Church, Religious Orders after Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter rben20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Likewise Brother JR! Very insightful! Just curious if you believe the religious orders are making progress in returning to their roots? Would you say its going at the same pace similar to the “reform of the reform”? Thanks
I would be speculating if I tried to answer that. My answer is, I don’t know what the pace is. I will tell you this. The pace is much quicker in poor countries than it is in prosperous nations. I was thinking of the De La Salle Christian Brothers the other day. When I attended Catholic University, they were all over the place. Today, you don’t see a single one. However, when I visited the Philippines, their novitiate is full. I think it’s because the younger brothers are very happy, unlike the older brothers of the mid 20th century. These young brothers are teaching in huts, on steet corners, hospitals, rural schools and slums. If you mention to them the possibility of teaching in a Middle Class American parish school, they look at you as if you had small-pox. In other words, they get it. They understand the vision of John de La Salle much better than we did in the mid 20th century.

My own religious family is returning to our roots. We are carving out smaller fraternities out of the larger ones. In the USA alone you have more than 15 new branches of the Franciscan family. All of them are very small. Each of them lives the exact same rule. One would ask, why not remain as one? There are two reasons.

First, Francis never had a vision of a corporation. His vision was a brotherhood. Corporations need many rules, a lot of structure, a lot money to stay in business, and all kinds of infrastructure. If you break down the larger Franciscan obediences into provinces, you recover the brotherhood.

Second, the needs of the Church have changed. The friars were to live and work among the poor. Today’s poor are the unborn, the homeless, the AIDS victim, the runaway teenager, the older person who has no one to visit, the drug addict on the street, the farmer who is about to lose it all, the man who lost his house and job. That’s where the friars have to be. Many friars are asking for permission to live and work in these sectors of society. We live the same rule, but in circumstances that are very different from the ones of the mid 20th century.

I also see a birth of new congregations to meet the needs of the middle class. This is good. The Lord always provides, if we trust. As older religious communities move away from the middle class to return to the poor and the sick, where they were sent to minister, there still remains the soul of the middle class Catholic. The Lord is raising communities just for them. We have wonderful communities as the Dominican Sisters of Mary and the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia, the Sisters of the Eternal Word. They are called to serve the middle class. I predict that many American women will join them. My take is that American women are uncomfortable around the poor. Therefore, communities such as the Sisters of Life, Franciscans of the Renewal, Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity, the Daughters of Charity, Missionaries of the Poor, are getting few American vocations.

We are also seeing an increase in the number of men entering religious life who are choosing not to be ordained. They are responding to the call to consecrate their lives to the Divine Master by living in brotherhood, prayer, obedience, penance, without property, serving the poor or living hidden lives of prayer and manual labor.

The laity can help. You know, religious life always began with laymen. Priests and bishops usually served as spiritual guides until the religious communities took off. It was lay people who heard the call of Christ to follow him into the black holes where the poor live, into the silence of the cloister, into the streets to find the children, sick and elderly. It was lay people who heard Christ calling them to unite to form brotherhoods and sisterhoods where they lived as the Apostles lived, in a communion of love with each other with Christ as their center. That’s where the term Apostolic and Apostolate comes from. The life and work of these men and women was that of the Apostles. They were not all priests. They don’t need to be priests.

I have found that if you push the priesthood and sisterhood, but you leave out the brothers, you lose a lot of good men. There are many good men who want to live for Christ in an intimate communion with him, but are not called to be priests. We have placed such an emphasis on priests, that these men feel that there is no place for them in the Church and they go away or worse, they feel as if their call is a lower calling.

In the poor nations, these men don’t feel this. There is a need for priests to celebrate mass and hear confessions and a need to bring Christ to the black holes where the poor live and die unwanted and unnoticed. When these folks look up into the face of a man and ask, “Who are you?” and they young man says, “I am your brother,” it means something very special.

I work with fathers in crisis pregnancies. They often want an abortion or want to get away and leave the woman to deal with the problem. When I say to them, “I know that you’re afraid, but you are not alone, because I am your brother and I will not leave you,” they look at me in utter surprise. During this past year alone, about 300 men had decided to advocate for the life of their unborn children and to learn how to be fathers.

