About Jesuits...
#1
This may sound weird, but since when have Jesuits become heretics? A lot of people mention the bad formation of most Jesuits, but were they not originally dedicated to ending the Protestant heresy? Many times when I read of heresy and disent a Jesuit is involved. Where can I find out more?
Reply
#2
Malachi Martin wrote a pretty good,well researched book about the Order called,appropriately The Jesuits.  The late Father Vincent Micelli who was a solid Jesuit said of the book that it was about 99% accurate. Malachi Martin was a strange,controversial character but much of what he wrote has a lot of truth to it,the Jesuits being no different.

Personally I'm not a fan of the Order, I don't like the Spiritual Exercises and have never cared for their reputation nor their liturgical minamalism and constant intellectualist nuancing of everything, however, I was and still am a fan of the late Father John Hardon, SJ, a priest that I venerate as a possible saint.

it was said in the book that Pedro Arrupe destroyed the Order when Paul VI was Pope. The book, if true,will show you exactly the type of Order and theological milleu Jorge Marie Bergoglio was formed in which should shed light on pretty much  everything he says and does as Pope Francis.


Reply
#3
Usually, I think, the contemporary Jesuit reputation for heresy and nonsense is born from experience. Since they're the largest Order in the Church, and accepted a "Spirit of Vatican II" institutionally before and after the Council, people are more likely to meet bad Jesuits than good Jesuits. Our previous Archbishop was a conservative Jesuit; he is now the Archbishop of Ottawa, and does a very good job, all things considered. One of the two Jesuit priests in our city right now uses sock-puppets at "childrens' masses". The other seems more stoic, but has said some queer things and dresses in public like a grandfather going fishing.

Aside from the Novus Ordo, I think any modern trad should be wary of Jesuitism in general, given the Society's tendency to individualize everything via their Spiritual Exercises. What we need now is outward uniformity in worship and reverence, not more "Me". This may not sound like a bad thing in principle, but it has always lead to "personalization" of the Gospel, turning it inward. I do not doubt that lives have been changed by doing the Exercises... but the way they've been utilized has always tended their users toward minimalism in other parts of the Church's life.

Modern trads, on the other hand, are of a more Benedictine spirit since the Council: focusing on the public prayer, worship, and liturgy of the Bride of Christ. Today we stand in an antithetical position to the age-old Jesuit ideal of interiorization and individual-focus. That ideal was widespread for "trads" (i.e. all Catholics) before the Council, but now it must be seen as suspicious in our present messy Conciliar context. We live in a day when interiorizing the Gospel is usually spiritualist/new age/wrong.

Here are two examples of the Benedictine "fight" against the Jesuits in the beginning of the last century:

http://vultus.stblogs.org/index.php/2014...spensable/
http://vultus.stblogs.org/index.php/2014...conundrum/
Reply
#4
I don't remember where, but I heard or read someone once say that the Jesuits of today only date back to the re-constituted order after their suppression.  They don't have that true, organic continuity of the original  order.  As an analogy for those that know a bit about American football, they are like the current Cleveland Browns.

As a random factoid I learned recently, Pedro Arrupe was one of the eight Jesuits who miraculously survived the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Reply
#5
Well, the Jesuit fundamental problem is the same as most other orders.  Which is living their charism.  The Franciscans have poverty, Dominicans have preaching, Jesuits have what?  Teaching and combating the Protestants, while most Jesuit schools are still excellent institution, face it they failed in the second half, miserably.  I think this is the issue with Apostolic Orders versus Monastic Orders.  While there are monasteries that are whacky, but most of those are ones that have abandoned their monastic charism to pursue other pursuits such as social work or psychology.  Part of it is that bishops have became too dependent on the religious life to supplement as oppose to compliment his own priests.  For instance in the United States, Benedictines monks and nuns have been asked to run schools (including secular schools!) which is really contrary to their charism where manual labor is typically the main expression of the life.  Dominicans and Franciscans, which are both supposed to be begging friars have canonical parishes which run contrary to what their founders wanted and history.  The demands of parish life is quite cumbersome to the communal life that is suppose to exists in these communities.  Now the Jesuits are notorious for not having a common life because there work is primarily apostolic, but I still believe that a common life should be essential for all religious and secular clergy alike in some form.  After a phalanx is not made up of scattered soldiers but one mass, covering the person next to them.  There are many orders and societies that should have been suppressed after the Council because while most revised Constitutions actually do harken back to their founder and original charism, some have served their limited purpose and continuing them would be useless, also many communities completely miss the point when it comes to actualization of that charism.  This is especially epidemic with women communities. 

