Finding Saint Francis

[Julia_Mae]

You don’t like the word fraternity, do you? :nope:

That one doesn’t bother me. All the crazy interpretations of the word “secular” are what get me. It appears to be one of those words like “nice” or “love” that can mean about 100 things, depending on context. Figuring out exactly what’s meant takes about an hour or conversation every time. Not hardly what it’s worth. Frankly, they need another word. JMHO.

[And yes, I know the word “secular” has a very precise technical meaning; it’s just that most people can’t figure it out and instead have one big cloud of “duh” going on, and when the name of the order is “Secular Franciscan Order,” it’s UH-OH time.]

Oh, I agree 100% Every time I see it I have to stop and think about what the writer means. Personally, I wish you or someone would write a little explanation here for people to refer to. Like me!

 

[iloveangels]

Oh, I agree 100% Every time I see it I have to stop and think about what the writer means. Personally, I wish you or someone would write a little explanation here for people to refer to. Like me!

Well, Br JR or somebody will probably come along and correct me, but then we’ll get it even right-er, correct? So let’s give it a shot.

1. When it’s used for a diocesan priest, it means not consecrated to an order etc and not living in a convent but in a rectory, working at the church or school.
2. When it’s used for a diocesan deacon, it means not consecrated to an order etc but maybe married, not living in a convent, and working a job providing your own way, while working also at the church.
3. When it’s used for a secular Franciscan, it means not consecrated and not living in a convent, but rather out in the world, working at our own jobs.
4. But when it’s used for someone in a secular institute, it means consecrated with vows but not living in a convent although some can live together as a matter of convenience, and providing your own living expenses.

Based on this secular means: not living in a convent, providing your own living expenses, and carrying out a function of some sort in the world. And in the cases we’re talking about, while belonging to a third order, secular institute or other similar organization or getting ordained by a diocesan bishop.

It may include those with promises to a bishop, like priests & deacons. It may include those with solemn vows of marriage or vows to a secular institute. It may include those who have made promises to a third order. It may include people living together a few at a time, but not living in a convent. [Or friary, that’s for you Br JR]

Does that sound about right??

[Please don’t look at the exceptions, because in the patchwork quilt that this is, there always are some. Like the Oratorians. Trouble-makers.]

 

[iloveangels]

There’s another thread with a really good discussion along the same lines in the thread:
“Can a Secular Franciscan in formation wear a Tau?” You can search the whole string to get there.

There’s also another Franciscan brother in that thread, jmcintosh. And he has a great diagram someplace that I saw and now can’t find.

[but viewer beware, there’s exceptions to it too. ]

 

[CatholicFireman]

There’s another thread with a really good discussion along the same lines in the thread:
“Can a Secular Franciscan in formation wear a Tau?” You can search the whole string to get there.

There’s also another Franciscan brother in that thread, jmcintosh. And he has a great diagram someplace that I saw and now can’t find.

[but viewer beware, there’s exceptions to it too. ]

Here’s the thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=375306&highlight=Can+a+Secular+Franciscan+in+formation+wear+a+Tau

Which chart were you talking about? Post #45?

 

[iloveangels]

Here’s the thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=375306&highlight=Can+a+Secular+Franciscan+in+formation+wear+a+Tau

Which chart were you talking about? Post #45?

Maybe. Although for some reason, my computer’s not displaying the graphic now.

About the word “secular,” its opposite would be the word “regular.” As in third order regular and third order secular.

And by “carrying out a function in the world,” I mean living in your own home, having a job or some arrangement for paying your own bills, being part of society, etc.

In the case of the TOR, they also take vows and the SFOs make promises. But some secular institutes also take vows, so that’s not the sure indicator of the difference between secular and regular. Think there might be a difference between simple vows some take and solemn vows others take, though. Maybe Br. JR can help with that one.

