Epithets of the Religious

[Young_Thinker]

Hello everyone. I know that this is really not that important, but I was wondering about monastic names. They seem to be far more common among nuns than monks or friars, and I wondered. Also, I was curious as to what happens when a priest whose “real” name is Joseph Allan Smythson but is known as Fr. Joseph Anastasius of the Cross(just an example from the top of my head, but there may very well be someone with that particular name) become a bishop, would he ordinarily cease to be known as Augustine of the Cross and be called by his legal name or something like Bishop Joseph Anastastius Smythson? Alternatively, if he became a cardinal, might he be called Joseph Anastasius Cardinal Smythson? I hope that I have not made this overly confusing. I would be grateful for any responses.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Does anyone have any ideas upon this?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have never heard of them used by Bishops so I think they drop them.

Officially when one is ordained to be a Bishop they cease to be a member of their religious order/community. They become honorary members of the order and no longer have voice (a say/vote) in the chapters and they can not be elected to any offices within
the order. Also the superior of the order no longer has any say in what the Bishop does. They are released from their vows and become secular clergy though they keep the initials of the order as they are still members even is honorary.

After they retire they can return but I heard that this is rare.

 

[Young_Thinker]

I have never heard of them used by Bishops so I think they drop them.

Officially when one is ordained to be a Bishop they cease to be a member of their religious order/community. They become honorary members of the order and no longer have voice (a say/vote) in the chapters and they can not be elected to any offices within
the order. Also the superior of the order no longer has any say in what the Bishop does. They are released from their vows and become secular clergy though they keep the initials of the order as they are still members even is honorary.

After they retire they can return but I heard that this is rare.

Thank you for this insightful information. For one thing, I guess that that is the main reason why the Society of Jesus does not want any of its professed to become bishops.

 

[Spiritu]

Thank you for this insightful information. For one thing, I guess that that is the main reason why the Society of Jesus does not want any of its professed to become bishops.

You see, a bishop who used to be a Jesuit would no longer be bound to his oath to “hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive” any Protestant who crosses his path, and that would pose quite a problem for the Superiors. Ordinarily, a Jesuit who uses his training in the fine arts of “the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet” will do so in secrecy, so that the Romish Church can take over the world behind the scenes.

Imagine what would happen if a bishop exposed their popish plotting for the world to see. They couldn’t even discipline him by cutting open his belly and burning sulphur in it, the way ordinary Jesuits are punished for breaking the oath of secrecy - and we couldn’t have that, could we?

 

[Young_Thinker]

You see, a bishop who used to be a Jesuit would no longer be bound to his oath to “hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive” any Protestant who crosses his path, and that would pose quite a problem for the Superiors. Ordinarily, a Jesuit who uses his training in the fine arts of “the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet” will do so in secrecy, so that the Romish Church can take over the world behind the scenes.

Imagine what would happen if a bishop exposed their popish plotting for the world to see. They couldn’t even discipline him by cutting open his belly and burning sulphur in it, the way ordinary Jesuits are punished for breaking the oath of secrecy - and we couldn’t have that, could we?

Umm…are you being sarcastic, or are you sure that you are a Catholic? If it is the former, then I like your macabre sense of humor.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Also, why does it seem that most nuns adopt names in religious while it is less common for consecrated men? As a side-note, I like to say “the Jesuits” in French(les Jesuits, les Jesuits!; which sounds like the words for “They, I am”).

 

[Young_Thinker]

As for bishops never using religious names, I would think that it is more of a preference than being them forbidden to do so(that is, they could). There have been plenty of tertiaries with names in religion(like St. Maria Francesca of the Five Wounds).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As for bishops never using religious names, I would think that it is more of a preference than being them forbidden to do so(that is, they could). There have been plenty of tertiaries with names in religion(like St. Maria Francesca of the Five Wounds).

Tertiaries are not bishops.

I think it might cause issues such as a connection to the religious life that they must leave and other issues with the laity of the diocese and the secular priests that they must now lead.

I have never heard of a bishop using a religious name and I think it is right as a bishop leaves religious life for secular life. They must make the split.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Tertiaries are not bishops.

I think it might cause issues such as a connection to the religious life that they must leave and other issues with the laity of the diocese and the secular priests that they must now lead.