I can’t give you a timeline. I can tell you what is happening that most people can’t see, especially CAFers, because I bet that most CAFers are not in these desperate situations. I could be wrong.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Look at it from the angle of the Benedictines, things are much better now. In the Rule of St. Benedict, there was no real distinction between the ordained and non-ordained monks. The ordained were not to use their status to the detriment of their brothers. When not carrying out their duties at the altar, their rank in the community was to be based on when they entered, just like the non-ordained monks:

Yet eventually the monks became divided into “choir monks” (priests or those on their way to becoming priests), and brothers, those who did the servile work of the monastery. As was pointed out they were clearly segregated from the choir monks, and did not even get to vote in Chapter. The community I am affiliated with, after Vatican II, abolished the distinction and the brothers and priests are now equal except for service at the altar. I would argue it is a much healthier community since doing this, and interestingly it still attracts new vocations. Last year three young men took their lifetime vows.
This was true of many orders and we religious are still trying to bring the lay faithful around. In many orders, there was no distinction betweent the brothers. Some were priests and most were not. They didn’t see it as a problem, because they were founded to live a particular way of life and the priests were part of that way of life. They had no special privileges and they were indistinguishable from their brothers. Even at mass, there was a custom that if you had more than one priest, only one could celebrate mass. The others sat with the brothers or stood with the brothers around the altar. They were not allowed to celebrate a private mass without the permission of the Abbot or Guardian of the house. Sometimes, if you had promised many mass intentions,you had to fulfill those promises. Then you would allow the priest to celebrate a private mass.

That’s why Benedictines and Franciscans never had communion rails, as much as people think that they have always been around in every Latin Church. This is not true. We never had them so as not to set the priest apart from his brothers. The entire chapel or church was sacred space.

It was not until the 1800s when communion rails were put in and the non ordained were not allowed near the altar. That’s why they were taken out in the 1980s. This was not in the mind of Francis, Benedict or Albert.

The Benedictines always had a choir, but it was not just priests. Every monk was part of the choir. The Franciscans were not allowed a choir. That’s another thing. This is not a Modernist idea. This goes back to the 13th century. Divine Office without a choir, without Gregorian chant, mass with hymns in the language of the people, priests who had no special privileges, but were very humble brothers. When they went out, you could not tell them apart from any other religious. This was very Carmelite, Benedictine, Franciscan, Norbertine, Augustinian and Trinitarian. This is not Modernism.

The distinctions began with the Dominicans and were followed by the Clerks. The Dominicans needed to make the distinction, because of their particular ministry, which is priestly. However, the early Dominicans treated their coadjutor brothers with great love and the coadjutor brothers were key to the Dominican mission. They built their churches, schools, universities and priories. These were very talented men who put their talents at the service of preaching the Gospel.

It was in the 20th century when these men became servants. That’s what needed correction. Today, the coadjutor brothers do everything from teaching to carpentry. Today’s Dominicans have great respect for these coadjutor Dominicans.

The Salesians also have coadjutors. The man who succeeded St. John Bosco in running the first Oratory, was a the first coadjutor Salesian brother. The congregation had grown so large that the Rector could not run the congregation and the oratory. Brother ran the oratory. Later, this was taken away from them. Today, the coadjutors are running oratories again.
Thank you for these truths. I thought, for a moment, that I had opened the thread “for modernist Catholics”. On the date that Vatican II opened, my city of 75,000 people, was home to 9 parishes…each of which was completely staffed by nuns. The city had Benedictine nuns, Precious Blood, the Madames of the Sacred Heart & several other orders that I do not remember. Anyway, there were **over 90 nuns teaching the Catholic children of the area & the Christian Brothers taught our young men of high school age.

**When the council ended, we had 1 nun left…the principal of the one Catholic high school that was left.
The problem with the statistics that Davies gives is that he does not explain the reason. As I have said and the above poster has said, the religious life that was being lived in the mid 20th century was a far cry from what the founders had in mind. It met the needs of the laity, but it did not comply with the founders’ vision and charism.

When we tried to go back to the origins, it was very painful for many people and they left. Some did not want to change, because they were unfamiliar with the original charism. To them, it was ancient history. Others wanted to go forward, not backward and they rebelled against the idea of recovery. Some felt that the laity and clergy were not giving them much support in their attempts to return to the roots and they gave up. Then there were those brave souls who stayed and have been trying to return to the origins. For some of us, such as my own family, that means going back to the 13th century. That’s a long trip. 😃