Another issue, I find is the ideal vs. the reality.  Religious life is extremely taxing, especially living alone like most priests do these days.  The truth is the world is severely messed up.  Religious are human, humans fail.  We can sit and say this and that about how they need to be this and that.  But the reality is very different than the ideal, if you are priests and hearing confession from a group of teenage boys every week at a Jesuit run school. at some point you will think if somethings should be considered a sin if it is this common.  Unfortunately, these Jesuits and liberals think the solution is to lower the ideal or best abolish the ideal or any kind of standard (or substitute an alien one).  They have no clue what it means to be priest or a religious or Christian for that matter.  Jesuits are notorious for dispensations, indeed most Jesuits probably would dispense the entire Faith if it would mean a convert.  But of course, what would be the point of converting somebody to nothing, have we become the apologists for atheists.  Indeed, I chuckle at the concept of the new evangelization in that it is a completely discombobulated, dare I say divorce.  I think all religious including the Pope, need to ask a few questions before they ask how do we try to "evangelize."  What do I believe, why do people need to be evangelize, who do I say Christ is, when have I felt Christ presence, how do I live for Christ, where does God want me to be?  I can say personally there are very few religious including traditional priests who would have trouble answering those questions honestly.  What more can I say, we don't live in an age of heroes, we live in the age of anti-heroes.     
Reply
#6
Materialism and relativism found their way into the Jesuits through 18th-21st Century Academia.  It is good to love knowledge, and Jesuits emphasize that especially.  I am afraid, however, that many Jesuits have sought the comfort and admiration of 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st Century academia more than the beauty and truth of Christ.
Reply
#7
(09-23-2014, 11:04 PM)AntoniusMaximus Wrote: Well, the Jesuit fundamental problem is the same as most other orders.  Which is living their charism.  The Franciscans have poverty, Dominicans have preaching, Jesuits have what?  Teaching and combating the Protestants, while most Jesuit schools are still excellent institution, face it they failed in the second half, miserably.  I think this is the issue with Apostolic Orders versus Monastic Orders.  While there are monasteries that are whacky, but most of those are ones that have abandoned their monastic charism to pursue other pursuits such as social work or psychology.  Part of it is that bishops have became too dependent on the religious life to supplement as oppose to compliment his own priests.  For instance in the United States, Benedictines monks and nuns have been asked to run schools (including secular schools!) which is really contrary to their charism where manual labor is typically the main expression of the life.  Dominicans and Franciscans, which are both supposed to be begging friars have canonical parishes which run contrary to what their founders wanted and history.  The demands of parish life is quite cumbersome to the communal life that is suppose to exists in these communities.  Now the Jesuits are notorious for not having a common life because there work is primarily apostolic, but I still believe that a common life should be essential for all religious and secular clergy alike in some form.  After a phalanx is not made up of scattered soldiers but one mass, covering the person next to them.  There are many orders and societies that should have been suppressed after the Council because while most revised Constitutions actually do harken back to their founder and original charism, some have served their limited purpose and continuing them would be useless, also many communities completely miss the point when it comes to actualization of that charism.  This is especially epidemic with women communities. 

