Opus Dei...

[flip]

im not doubting that you are less Catholic... i just dont know much about it. thats why im asking... ill check your links...

[Theoketos]

[quote name='flip' date='Sep 2 2004, 07:35 PM']
i would love to know... what exactly do you do at what levels?

I have heard that moritfication is in there... as we have said, is not bad at all.

are thier speacial Opud Dei priests and Bishops? Why do they have to have thier own clergy?

What is the role of an Opus Die spirtual director?

I heard that once at a specfic level, you must tithe much more of your money, and keep records of all your money with your spirtual director...

[/quote]
Opus Dei is a religious Order, like for exampl; the Benedictines, who also have clergy, who are the church's first, but are under the order of the specifice superiors like a priest monk would be under an Abbot.

Opus Dei is not the only order that promotes mortifaction. www.e5men.com and the CCC speaks about these in great lengthes.

Honestly the Opus Dei spiritual Directors are just really really good accountability partners to put it in terms that you might understand.

It would not surprise me at all that tithing is required, the english speaking countries have a problem with this, and then on top of that the memebers are also strongly encouraged to give alms, as we all should if we can. Donating to Phatmass could be giving alms...

Any thing else?

[WildCatRupe]

I must admit that i am sketched out a little by OD, the legionaires et.al. I don't know enough about any of these groups to make a real decision, but I prefer to be somewhat wary. Perhaps if someone could find something like a OD mission statement and/or document from JPII or the Holy See regarding this group, we would all benefit. Second: I am not sure that people making vague statements like, "they are VERY orthodox" helps anyone. I have a friend who claims herself to be "VERY" orthodox, but in her striving to be orthodox, actually crosses the line. Everyone knows that you can go overboard in a "liberal" sense, but most of us don't seem to remember that you can do the same thing in a "conservative" sense. For example, she still uses a 1898 Catechism (which isn't necessarily doctrinal, like the modern catechism, nor does it contain the Vatican II ideas), won't wear pants, exchews "unnatural" musics such as rock, pop, or rap (even the Catholic or Christian versions), won't receive the Blessed Sacrament from a E.M., etc. She recently tried to claim that the Latin (or Roman) rite mass, the one im sure the majority of us are familiar with, is the only legitimate rite, and is the oldest. The Catechism declares this first idea to be false, and history shows us that the Syrian rite (founded by the Indian people who were ministered to by the apostle Thomas) was founded around the year 700, where as the Latin rite wasn't established till about 1200, and didn't exsist in the form we know it (either the Tridentine or Novus Ordum) until about 1500. So! The point of all that is this: Don't trust an organization simply because they are "orthodox" as you see it. make sure you do the research and truly understand what this group believes. Just appearing old school doesn't necessarily equal orthodox.

Pax

Timmy

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 2 2004, 01:53 PM']
First off, lets get our facts straight here. The Legionaires of Christ do not target "good looking" priests, you've got to admit that's pretty, however, just in case you're wondering, out of the Legionaires that I know, I would say only a small percentage of them are good looking.

Now, that issue having been discarded, anyone with any credibility at all will tell you that the Legion (and Regnum Christi) are about as orthodox as you can get. The "liberal" catholics claim they are ultra-conservative, while the "ultra-traditionalists" claim that they are too liberal. Ultimately, they are irrevocably in line with the Holy Father, and that makes them as orthodox as you can be.

With regards to recruitment, let me give you a little background. I am 18, a sophomore in college, and was incorporated into Regnum Christi during the summer before my Freshman year, so I know firsthand what it is like. I was certainly encouraged to join, but I was not pressured to do so. They are very careful to make sure that the people who join are at a properly mature level of spiritual formation beforehand.

It is very sad to see so many people with twisted views of groups like Regnum Christi, the Legion, and Opus Dei. All of them are very orthodox, very good, and very much loved by our Holy Father. I would certainly not deny everything that is bad that is said about the groups, but to claim that these things are the norm, and to claim that they reflect the inner workings and views of the institutions as a whole would be the same as claiming that all Catholic Priests are pedopheliacs and that the institution of the Church as a whole does nothing to prevent this.

