Are religious priests in a higher state than diocesan priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnjacob2004
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

johnjacob2004

Guest
I keep im hearing that vows are more solemn than promises… but a lot of priest and religious tell me “it’s better to live it then take it” in regards to poverty
 
Not to my knowledge, in any way whatsoever…The diocesan priest lives an extremely demanding vocation of contact with the flock and service to the flock. They have the essential vows that any other priest has. They simply felt their calling and vocation was not within a specific religious order but rather with a dioceses serving the parishes they are assigned. Not taking vows of poverty in no way diminishes them - since most of them aren’t set out to get rich and have already given their entire life to Christ. And the vow of poverty, is actually a further vow of total “giving themselves” that more than anything releases those taking the vow of any worries. Religious life is made of both ways of living the vocation and requires both ways of vocation to be present in any diocese in full, their are slightly different ways of living the same vocation.
 
Last edited:
They don’t take vows of chastity and obedience, but only make promises. A vow is, specifically, a promise made to God. They are particular to the religious state, and distinguish them not only from diocesan clergy but also from secular institutes and societies of apostolic life.

See the link to the Summa.
 
This was an incredibly unkind statement by whoever said this to you. Our Archdiocesan priests are very devout, very obedient, very truthful, very spiritual. We also have Franciscans here and they interact well with their brother priests There is no huge difference. Someone is planting doubt in your mind for a personal agenda. Don’t fall into those traps.
Priests are human beings. There are awkward or lukewarm priests within every Diocese and order.
But the VAST majority of both are wonderful. Focus on supporting them through prayer.
 
pianistclare said:
This was an incredibly unkind statement by whoever said this to you.
Click to expand...
This is the problem with modern discourse. People think that their feelings carry epistemic value. They don’t. that you find a notion offensive doesn’t make it untrue.

@(name removed by moderator)

I’d trust Aquinas over the Catholic Encyclopedia, tbh.
 
He was rarely mistaken. I’m sure there are errors in the Catholic Encyclopedia as well.

In any case, there’s really no comparison between one of the foremost Doctors of the Church, and a reference work widely used in one country.
 
Who said anything about feelings? It was a statement meant to lessen the vocation of Diocesan priests.
 
johnjacob2004 said:
I keep im hearing that vows are more solemn than promises… but a lot of priest and religious tell me “it’s better to live it then take it” in regards to poverty
Click to expand...
Let’s examine your question closely.

First off, we’d have to define what you mean by “in a higher state.” Do you mean “more holy”? Or “are better priests, for some definition of the word ‘better’?” Or do you mean “do religious order priests ‘outrank’ secular priests, in some way?”
  • Holiness is a personal consideration, so we can’t say that “this order is holier than that order” or “this diocese is holier than that one”.
  • One’s effectiveness as a priest, likewise, proceeds from the person – from the talents given them by God, and by the way in which they live a life of holiness, and by the way they use their talents and God’s grace for the glory of the Kingdom of God. So, again, we can’t say “this group are better priests than that group.”
  • In terms of ‘rank’, as Deacon Jeff points out, there’s really no comparing the two. It’s almost ‘apples and oranges’.
But, the difference here is in the evangelical councils, which consecrated religious live out. That is a higher calling than any other, and is the closest to ‘perfection’ in living out God’s will for humanity than any others. However, whether a consecrated religious is a priest or not, s/he lives out the evangelical councils. (And again, it doesn’t come down to the vow, but to how well one lives out the vow.)

One joke (in questionable taste) that secular priests sometimes make is “well, they took a vow of poverty, but we live it.” The implication is that, although monks and nuns cannot personally own property, they can use property that belongs to the order. On the other hand, secular priests are, in certain financial ways, all on their own… so they can’t afford some things that some orders can afford to buy. When I’ve heard the joke made, it’s always been made in a spirit that’s charitable and fraternal. 😉
 
Last edited:
Thank you Deacon Jeff… this post is not to compare and cause anger, rather, it is to promote healthy discussion on an interesting topic…
 
Sorry to offend you… I just wanted clarification on this topic…
 
Arkansan said:
He was rarely mistaken. I’m sure there are errors in the Catholic Encyclopedia as well.

In any case, there’s really no comparison between one of the foremost Doctors of the Church, and a reference work widely used in one country.
Click to expand...
Wrong on many levels…if it were true doctors of church would be considered infallible…we are under no obligation to take the writing of doctors and fathers of the Church, or other saints without question.
 
pianistclare said:
Who said anything about feelings? It was a statement meant to lessen the vocation of Diocesan priests.
Click to expand...
What matters is if it’s actually true. Speculations about the motives or politeness of those saying it is besides the point.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I do agree that there is really no comparison between the early work of a pioneer in theology and a much later compiled reference of magisterial teaching by 5 of the most renowned scholars of their day, which by the way, unlike the Summa, “bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop under whose jurisdiction it is published. In constituting the editors the ecclesiastical censors, he has given them a singular proof of his confidence and of his desire to facilitate the publication of the work which he has promoted most effectively by his influence and kindly cooperation.”
Click to expand...
Canon Law mandates that Thomistic philosophy be the basis of seminary education, and many Popes have praised Aquinas’s work. I’m not aware of any Pope singing the praises of the Catholic Encyclopedia. It’s ludicrous to claim that the approbation of a local bishop grants a work more authority than what the Church has repeatedly held to be one of her foremost theologians.
Hereiam said:
Wrong on many levels…if it were true doctors of church would be considered infallible…we are under no obligation to take the writing of doctors and fathers of the Church, or other saints without question.
Click to expand...
Neither Doctors of the Church nor the Catholic Encyclopedia are infallible. The question the OP asked isn’t one (as far as I’m aware) which has been settled by the magisterium, so the question of which sources hold more authority (in the sense of expertise, not literal authority) is certainly valid.
 
They Promise to live in chastity and obedience, they do not profess vows.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top