Great info on Dominicans (from me, a Dominican)

[eichenb2]

It is unfortunate that you find yourelf in this position regarding the Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans, Benedictines and Carmelites. They have been and continue to be the backbone of religioius life in the Church. Almost every congregation that has ever been found after them has been obliged by Church law to model their rules on these orders.

Not only have these orders grown, but others have rooted their own spirituality in them. I don’t think anyone knows exactly how many congregations model themselves on the Franciscans and Dominicans alone.

Perhaps you have not known enough Franciscans and Dominicans or read enough of our writings or experienced our ministry. There are always going to be those men and women in any religious family who will express an opinion on any issue, as long as it is permissible to express that opinion.

Nonetheless, one must keep in mind that these are opinions and that those who are expressing it are good people who are looking at an issue from another perspective. There are other situations or teachings in which a different opinion in not allowed. You will find that these orders have always remained faithful to those mandates. When told that they may not hold another opinion on a subject, they have not had one.

The example you gave above is a very good one. The teaching of the Church is does not say that homosexual attraction is a sin. It says that homosexual acts are a sin. That teaching has been handed down to us without attributing to it any infallible character. It rests on the ordinary magisterium. Therefore, it is permissible for any Catholic to wonder or hypothesize on the teaching. That is not the same as telling people to commit a sexual act that is a sin.

I’ll give you another example. I’m not sure how it works among the Dominicans. Among the Franciscans, the words of St. Francis are not up for opionions. His teachings, rules and admonitions must be obeyed and there is no room for a disseting thought or opinion under penalty of hell. Only with the Holy Father’s permission can the Franciscan family ammend any of Francis’ teachings or interpret them. Therefore, it does not happen. The entire Franciscan family is bound by a solemn vow of obedience to him and above him, to the pope. When there is a need for an interpretation or an ammendmant to fit a particular circumstance, the matter is written and explained. Then it is submitted to the Holy See via a General Chapter of the Order. The Pope then approves or rejects the proposed interpretation. As you can see, this is a lot of orthodoxy. I know for a fact that the same is true of the Benedictines and Jesuits.

The Dominicans are in a different situation, because Dominic did not write a rule. They follow the rule of St. Augustine. I’m uncertain how much they are bound to that rule and when they can deviate (in the good sense) from Augustine’s rule.

In any case, this kind of obedience and fideity to the founder and to the Church is always there. When the Church says that something is not up for debate, it is not, even among these orders. Such is the case with abortion and the dogmas of the faith.

However, not everything is an infallible teaching or a dogma. Some points are teachings of the ordinary magisterium that allow for discussion. What they do not allow is for violation. You cannot violate what the ordinary magisterium teaches. Any member of these orders or any Catholic who promotes violating what the ordinary magisterium teaches places himelf in a very precarious position. If that person belongs to one of these orders he commits a grave sin of disobedience, which the orders to uphold and for which they do consequence their members.

When in doubt, just ask if the person is promoting that others violate the teaching of the Church or if the person is merely presenting a hypothesis. Most of the time you will find that it is a hypothesis and most of the time hypotheses are allowed, except in those cases where the case is closed, such as dogma and certain moral issues: adultery, abortion, injustice, disobedience to the Holy Father, violation of the sacraments and others like this.

I hope this helps. If you would like, there are web sites on the Dominicans and other reigious families where you can read about their spirit and their life in the Church. You may be very impresed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OFS

It is rather shocking to me that you would suggest that the crystal clear command of God Almighty that ANY sexual relations outside of marriage (which can only ever be between a man and woman), including homosexual activity is not dogma and yet St. Francis teachings can only be broken with the Pope’s OK. The catechism says that homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered”. Are you telling me that the Church can later come along and say anything other than this ? Is this teaching fallible? In fact, you basically made my point. I may need to reconsider

 

[JReducation]

It is rather shocking to me that you would suggest that the crystal clear command of God Almighty that ANY sexual relations outside of marriage (which can only ever be between a man and woman), including homosexual activity is not dogma and yet St. Francis teachings can only be broken with the Pope’s OK. The catechism says that homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered”. Are you telling me that the Church can later come along and say anything other than this ? Is this teaching fallible? In fact, you basically made my point. I may need to reconsider

You have to understand that disordered does not mean sinful. The CCC is speaking about the fact that homosexual orientation often leads to promiscuity. That’s not the same sas saying that an orientation is sinful.