 

[Julia_Mae]

“[TheFranciscans] are those professors of the holy Rule [of St Francis] who are founded on the Gospel words, strengthened by the example of Christ’s life, and confirmed by the words and deeds of his Apostles … the renunciation for God’s sake of ownership, both individual and common, of all things is meritorious and holy: Christ also, showing the way of perfection, taught this by word and confirmed it by example; and the first founders of the Church militant, as they had drawn it from the source himself, directed it through the channels of their teaching and lives to those who wished to live perfectly. … For Christ himself, whose works are perfect, practised in his actions the way of perfection in such a way that sometimes, condescending to the imperfection of the weak, he both extolled the way of perfection and did not condemn the weak ways of the imperfect”. *Pope Nicholas IV * <–friar

 

[JReducation]

The meeting was awesome. However it was my first meeting and lunch was a sort of “christmas party” so I have to see how the second meeting goes. If I remember what I was told correctly, lunch is usually more on the quiet side.

As wonderful as it was, the one nagging feeling I had was, “What about preaching”?

You have to remember that in the Dominican charism preaching takes many forms. Their sisters usually teach. The friars usually preach or teach. The nuns do neither. They pray for the preachers. The secular Dominican has a broad spectrum from which to choose. He can be a theologian like Catherine of Siena, a catechist like Bl. Pierre Girorgio, a diplomat like Paul VI, all of whom were Dominicans.

Truelight, that is one of the differences between that organization and SFO. SFO specifically recommends having actual social time at every meeting. Prayer, announcements, and ongoing formation are also supposed to happen at every meeting, but social time is not supposed to be forgotten. We did skip social time once last winter when a winter storm was bearing down on us, but we usually have some time for social interaction.

This allows for:

1. For some older members, this is the only time they get to interact with others.
2. For people to share experiences they are having in their everyday life to get advice on how to handle it in a Franciscan manner.
3. To greet visitors and answer any questions that people in formation may have that they might not want to ask the formation team.
4. People to discuss individual (non-fraternity wide) get-togethers/outreaches.
5. To just be social.

Of course there is always a balance act to make sure the social time doesn’t outweigh/overpower the other aspects of the fraternity meeting.

Social time or fellowship are very modern words that simply mean fraternal life. For the Franciscan family the order of priority is: obedience, prayer and brotherhood. Obedience sets the rules for prayer and brotherhood. At a Franciscan community, you will find much more interaction that in an other order. That’s because Francis had no intention of founding an order. He founded a family. It’s very clear in his writings and his interaction with his followers. He always played the role of the spiritual father, even though he referred to himself a Brother Francis, but he governed as a father governs a family, with absolute and unquestioning authority.

His preocupation was not preaching, ministry, heresy, or anything else happening in the Church and the world. Those things were important to him only after he cared for his brothers and he demanded the same of his sons and daughters. That’s why we call our communities “fraternities” from the Italian fratelli. Francis never used the term community. It was always fratelli. They did have a word for community, Benedict uses it.

The problem with the word secular is with the placement in the American translation. In Latin, the name of the order is, Order of Franciscans Secular. The emphasis is placed on “Order”. The Americans did not like that translation, because it sounded “clunky”. They lobbied for Secular Franciscan Order. Since they make up the largest number of English speaking Secular Franciscans, they got their way. English speakers are the only ones who say SFO.

The term secular and lay have very different meanings in Church law than that of the meaning they have in Webster.

Secular = any man or woman who is not consecrated.

This includes deacons, priests, bishops, popes, and lay people.

Lay = any man or woman who is not ordained.

This excludes deacons, priests and bishops. It includes everyone else.

Laity = any man or woman who is neither consecrated or ordained.

This excludes religious, deacons, priests and bishops.

Religious = any man or woman who is consecrated.

This excludes laity and secular clergy.

You don’t like the word fraternity, do you? :nope:

That one doesn’t bother me. All the crazy interpretations of the word “secular” are what get me. It appears to be one of those words like “nice” or “love” that can mean about 100 things, depending on context. Figuring out exactly what’s meant takes about an hour or conversation every time. Not hardly what it’s worth. Frankly, they need another word. JMHO.

