth, I find it disconcerting.
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29th, 2007 12:57 pm |
|
mea_maxima_culpa wrote: Can anyone tell me about the Paulist Fathers?
I hate to generalize about anything. I have known religous orders that include quite liberal members and quite conservative members, all under the same "tent". Paulist Press publishes lots of things that are completely orthodox, and some things that are not. "Liberal" does not necessarily mean bad. After all, Joseph Ratzinger was once considered a "liberal" theologian!
The Jesuits are usually considered a "liberal" order, but Fr. Mitch Pacwa of EWTN is a Jesuit. Franciscans, Benedictines, Dominicans, etc., can all be considered "liberal" or "conservative" depending on which priest, nun, or brother you're speaking to, where their formation took place, where they reside, etc. And the liberal ones will often consider themselves conservative and the conservative ones will often consider themselves liberal, and all will believe they are faithfully following Church doctrine.
So I don't think it's productive to place labels on an entire order, or on individuals based on their order. It's better to look at the prior works of the individual author.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
mea_maxima_culpa
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | Concord, New Hampshire USA |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Peter | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | U.C.C./Congregational, American Baptist, & now home in Rome! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29th, 2007 01:38 pm |
|
" Paulist Press publishes lots of things that are completely orthodox, and some things that are not. "
Hi, Thanks for the clarification on the terminology. The terms Liberal and Conservative, IMHO, never felt like a good fit for things theological. Did Christ rise on the 3rd day, in accordance with the Creed? Is there a "Liberal/Conservative" answer to this? Either he did, or he didn't.
I should have used the word Orthodox/unorthodox (or some derivative).
Thank you.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29th, 2007 01:39 pm |
|
Yes, Peter, I think one could say that the Paulists are a bit “left of center.” This doesn’t mean they are heretics, any more than “right of center” should be interpreted as “schismatic.”
I’m familiar with the heresy of Americanism; it has affinities to Modernism. There is no evidence, however, that Americanism ever had a large following among Catholics. It seems more styled for Protestant minds, and since the founder of the Paulists was a convert and his style of Catholicism had a definite influence from his earlier Protestantism, it stands to reason that this might be his particular bent. (It was, after all, not he but some of his followers who were accused of heresy.)
We must also recall that numerous Catholic saints in all epochs have had brushes with ecclesiastical authorities, precisely because they had unique insights and proceeded boldly where others hesitated. Additionally, these days there seems to be a consensus that certain traits found among Protestants might well serve as an example of what Catholicism needs for its own revitalization.
Recall, too, that the Paulists work mainly with the unchurched. They have found that the best approach is to meet them “where they’re at.” So they tend to use the unbeliever’s vocabulary as well as his intellectual and moral references to establish rapport and suggest God as the true and best way. Sometimes the words they use can grate the ears of the believer who is steeped in the standard and traditional vocabulary and style. Perhaps the best description of the Paulist method is “spoon feed.”
Well, sometimes the words Rick and I use on this forum grate the ears of a few of the members because they don’t folllow the Universal Catechism word for word. (The Catechism itself contains the injunction to episcopal councils to use it as a guide in making their own catechisms. The USCCB has done just that with its new Catechism for Adults. If the two were identical, there would be no need for the USCCB to do anything, and the words of the Catechism would be a dead letter.) But we do it for the same reason as the Paulists: we’re looking for ways to communicate, to “reach” those who otherwise would not understand and appreciate Catholic doctrine.
Does it work? Is it effective? Is it orthodox? All I know is that the Paulists have a following. They are sowers of the seed. In many cases, others will nourish, weed and reap. And this is as it should be, for the Church is an organism in which the different parts serve unique purposes for the benefit of the whole.
So the final verdict must consider which “part” or individual person is doing good and contributing to the growth of the body, regardless of the order or organization he belongs to, not whether a certain segment of the body (say the internal organs or the shoulders) is functioning correctly. If the individual religious is orthodox, then he is contributing his orthodoxy to the order and Church he belongs to. If the individual is able to function as a leaven in society and bring others to a belief in God and in Jesus Christ, then the organization with which he works is the better for it, and the Church as a whole benefits.
David
|
|
|
Current time is 10:46 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