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Hello Catholics,

To get an idea of the times, after the council was there a sudden drop in attendance by members? Did a lot of people leave the Church including laymen and maybe even priests? With the changes in orders, did many brothers and sisters leave the Church too? What happened overall numbers wise? Did they suddenly drop as a result of the council or were numbers already dropping? What exactly led to the drop in priests, religious, and laymen (who are not immigrants)? The numbers are quite frightening but experiences could tell a much better story. Thanks
To get an idea of the scale of the decline one has to look no further than the Society of Jesus, In 1965 it’s numbers peaked at around 35,000 and now it has less than 20,000! Indeed it has suffered a decline in number year on year every year without exception for the last 45 or so years. If the decline does not stop soon the society will soon have the lowest number of members it has had for a century! One can verify these figures here

As for Religious institutes and orders returning to the intentions of their founders, one can hardly say this has been the case with the jesuits (who in any case never strayed from the rather wide margin which St Ignatius gave them) but most famously strayed into theological no mans land with ‘Liberation Theology’ in South America and throughout the world. Some of the most famous examples of this are Fr Jon Sobrino and Fr Sebastian Kappen.

On another note does anyone know what the main differences between the constitutions were pre and post Vatican II?
 
To get an idea of the scale of the decline one has to look no further than the Society of Jesus, In 1965 it’s numbers peaked at around 35,000 and now it has less than 20,000! Indeed it has suffered a decline in number year on year every year without exception for the last 45 or so years. If the decline does not stop soon the society will soon have the lowest number of members it has had for a century! One can verify these figures here
Thanks for the link.

Some time ago, I came across an article which stated that for the year 2000, the Jesuits in Britain did not have any ordinations at all. It was considered a first in its 200 years in the UK. I do not know whether one can fully rely upon that information as novices get moved around within a Province so, ordination may have taken place in another European country…or even that the novice might have shifted to Diocesan. I have been looking for a link to that article but, only came across this table which refers particularly to the European Province. I believe that there have been a few and increased ordinations in the UK since 2005. Not a significant number, yet an improvement from what was stated in that article in relation to 2000.

jesuits-europe.info/docs/news05/nov2005.htm
 
Thanks for the link.
No problem. I have a personal connection to the Society of Jesus in that the church in which I was baptised, confirmed and had first communion (I converted from evangelical christianity) was served by them. It saddens me that such a once great order is in seemingly terminal decline 😦
 
No problem. I have a personal connection to the Society of Jesus in that the church in which I was baptised, confirmed and had first communion (I converted from evangelical christianity) was served by them. It saddens me that such a once great order is in seemingly terminal decline 😦
I understand how you must feel and we must continue to pray for vocations. My family’s connection is with the Salesians and whenever I feel low about “numbers” over here, I look towards the East and Africa. We currently support seminarians and nuns in Burma. Imagine that. Burma!
 
I understand how you must feel and we must continue to pray for vocations. My family’s connection is with the Salesians and whenever I feel low about “numbers” over here, I look towards the East and Africa. We currently support seminarians and nuns in Burma. Imagine that. Burma!
Indeed, Burma of all places!

I suppose my problem is that I think the same problems that I have caused Vocations to drop so sharply in the west will eventually spread to the East, I only hope that they return to the true intentions of their founder before that happens
 
No problem. I have a personal connection to the Society of Jesus in that the church in which I was baptised, confirmed and had first communion (I converted from evangelical christianity) was served by them. It saddens me that such a once great order is in seemingly terminal decline 😦
This could be an example of how they strayed from the founders intent as Br JR stated in his posts.

I do not think the Jesuits were founded to staff parishes.
 
A crazy fellow named Lefebvre?

Reading this post, I’m not sure if you are saying things were better pre or post Vatican II.
Yes, I do not have a good idea of Lefevre. If anyone can explain his good points.
I think things were good before Vat II and after Vat II, according to God’s Will. Vat II wand pre-Vat II and post-Vat II were not my idea, they were God’s idea, and hough it hurts, you’ve got to follow.
 
I met the head of the local Dominican Priory to seek further information about the Lay Dominicans. He gave me a brief rundown on the status of them within my country (Canada).

Initially, they started off in Quebec as prayer support for the Priests and Sisters, and little else. Over the course of time, vocations to the Lay Order dried up, to the point where there very few of them. The Lay Dominicans in Canada were in danger of being wiped out.

Then something funny happened in the last couple of years. University students in Quebec started getting interested in the Order. They wanted to bring Dominican spirituality to their parishes, campuses, and ministry. The lay Dominicans within Quebec still remained prayer focused, but now also became much more mission focused. They began taking on educational roles within their parishes. Essentially, these young folks truly have taken on the charism of St. Dominic and ran with it. The Lay Dominicans became equal parts prayer AND mission, and with the call to the New Evangilization from Blessed JP2 this was something youth could get behind.