[And yes, I know the word “secular” has a very precise technical meaning; it’s just that most people can’t figure it out and instead have one big cloud of “duh” going on, and when the name of the order is “Secular Franciscan Order,” it’s UH-OH time.]

Fraternity, as I said above, comes from fratelli. In the Romance languages, fraternity includes men and women, where as sorority is only for women.

Franciscans use fraternity, because community has a different meaning. Community refers to the common life, but does not necessarily imply family. “I live in a gated community,” refers to my neighborhood. These folks are not my family. “I live in a fraternity,” implies that I live in a family of brethren.

I can live alone and still be part of a fraternity. My brothers do not cease to be my brothers, because we live in separate houses. It’s like any other family. Some live in packs and others live alone, but they are one family.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Julia_Mae]

The term secular and lay have very different meanings in Church law than that of the meaning they have in Webster.

Secular = any man or woman who is not consecrated.

This includes deacons, priests, bishops, popes, and lay people.

Lay = any man or woman who is not ordained.

This excludes deacons, priests and bishops. It includes everyone else.

Laity = any man or woman who is neither consecrated or ordained.

This excludes religious, deacons, priests and bishops.

Religious = any man or woman who is consecrated.

This excludes laity and secular clergy.

How about definitions of “consecrated” and “ordained,” also? please? And maybe “vowed.” (I’m still trying to figure out why Sister Laurel is wearing a habit.)

When Francis had men following him around before there was an Order, what were they? I mean this seriously, were they anything at all that had definition in the Church at that time?

 

[EvelynEVF]

What always kills me about secular vs. religious is that they are opposite each other in the Catholic juridical sort of sense, but also opposite in the totally worldy sense—i grew up Baptist, and secular pretty much meant “bad and impure,” like secular music, which was taboo.

So when I am asked by a protestant what the SFO is, I will sometimes fudge and call it a religious order without a convent/monastery. Once I told somebody I wasn’t Religious, and she thought I meant that the whole Order was not religious/spiritual and it made no sense to her at all. So anytime anyone asks me in a context where I know a discussion could ensue, I ask what background they are coming from so that i can adjust my vocabulary accordingly. But that happens a lot between Catholics and Protestants regarding many topics.

 

[iloveangels]

What always kills me about secular vs. religious is that they are opposite each other in the Catholic juridical sort of sense, but also opposite in the totally worldy sense—i grew up Baptist, and secular pretty much meant “bad and impure,” like secular music, which was taboo.

So when I am asked by a protestant what the SFO is, I will sometimes fudge and call it a religious order without a convent/monastery. Once I told somebody I wasn’t Religious, and she thought I meant that the whole Order was not religious/spiritual and it made no sense to her at all. So anytime anyone asks me in a context where I know a discussion could ensue, I ask what background they are coming from so that i can adjust my vocabulary accordingly. But that happens a lot between Catholics and Protestants regarding many topics.

Yes, the word “secular” really confuses a lot of people in what’s already a very confusing topic. I understand about the SFO being an order, and I know what they’re supposed to do regardless of the technicalities, which I guess is the most important part. But I still wonder one thing: In a secular institute, they usually take vows. Vows usually mean consecrated. So why do they call them “secular” other than the fact that they live out in the world and not in community with others who have taken vows? [And I’m being careful here, because it’s not like laypeople often don’t live in community; we often do with our families and friends.]

 

[iloveangels]

What always kills me about secular vs. religious is that they are opposite each other in the Catholic juridical sort of sense, but also opposite in the totally worldy sense—i grew up Baptist, and secular pretty much meant “bad and impure,” like secular music, which was taboo.

So when I am asked by a protestant what the SFO is, I will sometimes fudge and call it a religious order without a convent/monastery. Once I told somebody I wasn’t Religious, and she thought I meant that the whole Order was not religious/spiritual and it made no sense to her at all. So anytime anyone asks me in a context where I know a discussion could ensue, I ask what background they are coming from so that i can adjust my vocabulary accordingly. But that happens a lot between Catholics and Protestants regarding many topics.