Another issue, I find is the ideal vs. the reality.  Religious life is extremely taxing, especially living alone like most priests do these days.  The truth is the world is severely messed up.  Religious are human, humans fail.  We can sit and say this and that about how they need to be this and that.  But the reality is very different than the ideal, if you are priests and hearing confession from a group of teenage boys every week at a Jesuit run school. at some point you will think if somethings should be considered a sin if it is this common.  Unfortunately, these Jesuits and liberals think the solution is to lower the ideal or best abolish the ideal or any kind of standard (or substitute an alien one).  They have no clue what it means to be priest or a religious or Christian for that matter.  Jesuits are notorious for dispensations, indeed most Jesuits probably would dispense the entire Faith if it would mean a convert.  But of course, what would be the point of converting somebody to nothing, have we become the apologists for atheists.  Indeed, I chuckle at the concept of the new evangelization in that it is a completely discombobulated, dare I say divorce.  I think all religious including the Pope, need to ask a few questions before they ask how do we try to "evangelize."  What do I believe, why do people need to be evangelize, who do I say Christ is, when have I felt Christ presence, how do I live for Christ, where does God want me to be?  I can say personally there are very few religious including traditional priests who would have trouble answering those questions honestly.  What more can I say, we don't live in an age of heroes, we live in the age of anti-heroes.   



Much food for thought here! You bring up some excellent points. I never thought about what it must be for priests to have to hear confessions day in day out or what it must be like to have a certain charism in an Order and not be able to fulfill it. 


I guess  as far as the popular culture goes the Jesuits have been wildly successful. They are probably quite popular amongst academic "theologians" and others in the trendy popular culture both inside and outside the Church and when you don't have a serious spiritual life or much in the way of moral support its probably easy to go ahead and just follow the trends.

As for the so called "new evangelization", it seems kind of contrived and misguided.,especially when  it's mostly based on the disasterous "reforms" of Vatican II.
Reply
#8
(09-24-2014, 12:15 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Much food for thought here! You bring up some excellent points. I never thought about what it must be for priests to have to hear confessions day in day out or what it must be like to have a certain charism in an Order and not be able to fulfill it. 


I guess  as far as the popular culture goes the Jesuits have been wildly successful. They are probably quite popular amongst academic "theologians" and others in the trendy popular culture both inside and outside the Church and when you don't have a serious spiritual life or much in the way of moral support its probably easy to go ahead and just follow the trends.

As for the so called "new evangelization", it seems kind of contrived and misguided.,especially when  it's mostly based on the disasterous "reforms" of Vatican II.

Well, the Jesuits typical style of conversions was going from the top on down.  That is how the Jesuits became so embedded in Chinese and Japanese politics in the 16th to early 17th century.  When you have a clear hierarchial structure that wields the influence over commoners like Imperial China, you target those at top, convert the emperor and you convert everyone else, and you do that by making concessions and extrapolations such as permitting the veneration of pre-Christian ancestors which otherwise would be considered syncretistic or idoladrous.  While quite apt and political, I think in many ways it planted the seeds of the future discord.  The modern Jesuits do it, but they have forgotten why they are doing it.  In their zeal for apostolic work, they have forgotten the importance of the liturgy.  When I was in my novitiate year (for a different order), I would go to Regis College which is Jesuit run or their retreat center in Sedalia, Co and I would go into their chapels and just be puzzled.  especially at Sedalia, where the main chapel probably in the 50s was quite lovely because enough of the layout remains where you can envision it.  They took out the pews, the high altar is still there in the background but the free standing altar they have in the middle of the chapel (which never seems to match the rest of the building), so there are chairs, which while there are churches in italy of antiquity that have similar outlays, it is uncomfortable hearing Mass because you don't where is your focus, what i reckon can be a metaphor for most religious congregations.  More telling is that in the private chapel, the altar there is so small like you can barely put a missal, candles, and pattens on it, which I guess can symbolize how important Mass is for some Jesuits.

The Jesuits despite their current woes and shortcomings still do quite a bit of good.  I find their Cristo Rey network to be an excellent and interesting model especially with integrating lower income students into businesses (and I am fan that the kids have an actual vested interest to both work hard and succeed namely because their tuition comes from their internship).  A funny aside, when I was in Denver, the principal of Arrupe High School came to visit the parish as he was making a recruitment/money pitch.  And my novice master was going on a rant like he usually did/does about teenage minorities are getting into big companies and that is like changing stuff (one thing about religious life I encounter is that people would always be excited about "x" but they never knew why) and how he could have never come up with an idea like that.  Needless to say, I encounter a lot of that kind of thinking  which was one of my motivating reason to leave. 
Reply
#9
Just look at some of the scumbag politicians that are products of a Jesuit education and that tells me all I need to know. 

Uber liberal and supportive of the most current PC causes.  >:(

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)