honestly, I don't blame anyone for having the wrong idea of RC, the Legion, or Opus Dei, what with all the bad press that people give them, but the accusations really are pretty ridiculous.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
Hmm... maybe it depends where you are. I did actually go on one of the retreats the summer between my sophmore and junior years back in high school. I was pretty much shoved up to be "incorporated(?)". However, luckily, I never actually went through with it. I don't know if just because they follow everything the Pope says, that makes them orthodox. According to The Great Facade, which as I wrote before (a different thread), I just started reading yesterday, the Pope is not very orthodox himself in how he treats other religions, "ecumenism", "dialouge", the treatment of the Mass, etc. I was scandalized to read some of the things written. One thing one of his representatives said was that the Jewish covenant is still valid (!!) and that we "are past the times" of trying to force the "orthodox" from converting, we now recognize that they are a part of the same Church!! Some of the things were horrific, especially reading about what Woods said has happened in Assisi (was it in 2002?) and still happens to this day with all religions coming together to pray for peace, knowing that only Catholic prayers are pleasing to God. I think this book is great so far. I just can't believe some of the things he has quoted the Pope and other members of the hierarchy (even Ratzinger) as saying, which directly contradict Tradition, even from Pope fewer than 30 or even 15 years before the Council itself!

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Sep 4 2004, 03:03 PM'] I have a friend who claims herself to be "VERY" orthodox, but in her striving to be orthodox, actually crosses the line.  Everyone knows that you can go overboard in a "liberal" sense, but most of us don't seem to remember that you can do the same thing in a "conservative" sense.  For example, she still uses a 1898 Catechism (which isn't necessarily doctrinal, like the modern catechism, nor does it contain the Vatican II ideas), won't wear pants, exchews "unnatural" musics such as rock, pop, or rap (even the Catholic or Christian versions), won't receive the Blessed Sacrament from a E.M., etc.  She recently tried to claim that the Latin (or Roman) rite mass, the one im sure the majority of us are familiar with, is the only legitimate rite, and is the oldest.  The Catechism declares this first idea to be false, and history shows us that the Syrian rite (founded by the Indian people who were ministered to by the apostle Thomas) was founded around the year 700, where as the Latin rite wasn't established till about 1200, and didn't exsist in the form we know it (either the Tridentine or Novus Ordum) until about 1500.  So!  The point of all that is this: Don't trust an organization simply because they are "orthodox" as you see it.  make sure you do the research and truly understand what this group believes.  Just appearing old school doesn't necessarily equal orthodox. 

Pax

Timmy [/quote]
Hmm... she seems right in line in just about everything to me!

"I have a friend who claims herself to be "VERY" orthodox, but in her striving to be orthodox, actually crosses the line. Everyone knows that you can go overboard in a "liberal" sense, but most of us don't seem to remember that you can do the same thing in a "conservative" sense. For example, she still uses a 1898 Catechism (which isn't necessarily doctrinal, like the modern catechism, nor does it contain the Vatican II ideas),"

Catechisms prior to Modernism seem to me to be much better than the new one written by the Pope, which is constantly being revised for errors (my copy has some one hundred or more revisions added in the back). A catechism in its very nature is doctrinal. Do you mean it's not infallible? Neither is the new one...

"won't wear pants,"

That is great! If I ever get married it will be to a woman who doesn't wear pants. Pants are what men wear. Dresses and skirts are women's clothes.

"exchews "unnatural" musics such as rock, pop, or rap (even the Catholic or Christian versions),"

As do I... in fact, the "contemporary" 'Christian' music is not Christian at all! It's protestant, in fact.

"won't receive the Blessed Sacrament from a E.M.,"

I attend Latin Mass, but if I ever were at a Novus Ordo, I wouldn't either.

"She recently tried to claim that the Latin (or Roman) rite mass, the one im sure the majority of us are familiar with, is the only legitimate rite, and is the oldest."

That is pretty much right. I wouldn't personally attend a new Mass, but it is valid; however, it is hard to ever find one that is illicit. Often times they are invalid, from what I have read in certain areas.

"history shows us that the Syrian rite (founded by the Indian people who were ministered to by the apostle Thomas) was founded around the year 700, where as the Latin rite wasn't established till about 1200,"

I don't know where you got that history, but it's not right. The Latin Mass is substantially the same Mass as the first century. Certainly by the year 313 after the Edict of Milan when the Church could incorporate such things as the Latin Mass of pre-Vat II had, it was done. For example, that is when churches could first be built. That is when singing could happen. They could have bells and incense, as well as processions. The "Tridentine" Mass was basically the same since 400.

"and didn't exsist in the form we know it (either the Tridentine or Novus Ordum) until about 1500."