Observe the wording. The act is gravely wrong. The orientation is disordered. No one has argued that. There is a difference between the two words.

No one is speaking dogma here. Moral theology and systematic theology are different branches of the discipline. Dogmas a articles of faith that must be believed. Morality are laws that must be observed. Both are binding, but one is binding in the ethical domain and the other on the faith domain.

The two domains are different. That’s why the Church teaches them separately, though they often overlap.

When the Church makes a moral decree, some of it is infallible, but it is not dogma. For example, abortion is an infallible moral teaching, not an infallible dogma. There is the difference. The Church is always very careful when it wants to attribute ordinary or extraordinary infallibility to a decree. To date, the Church has never made an Ex-Cathedra moral statement. All Ex-Cathedra statements are dogmatic.

Hope this helps.

JR

Fraternally,

JR

 

[eichenb2]

You have to understand that disordered does not mean sinful. The CCC is speaking about the fact that homosexual orientation often leads to promiscuity. That’s not the same sas saying that an orientation is sinful.

Observe the wording. The act is gravely wrong. The orientation is disordered. No one has argued that. There is a difference between the two words.

No one is speaking dogma here. Moral theology and systematic theology are different branches of the discipline. Dogmas a articles of faith that must be believed. Morality are laws that must be observed. Both are binding, but one is binding in the ethical domain and the other on the faith domain.

The two domains are different. That’s why the Church teaches them separately, though they often overlap.

When the Church makes a moral decree, some of it is infallible, but it is not dogma. For example, abortion is an infallible moral teaching, not an infallible dogma. There is the difference. The Church is always very careful when it wants to attribute ordinary or extraordinary infallibility to a decree. To date, the Church has never made an Ex-Cathedra moral statement. All Ex-Cathedra statements are dogmatic.

Hope this helps.

JR

Fraternally,

JR

With all due respect, this is a huge blind spot for the CC. “Gay rights” movements are gaining political power and when they get the chance they will pass laws that punish “hate speech” that criticizes homosexuality. This is already happening in Colorado. In Boston (I think), a Catholic adoption agency had to close its doors , because they would not left gay parents adopt. The state pulled their certification. Look it up! I am not making this up. To me, homosexual attraction is disordered and disgusting. I am very concerned with the possibility that the CC may accept this as NOT disordered later. You should read this.

tanbooks.com/doct/church_sodomy.htm

 

[Shin]

According to Catholic doctrine, any disordered tendency, above all toward a vice contrary to nature, cannot have the right to exist in a person’s thoughts. If someone in his mind makes a concession to this tendency, he sins. This is why in the Confiteor one asks forgiveness for sins of thought, word and deed. Thus, a homosexual tendency is not a sin only when it has not been at all willed or accepted by the person. A person also sins when he outwardly expresses a homosexual tendency. Indeed, we have seen excerpts from Sacred Scripture (Deut. 22:5; Is. 3:4-13) and from Saint Basil prescribing severe punishment for those who behave in a homosexual fashion (“kissing or committing some turpitude”) even though they do not practice the act.

This is the key point which some people seem to be glossing over or overlooking.

AFAIK there are no Franciscans living according to the original Rule of St. Francis in existence, they only live under heavily revised versions or drawing from portions of it.

Simply reading portions of the Rule reveals this:

The brothers should appropriate neither house, nor place, nor anything for themselves; and they should go confidently after alms, serving God in poverty and humility, as pilgrims and strangers in this world

How many Franciscans wandering about in homeless bands begging alms from door to door do you know of? Please correct me if I am misunderstanding.