Maybe I"m going to answer my own question below…but please correct if I’m wrong, elaborate, etc…

Because we’ve talked about this a lot, I’m realizing why that diagram I saw earlier in another post is so pertinent (and explanatory). We’re talking about two classification schemes which intersect.

1. Marriage and holy orders are sacraments. Marriage, at least, involves solemn vows. Therefore, sacramental status is important when describing all these things. And for each of these sacraments, everyone has a status: Married, single; ordained, non-ordained. Priests are single and ordained; deacons are married or single & ordained; laypeople married or single & not ordained. Reception of both sacraments is mutually exclusive in a certain sequence. [Priests can’t be married before or after ordination; deacons can’t be married after ordination.]
2. Religious life is a way of life situated within that sacramental status. This is why the first question asked of most people when religious orders come up, is “Are you married?” This is because religious orders, institutes, congregations etc have ways of life that are only suitable or traditional for certain sacramental statuses. As in, no you can’t bring your kids. Not to say that religious orders haven’t been vital to the church and still aren’t, but this is an important distinction as far as classification goes.

And the last point, is that it seems like orders, institutes, congregations and the like have been structured by offices in Rome (forever) to suit the needs to people and the needs of the Church. Such that when it happens that unmarried, single people can’t live in community with other vowed persons, they can take vows anyway, because the offices in Rome have decided it’s suitable because the culture will support it and needs it. And that’s why there’s a discrepancy there and a new form of religious life. And that unfortunate word “secular” in Secular Institutes.

[The reason this example is interesting is because it logically unhooks regular/secular and religious/secular, which before this sort of thing were the same distinction in different words.]

And to your point about language differences between protestants and catholics, yes, EvelynEVF, secular is not a nice word to a protestant. It means “bought into the culture of money and death, hook line and sinker.”

 

[EvelynEVF]

Forgive me if I had to snort out loud at the mention of solemn vows. Because canonically, there are solemn vows and simple vows, and simple vows can be perpetual or temporary. So I’m thinking you mean solemn in the heartfelt, serious sense rather than the canonical.

It seems to me that marriage vows and religious vows are exclusive unless one is released from religious vows. I could be wrong. . .

Eastern priests, of course, can marry before ordination, and will be expected to if they want to be parish priests.

Deacons can request a dispensation to remarry after widowhood, and still remain deacons. This is rare, but apparently can happen if he has elderly parents who need taking care of, which isn’t something we would likely see in the USAmerican culture where we have nursing homes.

 

[JReducation]

How about definitions of “consecrated” and “ordained,” also? please?

Consecrated is a man or woman who is bound by public vows to a stable state of perfection, this can be as a virgin, hermit, monastic, mendicant, or regular. These are states that the Church acknowledges as states of Christian Perfection.

And maybe “vowed.” (I’m still trying to figure out why Sister Laurel is wearing a habit.)

She’s a hermit and hermits are consecrated people.

When Francis had men following him around before there was an Order, what were they? I mean this seriously, were they anything at all that had definition in the Church at that time?

Before the approval of the rule in 1209, some were part of the laity and some were part of the clergy. There were secular priests who followed Francis. Once the rule was approved, they ceased to be part of the laity. They become consecrated religious. Those who were priests ceased to be secular priests and became consecrated religious brothers. The priesthood cannot be taken away from them. They had to exercise the priestly ministry according to the laws of the Church and the mind of the superior. This is still the case today.

Yes, the word “secular” really confuses a lot of people in what’s already a very confusing topic. I understand about the SFO being an order, and I know what they’re supposed to do regardless of the technicalities, which I guess is the most important part. But I still wonder one thing: In a secular institute, they usually take vows. Vows usually mean consecrated. So why do they call them “secular” other than the fact that they live out in the world and not in community with others who have taken vows?

A secular institute is not the same as a secular order. A secular order is really a religious order for secular men and women. It can be autonomous as is the SFO or under the superior of the religious order as are the Lay Dominicans.