So now, slowly but surely, vocations to the Lay Dominicans are going up. In my city in Ontario, we have a Dominican run college. Powered by the charism of St. Dominic, it’s an orthodox teaching institution which has impacted several young adults over the last few years. When I mentioned to some of my friends I was discerning the Lay Dominicans, I was asked to keep them informed of how things went, in part because I believe it piqued their interest.

I use the term vocation because that’s what it is; a vocation. As a married man my primary vocation is, well, to be married. But I can still feel a call to another vocation. As a Lay Dominican, if that is where I should be, I would take promises to live by the Rule of Dominic for the rest of my life. To become a member of a group larger than just myself, to live out and bring the way of Dominic (and Francis, Dominicans consider Francis their Holy Father as well) to my parish.

I mention this because I think we could see this, and are seeing this, in the Church today. There was a specific generation where there was a problem, and now we’ve reached a new one. We see traditionalist seminaries such as the FSSP being filled. We see more charismatic seminaries such as the Companions of the Cross being attended. Brother JR’s order, if I’m not mistaken, has had a few people join them.

And now, in my city, people are gradually becoming more aware of secular orders. I’ve been doing youth ministry for eight years, I’m pretty plugged into “the system”, for lack of a better word. People are seeing my journey, and some may express an interest. They are seeing I will be taking Dominican spirituality wherever I go.

We’ll see what we see. But there’s a chance that maybe, with this JP2/BXVI generation, things are on the upswing.
 
This could be an example of how they strayed from the founders intent as Br JR stated in his posts.

I do not think the Jesuits were founded to staff parishes.
I’m not so sure, if anything I believe they have strayed more from their founders intent post Vatican II, than they ever did pre-Vatican II.

The Formula of the Institute of the Society of Jesus states this ‘Whoever desires to serve as a soldier of God beneath the banner of the Cross in our Society, which we desire to be designated by the Name of Jesus, and to serve the Lord alone and the Church, his spouse, under the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, should, after a solemn vow of perpetual chastity, poverty and obedience, keep what follows in mind. He is a member of a Society founded chiefly for this purpose: to strive especially for the defence and propagation of the faith and for the progress of souls in Christian life and doctrine, by means of public preaching, lectures and any other ministration whatsoever of the Word of God, and further by means of retreats, the education of children and unlettered persons in Christianity, and the spiritual consolation of Christ’s faithful through hearing confessions and administering the other sacraments.

I believe that staffing parishes would be within their remit, especially as the last line states ‘and the spiritual consolation of Christ’s faithful through hearing confessions and administering the other sacraments…’

Besides one can hardly make the argument that its because they are returning to the remit that people are leaving year on year, some if not most of those leaving would have joined AFTER the constitutions changed so in their case it has nothing to do with that and as for the rest why didnt they all leave at once? It certainly doesnt take 50 years to realise that the order has changed and is no longer the one you recognised.

Whatever the case may be , I hope they continue to thrive again. St Ignatius of Loyola and St Francis Xavier are without a doubt some of the greatest missionaries and saints that have ever been born. It would be a tragedy if the great society they founded became extinct.
 
I’m not so sure, if anything I believe they have strayed more from their founders intent post Vatican II, than they ever did pre-Vatican II.

The Formula of the Institute of the Society of Jesus states this ‘Whoever desires to serve as a soldier of God beneath the banner of the Cross in our Society, which we desire to be designated by the Name of Jesus, and to serve the Lord alone and the Church, his spouse, under the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, should, after a solemn vow of perpetual chastity, poverty and obedience, keep what follows in mind. He is a member of a Society founded chiefly for this purpose: to strive especially for the defence and propagation of the faith and for the progress of souls in Christian life and doctrine, by means of public preaching, lectures and any other ministration whatsoever of the Word of God, and further by means of retreats, the education of children and unlettered persons in Christianity, and the spiritual consolation of Christ’s faithful through hearing confessions and administering the other sacraments.

I believe that staffing parishes would be within their remit, especially as the last line states ‘and the spiritual consolation of Christ’s faithful through hearing confessions and administering the other sacraments…’

Besides one can hardly make the argument that its because they are returning to the remit that people are leaving year on year, some if not most of those leaving would have joined AFTER the constitutions changed so in their case it has nothing to do with that and as for the rest why didnt they all leave at once? It certainly doesnt take 50 years to realise that the order has changed and is no longer the one you recognised.