No, it was codified in 1570 by Pope St. Pius V, meaning no one could use a different formula in the Latin Church. That does not mean that the Mass did not exist until that time! The Novus ordo (not ordum) was created in 1967 or thereabouts and implemented in 1969 (April 3, I believe).

Basically, if you're lucky, maybe you could get a date with your friend!!

Edited September 5, 2004 by HartfordWhalers

[Socrates]

[quote]Hmm... maybe it depends where you are. I did actually go on one of the retreats the summer between my sophmore and junior years back in high school. I was pretty much shoved up to be "incorporated(?)". However, luckily, I never actually went through with it. I don't know if just because they follow everything the Pope says, that makes them orthodox. According to The Great Facade, which as I wrote before (a different thread), I just started reading yesterday, the Pope is not very orthodox himself in how he treats other religions, "ecumenism", "dialouge", the treatment of the Mass, etc. I was scandalized to read some of the things written. One thing one of his representatives said was that the Jewish covenant is still valid (!!) and that we "are past the times" of trying to force the "orthodox" from converting, we now recognize that they are a part of the same Church!! Some of the things were horrific, especially reading about what Woods said has happened in Assisi (was it in 2002?) and still happens to this day with all religions coming together to pray for peace, knowing that only Catholic prayers are pleasing to God. I think this book is great so far. I just can't believe some of the things he has quoted the Pope and other members of the hierarchy (even Ratzinger) as saying, which directly contradict Tradition, even from Pope fewer than 30 or even 15 years before the Council itself!Hmm... maybe it depends where you are. I did actually go on one of the retreats the summer between my sophmore and junior years back in high school. I was pretty much shoved up to be "incorporated(?)". However, luckily, I never actually went through with it. I don't know if just because they follow everything the Pope says, that makes them orthodox. According to The Great Facade, which as I wrote before (a different thread), I just started reading yesterday, the Pope is not very orthodox himself in how he treats other religions, "ecumenism", "dialouge", the treatment of the Mass, etc. I was scandalized to read some of the things written. One thing one of his representatives said was that the Jewish covenant is still valid (!!) and that we "are past the times" of trying to force the "orthodox" from converting, we now recognize that they are a part of the same Church!! Some of the things were horrific, especially reading about what Woods said has happened in Assisi (was it in 2002?) and still happens to this day with all religions coming together to pray for peace, knowing that only Catholic prayers are pleasing to God. I think this book is great so far. I just can't believe some of the things he has quoted the Pope and other members of the hierarchy (even Ratzinger) as saying, which directly contradict Tradition, even from Pope fewer than 30 or even 15 years before the Council itself! [/quote]

HartfordWhalers, no disrespect intended, but I really think you ought to throw away that book! While I myself am not familiar with it, it seems it is extremely misleading, and intending to stir up scandal and disent from the authority of the Church.

"Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I shall build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"!

If the Pope, the sucessor of St. Peter, and the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church are "not very orthodox" and not to be trusted, then who are we supposed to follow as our earthly head of the Church? This Mr. Woods? Amarkich? You? Me? That priest in Montana who claims he's the "real" pope?

There was a reason Jesus Christ instituted an infallible Church on this Earth! Without the guidance of the Church, it is just one man's interpretation of the Faith vs. another's. In other words, you get . . . Protestantism!

Luther, Calvin, et al. also believed the current Church had apostacized and was an imposter and heretical and pagan, etc.! They thought they could go back to the "True Faith."

Shame on all "Catholics" of whatever persuasion, who try to stir up scandal and dissent vs. the Vicar of Christ, because they pridefully think they are "more Catholic than the Pope"!

Sorry if this seems harsh, but I think dissident "Traditionalists" ought to seriously rethink their direction! (There are good Traditionalists, but this "the Pope is not orthodox" stuff is an extremely dangerous tangent - I think the current Holy Father is a far holier and wiser man than you or I, as well as being the successor to St. Peter!)

Edited September 5, 2004 by Socrates

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 4 2004, 09:34 PM']
HartfordWhalers, no disrespect intended, but I really think you ought to throw away that book! While I myself am not familiar with it, it seems it is extremely misleading, and intending to stir up scandal and disent from the authority of the Church.

"Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I shall build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"!

If the Pope, the sucessor of St. Peter, and the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church are "not very orthodox" and not to be trusted, then who are we supposed to follow as our earthly head of the Church? This Mr. Woods? Amarkich? You? Me? That priest in Montana who claims he's the "real" pope?