A secular institute is for consecrated men and women who live in the secular world. They make vows, but they do not live in conventual community. They come and go, they can leave when the vows expire. For example, the Daughters of Charity are such an institute. Their vows expire every year on March 25. At that point, they can leave or renew them for another year.

Forgive me if I had to snort out loud at the mention of solemn vows. Because canonically, there are solemn vows and simple vows, and simple vows can be perpetual or temporary. So I’m thinking you mean solemn in the heartfelt, serious sense rather than the canonical.

If you’re referring to the marriage vows, they are solemn as in canonical. They are as solemn as those of a monk, mendicant or Jesuit. Therefore, they are mutually exclusive, because they are of equal value to the Church.

It seems to me that marriage vows and religious vows are exclusive unless one is released from religious vows. I could be wrong. . .

Until1983 any religious in solemn vows who attempted to marry, could not do so. The marriage was invalid and the religious and his partner were automatically excommunicated (ie. Luther).

In 1983, the code extended this to religious in simple vows as well. The other vows remain different. A solemn vow of poverty is different from a simple vow of poverty. Solemn vows are only made by members of orders and by married men and women. Everyone else makes simple vows or promises. The binding effects are different.

Eastern priests, of course, can marry before ordination, and will be expected to if they want to be parish priests.

Deacons can request a dispensation to remarry after widowhood, and still remain deacons. This is rare, but apparently can happen if he has elderly parents who need taking care of, which isn’t something we would likely see in the USAmerican culture where we have nursing homes.

The rule is the same in the Roman Catholic Church. A married man can be ordained, if he is a Protestant clergyman who converts. A baptized Catholic must be married before he is ordained a permanent deacon or remain celibate.

Canon Law in the Latin Church makes no provision for a second marriage for deacons. The provision only exists in the Canon Law for the Oriental Churches. Right now, the matter has to be presented to the Holy Father, because there is no law for it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[iloveangels]

Consecrated is a man or woman who is bound by public vows to a stable state of perfection, this can be as a virgin, hermit, monastic, mendicant, or regular. These are states that the Church acknowledges as states of Christian Perfection.

A secular institute is not the same as a secular order. A secular order is really a religious order for secular men and women. It can be autonomous as is the SFO or under the superior of the religious order as are the Lay Dominicans.

A secular institute is for consecrated men and women who live in the secular world. They make vows, but they do not live in conventual community. They come and go, they can leave when the vows expire. For example, the Daughters of Charity are such an institute. Their vows expire every year on March 25. At that point, they can leave or renew them for another year.
…

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you, Br JR, this is getting much clearer.

There’s only one more detail. Some Secular Institutes allow people to make perpetual vows according to their literature, although some go year by year as described here. So it’s a new form of religious life, apparently.

 

[Sirach2]

I was just reading this thread, isn’t Br.JR a blessing!!

 

[Julia_Mae]

I was just reading this thread, isn’t Br.JR a blessing!!

Absolutely!

Here is one of Francis’ admonitions Br JR inspired me through his writings to try and follow:

Chapter XI. That no one should be corrupted by the wickedness of another

No thing ought to displease the servant of God except sin. · And in whatever manner another person would sin, even on account of this the servant of God, out of charity, would not be upset or grow angry, (as one who) hoards up fault for himself (cf. Rm 2:5). · That servant of God, who does not grow angry nor disturbs himself on another’s behalf, lives rightly without anything of his own. · And blessed is he, who does not let anything remain for himself, rendering those things “which are Caesar’s to Caesar, and those which are God’s to God” (Mt 22)

 

[Marauder]

I was just reading this thread, isn’t Br.JR a blessing!!

Yes he is. I miss it when we go long periods without hearing from him. I am praying that everything is going well with him.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Does anyone have any information about Brother J? I am getting a tad worried about his absence.

 

[Marauder]

Does anyone have any information about Brother J? I am getting a tad worried about his absence.

He just posted in another thread. Looks like he is back

 

[CatholicFireman]

Does anyone have any information about Brother J? I am getting a tad worried about his absence.

Um…he’s online now.