Whatever the case may be , I hope they continue to thrive again. St Ignatius of Loyola and St Francis Xavier are without a doubt some of the greatest missionaries and saints that have ever been born. It would be a tragedy if the great society they founded became extinct.
First as regards your take on them straying theologically.

The Jesuit order has not strayed. Some of their members may hold to views that are not orthodox but can you show that the Order actually teaches heterodoxy?

Second, while you may interpret this statue in this way that does not mean that the founder meant it in that way or that the Jesuit order interprets it that way.

I suggest that you reread Br JR’s post and see. Part of the problem that lead religious institutes to stray was the demands of the laity and what the laity thought they should be doing.

Reading what you have posted, which is out of context as you can not take one statue with out reading them all, I do not necessarily see that this says Jesuits should be engaging in the running of parishes.

But I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this.
 
First as regards your take on them straying theologically.

The Jesuit order has not strayed. Some of their members may hold to views that are not orthodox but can you show that the Order actually teaches heterodoxy?
**Firstly I stated that the Society of Jesus had strayed from the purposes laid down by their founder, I used the example of Liberation theology as an example of this. It is something that St Ignatius of Loyola would never have allowed and yet many jesuits become its chief proponents.

As for the Society itself straying doctrinally Have a look at the Societies sections on ecumenicism or rather inter-religious dialouge, especially the British one and tell me they’re still Orthodox? You can see it here Anyone who explicitly rejects conversion as the purpose of discussion with other religions is at least a little suspect…**
Second, while you may interpret this statue in this way that does not mean that the founder meant it in that way or that the Jesuit order interprets it that way.
No thats indeed true, but seeing as the Jesuit’s have been doing for several hundred odd years, I would say that it’s hardly clearly wrong
I suggest that you reread Br JR’s post and see. Part of the problem that lead religious institutes to stray was the demands of the laity and what the laity thought they should be doing.
**I have. Frankly I disagree, it may indeed be true that the laity were applying pressure on religious and so on, but to suggest that for (in some cases) several hundred odd years Religious societies, institutes and orders have been straying from what was envisioned by their founder is a rather serious accusation to make.

What I have seen however post Vatican II is a dissolution of the rigours of religious life and the repudiation of the traditions of several religious orders, who can forget the infamous decision of the Order of Preachers to cease celebrating mass according to its own rite and instead use the Novus Ordo? I hardly see that as a ‘returning to the intentions of the founder’ or something to celebrate.
**
Reading what you have posted, which is out of context as you can not take one statue with out reading them all, I do not necessarily see that this says Jesuits should be engaging in the running of parishes.
No as I said before the Jesuits have rather wide remits within which to operate, what the statute does not do is exclude it per se.
But I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this.
**Indeed I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this matter **
 
Indeed, Burma of all places!

I suppose my problem is that I think the same problems that I have caused Vocations to drop so sharply in the west will eventually spread to the East, I only hope that they return to the true intentions of their founder before that happens
I think that the notion that the numbers of religious dropped SO SHARPLY & in** such quantity**, being caused entirely by the call for the orders to return to their founder’s purpose… is too simplistic. One must remember that the whole Church was also called to “aggiornamento”.
Code:
                  Definition of AGGIORNAMENTO
          : a bringing up to date : modernization
So, on one hand Vatican II called for a “return to your roots” & a “bring yourselves up to date”, make your order “fit for modern man”, relevant to the times. Actually most of the religious orders pre-Vatican II were tremendously successful in teaching the faith, evangelizing & converting others to Catholicism.

I was particularly influenced by my secondary school’s teachers…the Madames of the Sacred Heart. They had held to their founder’s purposes, at the same time progressing so much in the “needs of modern man”.

They had remained semi-cloistered as their founder, St Madeliene Sophie Barat required, they had retained the religious choir structure that she had taught & had worked so well.

In an effort to achieve “aggiornamento”, they had opened day Academies for people who had never had the money to attend a Sacred Heart school…years before Vatican II. Their original purpose was to “educate & refine” young ladies of means & by the time the 1960’s rolled around, they had one of the toughest curiculuum’s in the nation. Some of my courses in high school were…2 yrs. of Latin, Algebra & Geometry, Calculus & Trig., physics, etc. We had a Shakespearean club & a Theology club that helped us keep up with the happenings of Vatican II. (If it was called a club it met after school hours & enrollment was by choice.) I call this progress. Not only the Kennedy girls could attend their schools, they had reached out to girls of all economic classses. My own school took girls on “scholarship”, in “Sacred Heart speak”…free. My own tuition was $90. per semester.