There was a reason Jesus Christ instituted an infallible Church on this Earth! Without the guidance of the Church, it is just one man's interpretation of the Faith vs. another's. In other words, you get . . . Protestantism!

Luther, Calvin, et al. also believed the current Church had apostacized and was an imposter and heretical and pagan, etc.! They thought they could go back to the "True Faith."

Shame on all "Catholics" of whatever persuasion, who try to stir up scandal and dissent vs. the Vicar of Christ, because they pridefully think they are "more Catholic than the Pope"!

Sorry if this seems harsh, but I think dissident "Traditionalists" ought to seriously rethink their direction! (There are good Traditionalists, but this "the Pope is not orthodox" stuff is an extremely dangerous tangent - I think the current Holy Father is a far holier and wiser man than you or I, as well as being the successor to St. Peter!) [/quote]
Socrates,

Are not the things I quoted that the books mentions unorthodox? That is, that Jews and "orthodox" can be saved outside the Church or that prayers of non-Catholics are beneficial or acceptable to God, when the Council of Trent's Catechism says otherwise. Also... see what they wrote concerning JPII's idea of gender roles, which is in my thread entitled how far should must we follow the Pope or something like that. I think if they continue to back up their claim, I will keep reading. If they can support what they say with a logical argument, are we not all obliged to listen to it?

[Aloysius]

some people thought Martin Luther's 95 theses were a good argument

anyway, authentic ecumenism is not wrong. should we not work towards the unity of everyone who professes faith in Jesus Christ? of course we all hope and pray the end result is to be that all Christians submit to the Roman Pontiff

the Church has always taught that those who do not have the chance to receive the Gospel of Christ through no fault of their own, but seek to follow God's will through the dictates of that God-given conscience that they have, can be saved extraordinarily of the ordinary means of the Church if their soul so desires to be baptized (either implicitly or explicitly). this can be backed up by the ECFs, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, the teaching of Pope Pius XII, and of course the Second Vatican Council.

show me the context of the Council of Trent's Catechism that says non-Catholic prayers aren't acceptable to God. as far as I know of the Church's constant teaching God knows the depths of all men's hearts and when one cries out to Him, even if they have a distorted notion of who He is, He will hear them. especially if they recognize His Beloved Son!

there are stories of muslims praying to Allah but being answered by Jesus Christ, what say you to that? was God ignoring their prayers?

[Socrates]

[quote]Socrates,

Are not the things I quoted that the books mentions unorthodox? That is, that Jews and "orthodox" can be saved outside the Church or that prayers of non-Catholics are beneficial or acceptable to God, when the Council of Trent's Catechism says otherwise. Also... see what they wrote concerning JPII's idea of gender roles, which is in my thread entitled how far should must we follow the Pope or something like that. I think if they continue to back up their claim, I will keep reading. If they can support what they say with a logical argument, are we not all obliged to listen to it?[/quote]


You have not given a single quotation of an "unorthodox" thing the Pope has taught, only listed charges from that book, and given distorted statements and nitpicking twisting of words. What is it about this Mr. Ferrara and and Mr. Woods that makes them so worthy of belief? The Pope is the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ on Earth! What higher authority has been given to these Ferrara and Woods characters? We are obliged to listen to them, but not the Pope???
People find all sorts of "logical arguments" to go against the Pope, or even against Christ! I think its time you put down the distortions and lies of these dissenters (who I would classify as "Protestant," not Catholic), and seriously listened to the teachings of the Holy Father (without the scandalous "interpretations" of these dissenters!

(for the "gender roles" issue, please see my post in the other thread)

Tell me, do you consider yourself Catholic? If everyone merely follows what he considers a "logical" argument, you have Protestantism, and not the One Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church!

[HartfordWhalers]

Actually, if everyone followed logic we would have no protestants, no Mohhamadans, no Jews, no pagans, etc. because the Church is logical. She can be argued from logic, unlike the protestant religions, which heap everything on the ridiculous notion of Sola Scriptura. In any event, they quote directly from what these representatives of the Pope have said regarding salvation of non-Catholics, which the Pope echoes in his new catechism.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote] Everyone knows that you can go overboard in a "liberal" sense, but most of us don't seem to remember that you can do the same thing in a "conservative" sense.[/quote]

Thank you.

[quote]That is great! If I ever get married it will be to a woman who doesn't wear pants. Pants are what men wear. Dresses and skirts are women's clothes.[/quote]

This discussion sounds vaguely familiar...