I have never heard of a bishop using a religious name and I think it is right as a bishop leaves religious life for secular life. They must make the split.

All right, Brother.

 

[Cominghome89]

Officially when one is ordained to be a Bishop they cease to be a member of their religious order/community. They become honorary members of the order and no longer have voice (a say/vote) in the chapters and they can not be elected to any offices within
the order. Also the superior of the order no longer has any say in what the Bishop does. They are released from their vows and become secular clergy though they keep the initials of the order as they are still members even is honorary.

After they retire they can return but I heard that this is rare.

Ironically, I was just reading a post earlier today that seems to fit directly into this conversation:

One correction here. Religious are no longer called out of their religious state to serve as bishops. The 1983 code of canon law has clearly stated that religious called to the episcopal state remain consecrated religious and full members of their religious communities. A Jesuit called to the epsicopal state remains a Jesuit. They are not automatically secularized.

I assume by the citation of Canon Law that this is correct. However, I know nothing about the subject personally. I have stayed with the Eastern Province Dominicans, and it seems that Archbishop Augustine Dinoia is still very much a Dominican, not simply an honorary O.P. Please correct me if this is not the case.

In Christ,
Frank

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ironically, I was just reading a post earlier today that seems to fit directly into this conversation:

I assume by the citation of Canon Law that this is correct. However, I know nothing about the subject personally. I have stayed with the Eastern Province Dominicans, and it seems that Archbishop Augustine Dinoia is still very much a Dominican, not simply an honorary O.P. Please correct me if this is not the case.

In Christ,
Frank

What is the citation from Canon Law? A bishop can not be a religious as he would be under the vow of obedience to his superiors and could not act as an ordinary. His superior could tell him how to run his diocese.

 

[Cominghome89]

That’s strange, I copied and pasted the quote from Brother JR’s post, and it didn’t show in my post, I apologize. Here is the quote:

One correction here. Religious are no longer called out of their religious state to serve as bishops. The 1983 code of canon law has clearly stated that religious called to the episcopal state remain consecrated religious and full members of their religious communities. A Jesuit called to the epsicopal state remains a Jesuit. They are not automatically secularized.

And here is the link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=361292

The post I am referring to is #7. I have no idea why it didn’t come up, again I apologize. My post was rather unhelpful without it lol. I am interested to see the result of this, as again I have no knowledge of this issue, and your statement and this one seem to be conflicting.

In Christ,
Frank

 

[Cominghome89]

What is the citation from Canon Law? A bishop can not be a religious as he would be under the vow of obedience to his superiors and could not act as an ordinary. His superior could tell him how to run his diocese.

My mistake, Brother JR referenced the 1983 code of canon law, and did not give a specific citation. I looked it up and found the following in the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 705 A religious raised to the episcopate remains a member of his institute but is subject only to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the vow of obedience and is not bound by obligations which he himself prudently judges cannot be reconciled with his condition.

In Christ,
Frank

 

[Young_Thinker]

My mistake, Brother JR referenced the 1983 code of canon law, and did not give a specific citation. I looked it up and found the following in the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 705 A religious raised to the episcopate remains a member of his institute but is subject only to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the vow of obedience and is not bound by obligations which he himself prudently judges cannot be reconciled with his condition.

In Christ,
Frank

Oh, so ordination to the bishopric does not secularize a religious priest? That is how I interpret it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Oh, so ordination to the bishopric does not secularize a religious priest? That is how I interpret it.

No it just states that they are still a member of the order.

They can not live under the vow of poverty any longer as I do not think that vow and being a bishop are compatible.

I would welcome the (name removed by moderator)ut of Br JR on this.

EDIT:

Here is the whole section from the Code of Canon Law.
CHAPTER VII : RELIGIOUS RAISED TO THE EPISCOPATE

Can. 705 A religious who is raised to the episcopate remains a member of his institute, but is subject only to the Roman Pontiff by his vow of obedience. He is not bound by obligations which he prudently judges are not compatible with his condition.

Can. 706 In the case of the religious mentioned above:

1° if he has lost the ownership of his goods through his profession he now has the use and enjoyment and the administration of the goods which he acquires. In the case of a diocesan Bishop and of those mentioned in can. 381 §2, the particular Church acquires their ownership; in the case of others, they belong to the institute or the Holy See, depending on whether the institute is or is not capable of possessing goods;

2° if he has not lost the ownership of his goods through his profession, he recovers the use and enjoyment and the administration of the goods he possessed; what he obtains later, he acquires fully;

3° in both cases any goods he receives which are not personal gifts must be disposed of according to the intention of the donors.