This once great order is now almost gone. One of it’s " nuns" spent time in prison for defacing a nuclear silo & the latest newsletter I received from them talked about trees & “going green”. The Sacred Heart of Jesus received not one word in the letter.
 
I think that the notion that the numbers of religious dropped SO SHARPLY & in** such quantity**, being caused entirely by the call for the orders to return to their founder’s purpose… is too simplistic. One must remember that the whole Church was also called to “aggiornamento”.
Code:
                  Definition of AGGIORNAMENTO
          : a bringing up to date : modernization
So, on one hand Vatican II called for a “return to your roots” & a “bring yourselves up to date”, make your order “fit for modern man”, relevant to the times. Actually most of the religious orders pre-Vatican II were tremendously successful in teaching the faith, evangelizing & converting others to Catholicism.

I was particularly influenced by my secondary school’s teachers…the Madames of the Sacred Heart. They had held to their founder’s purposes, at the same time progressing so much in the “needs of modern man”.

They had remained semi-cloistered as their founder, St Madeliene Sophie Barat required, they had retained the religious choir structure that she had taught & had worked so well.

In an effort to achieve “aggiornamento”, they had opened day Academies for people who had never had the money to attend a Sacred Heart school…years before Vatican II. Their original purpose was to “educate & refine” young ladies of means & by the time the 1960’s rolled around, they had one of the toughest curiculuum’s in the nation. Some of my courses in high school were…2 yrs. of Latin, Algebra & Geometry, Calculus & Trig., physics, etc. We had a Shakespearean club & a Theology club that helped us keep up with the happenings of Vatican II. (If it was called a club it met after school hours & enrollment was by choice.) I call this progress. Not only the Kennedy girls could attend their schools, they had reached out to girls of all economic classses. My own school took girls on “scholarship”, in “Sacred Heart speak”…free. My own tuition was $90. per semester.

This once great order is now almost gone. One of it’s " nuns" spent time in prison for defacing a nuclear silo & the latest newsletter I received from them talked about trees & “going green”. The Sacred Heart of Jesus received not one word in the letter.
I agree completely, But I didn’t want to mention the obvious just yet 😛
 
Firstly I stated that the Society of Jesus had strayed from the purposes laid down by their founder, I used the example of Liberation theology as an example of this. It is something that St Ignatius of Loyola would never have allowed and yet many jesuits become its chief proponents.
Yes where liberation theology went to far but again, that is individual.
**
As for the Society itself straying doctrinally Have a look at the Societies sections on ecumenicism or rather inter-religious dialouge, especially the British one and tell me they’re still Orthodox? You can see it here** Anyone who explicitly rejects conversion as the purpose of discussion with other religions is at least a little suspect…
Here I have to disagree with you. By definition, any religious institute that is in communion with Rome and not suppressed by it, they are orthodox.
**Indeed I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this matter **
While we will respectfully disagree on all (but one) of the points in this thread, there is one where I can not agree and I believe is a violation of forum policy.

That is calling into question the orthodox of a valid religious institute.

I might also add, bolding everything in no way makes your point any more persuasive. It actually makes it look like you are yelling like typing in all CAPS.
 
I think that the notion that the numbers of religious dropped SO SHARPLY & in** such quantity**, being caused entirely by the call for the orders to return to their founder’s purpose… is too simplistic. One must remember that the whole Church was also called to “aggiornamento”.
Code:
                  Definition of AGGIORNAMENTO
          : a bringing up to date : modernization
Yet one could say that blaming it all on Vatican II is also too simplistic.
So, on one hand Vatican II called for a “return to your roots” & a “bring yourselves up to date”, make your order “fit for modern man”, relevant to the times. Actually most of the religious orders pre-Vatican II were tremendously successful in teaching the faith, evangelizing & converting others to Catholicism.
Vatican II did not call religious to “bring yourselves up to date”. It only called religious to return to their foundations.
 
Yes where liberation theology went to far but again, that is individual.

Here I have to disagree with you. By definition, any religious institute that is in communion with Rome and not suppressed by it, they are orthodox.

While we will respectfully disagree on all (but one) of the points in this thread, there is one where I can not agree and I believe is a violation of forum policy.

That is calling into question the orthodox of a valid religious institute.

I might also add, bolding everything in no way makes your point any more persuasive. It actually makes it look like you are yelling like typing in all CAPS.
Very well, disagree we will. As for questioning the orthodoxy of a valid religous institute, no, I merely proposed that they may have strayed doctrinally or rather that some provinces might have, nothing more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top