[XIX]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 5 2004, 01:03 AM'] Actually, if everyone followed logic we would have no protestants, no Mohhamadans, no Jews, no pagans, etc. because the Church is logical. She can be argued from logic, unlike the protestant religions, which heap everything on the ridiculous notion of Sola Scriptura. In any event, they quote directly from what these representatives of the Pope have said regarding salvation of non-Catholics, which the Pope echoes in his new catechism. [/quote]
On the contrary, I find the virtue of chastity to be very illogical. I'm a 20-year old guyk, for crying out loud!

I still embrace it because I rely on faith, not mere logic.

[Socrates]

[quote]Actually, if everyone followed logic we would have no protestants, no Mohhamadans, no Jews, no pagans, etc. because the Church is logical. She can be argued from logic, unlike the protestant religions, which heap everything on the ridiculous notion of Sola Scriptura. In any event, they quote directly from what these representatives of the Pope have said regarding salvation of non-Catholics, which the Pope echoes in his new catechism. [/quote]

Woods et al. are refuted in detail in this article, suggested by Dave. I suggest you read it. [url="http://thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm[/url].

The authors of that book are twisting and misinterpreting the words of the Pope for the purposes of their own agenda. The Pope has said nothing contrary to prior Church teaching!

I suggest you follow the Church rather than false "Catholics" who dissent from it! This is the only "Catholic" thing to do.

[Cam42]

[quote]I am wary of people that hold any attitudes in some of these organizations (whether it's Opus Dei or what have you) that suggest it's not enough to just be the best Catholic you can be to receive salvation -- no, we are better than "the other Catholics", and the way to sainthood, or heaven even, is through "us" and if you leave "us" you will be committing mortal sin.[/quote]

Excuse me? We do not teach that at all. We follow precisely what the Church teaches....CCC 2015 is a great example. We strive to be more than the best Catholic that we can be, but we are also called to be a part of Opus Dei.

One simply does not join. One is called, because to be part of Opus Dei is to be part of a personal prelature. We are not a sodality or a simple parish organization. It is a vocation to be part of the Work.

Have you ever heard a member of the Work say, "I am better than you?" Have you ever heard a member of the Work say, "If you leave, you are committing a mortal sin?" No, you have not. We don't think that way. We think that to live in the Work is to live in the Life of Christ.

It is a calling, it is a way of life. It is not secret, it is not something mystical. It is a vocation to a certain way of the Christian Life.

-------------

[quote]Secondly, they have Nazi-like (sorry if that's not PC) tactis of controlling people and coercing them into something.[/quote]

Nazism? How dare you!!!! What next, a comparison to abortionists?!!! We are not tyrannical!! We strive to Christian perfection. We strive to put God first in all things. We strive to follow the apostolate of St. Jose Maria Escriva.

[quote]Once people get in, it's almost like a secret society, you can't get out.[/quote]

Almost? No, there are no secrets. We are nothing more than a vocation to live the Life of Christ more fully. Sorry to de-mystify things....


------------

[quote]what exactly do you do at what levels?[/quote]

What do you do, in regard to the Church? We simply live the Life of Christ as defined by the prelature.

[quote]are thier speacial Opud Dei priests and Bishops? Why do they have to have thier own clergy?[/quote]

Because we are a personal prelature. Our vocation requires that we live our lives to a certain spirituality. To have priests who can promote that spirituality is a beautiful thing. Why a bishop? Because we are presided over by a prelate.

What is a personal prelature? [i]A personal Prelature is a jurisdictional entity within the Church's hierarchical structure, presided over by a prelate, answerable to the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, and to which laity and clergy can belong. It is established by the Holy See for specific pastoral or organizational purposes, and it is governed by statutes given it by the Holy See. The word personal indicates that it is defined by persons, whereas, for example, dioceses and parishes are defined by geographical areas.[/i]

There is nothing suprising nor is there anything secret or mystical (outside of the Life of Christ). We are simply people living out a vocation to a greater understanding of the love of God. Sorry to burst bubbles......

Cam42

[Sinner]

Flip!!
Continue with your curiosity. Never felt you were considering me/us less Catholic! BTW..... check the links!! You will learn alot. PS--OD is NOT a religeous order. It is a unique entity called a "Personal Prelature" ........ a diocese of the mind/spirit if you will. It is a calling beyond the ordinary. We remain part of our regular Diocese and Parish, but participate in The Work in addition as a vocation. You certainly do not need OD to go to heaven....... but it sure has helped me and my family get closer!!