Can. 707 §1 A religious Bishop ‘emeritus’ may choose to reside outside the house of his institute, unless the Apostolic See disposes otherwise.

§2 If he has served a diocese, can. 402 §2 is to be observed concerning his suitable and worthy maintenance, unless his own institute wishes to provide such maintenance. Otherwise, the Apostolic See is to make other provision.

So he is released from the vow of poverty.

I also know, at least in the case of the Carmelites, he has no voice, active or passive, at the chapters. That is he can not vote nor can he be voted for an office within the province or general councils.

 

[Young_Thinker]

No it just states that they are still a member of the order.

They can not live under the vow of poverty any longer as I do not think that vow and being a bishop are compatible.

I would welcome the (name removed by moderator)ut of Br JR on this.

EDIT:

Here is the whole section from the Code of Canon Law.
CHAPTER VII : RELIGIOUS RAISED TO THE EPISCOPATE

Can. 705 A religious who is raised to the episcopate remains a member of his institute, but is subject only to the Roman Pontiff by his vow of obedience. He is not bound by obligations which he prudently judges are not compatible with his condition.

Can. 706 In the case of the religious mentioned above:

1° if he has lost the ownership of his goods through his profession he now has the use and enjoyment and the administration of the goods which he acquires. In the case of a diocesan Bishop and of those mentioned in can. 381 §2, the particular Church acquires their ownership; in the case of others, they belong to the institute or the Holy See, depending on whether the institute is or is not capable of possessing goods;

2° if he has not lost the ownership of his goods through his profession, he recovers the use and enjoyment and the administration of the goods he possessed; what he obtains later, he acquires fully;

3° in both cases any goods he receives which are not personal gifts must be disposed of according to the intention of the donors.

Can. 707 §1 A religious Bishop ‘emeritus’ may choose to reside outside the house of his institute, unless the Apostolic See disposes otherwise.

§2 If he has served a diocese, can. 402 §2 is to be observed concerning his suitable and worthy maintenance, unless his own institute wishes to provide such maintenance. Otherwise, the Apostolic See is to make other provision.

So he is released from the vow of poverty.

I also know, at least in the case of the Carmelites, he has no voice, active or passive, at the chapters. That is he can not vote nor can he be voted for an office within the province or general councils.

Thank you, Brother David.

 

[Young_Thinker]

All right, Brother.

I guess that if one chose a new Christian name as a part of a multi-worded name in religion, one could have it added to one’s legal name, as after having taken simple or solemn vows. I think that some people add their confirmational names by court-order, which is probably not that much different.

 

[Spiritu]

Umm…are you being sarcastic, or are you sure that you are a Catholic? If it is the former, then I like your macabre sense of humor.

Sorry I’m a few days late replying: my internet connection went down. Yes, I’m a Catholic, and I find conspiracy theories hilarious, hence I couldn’t resist when you mentioned the Jesuits. (I recently found a website that spells out how and why Jesuits sank the Titanic, which, along with Chick’s “My Name… In the Vatican?” is the crown in my collection of stuff I can’t believe some people believe.)

To get back on the topic of names… I remember Brother JR writing a while ago about the legal aspects of adopting a religious name and title. Now to see if I can find it… voila!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=298532&highlight=john+richard+religious+name&page=3
I don’t know how to create links to single posts, but the relevant posts are #36 and #44.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Sorry I’m a few days late replying: my internet connection went down. Yes, I’m a Catholic, and I find conspiracy theories hilarious, hence I couldn’t resist when you mentioned the Jesuits. (I recently found a website that spells out how and why Jesuits sank the Titanic, which, along with Chick’s “My Name… In the Vatican?” is the crown in my collection of stuff I can’t believe some people believe.)

To get back on the topic of names… I remember Brother JR writing a while ago about the legal aspects of adopting a religious name and title. Now to see if I can find it… voila!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=298532&highlight=john+richard+religious+name&page=3
I don’t know how to create links to single posts, but the relevant posts are #36 and #44.

It is all right; I appreciatre your information.