 

[JReducation]

With all due respect, this is a huge blind spot for the CC. “Gay rights” movements are gaining political power and when they get the chance they will pass laws that punish “hate speech” that criticizes homosexuality. This is already happening in Colorado. In Boston (I think), a Catholic adoption agency had to close its doors , because they would not left gay parents adopt. The state pulled their certification. Look it up! I am not making this up. To me, homosexual attraction is disordered and disgusting. I am very concerned with the possibility that the CC may accept this as NOT disordered later. You should read this.

tanbooks.com/doct/church_sodomy.htm

I know what happened in Colorado. The same thing happened in Boston. Both of the bishops involved are our Brothers in our Franciscan family. This is a perfect example of what I am saying whan I say that the old religious families are still very faithful to the Church and the teaching magisterium. These are prefect examples.

The adoptions had to be stopped, because the State insisted on equal rights for adoptive parents and the friar bishops could not disobey the Church on this matter. To do so woud have been contrary to everything that they stand for as Franciscans and as bishops.

Something similar is happening in Sydney with the Dominican bishop. As much as the Dominicans subscribe to speculative theology as a means of understanding the faith, they do not cross the line of obedience. We must never confuse the two. Speculation and disobedience are not the same thing. They can never be the same thing.

One is allowed to wonder, but one is never allowed to disobey.

To clarify the point that I made in my earlier post, the reason why we must go to the Holy Father to ammend or interpret a writing or teaching of Francis fits right in with the topic of obedience.

The Franciscan Rule has a Papal Bull on it. It was put on it by Pope Honorius. It said that anyone who disobeys the rule will suffer eternal damnation. It does not leave room for negotiation. Fidelity to the Church comes out in our belief that the Holy Father has the authority to do this and to demand this kind of obedience. Therefore, as obedient sons and daughters of the Church, we apply to him to assistance on any matter regarding the rule. Only he can change it and only he can ammend it or interpret it.

Once again, you have another example of fideity and obedience in areas where there is no room for dispute or difference of opinion unless it is authorized. There are other areas where the Church does leave room for dialogue and encourages further thought on a subject and even wants feedback from theologians, philosophers, and scientists. In those areas, the Church leaves open the door, not for disobedience, but for reflection, feedback and (name removed by moderator)ut.

One must still obey, even when one is involved in dialogue on a subject. You must obey until the Holy See says that there are changes in its position or that the dialogue is closed, as was the case in the ordination of women.

You will find no Dominican or other major religious order arguing the ordination of women. Pope John Paul II said that the cae was closed. That does not mean that you will not find individuals who want to push the limits. You’ll find those individuals in any human family. That doesn’t condemn the entire family.

I hope that I am being clearer.

Fraternally,

JR

Fraternally,

JR

 

[eichenb2]

I know what happened in Colorado. The same thing happened in Boston. Both of the bishops involved are our Brothers in our Franciscan family. This is a perfect example of what I am saying whan I say that the old religious families are still very faithful to the Church and the teaching magisterium. These are prefect examples.

The adoptions had to be stopped, because the State insisted on equal rights for adoptive parents and the friar bishops could not disobey the Church on this matter. To do so woud have been contrary to everything that they stand for as Franciscans and as bishops.

Something similar is happening in Sydney with the Dominican bishop. As much as the Dominicans subscribe to speculative theology as a means of understanding the faith, they do not cross the line of obedience. We must never confuse the two. Speculation and disobedience are not the same thing. They can never be the same thing.

One is allowed to wonder, but one is never allowed to disobey.

To clarify the point that I made in my earlier post, the reason why we must go to the Holy Father to ammend or interpret a writing or teaching of Francis fits right in with the topic of obedience.

The Franciscan Rule has a Papal Bull on it. It was put on it by Pope Honorius. It said that anyone who disobeys the rule will suffer eternal damnation. It does not leave room for negotiation. Fidelity to the Church comes out in our belief that the Holy Father has the authority to do this and to demand this kind of obedience. Therefore, as obedient sons and daughters of the Church, we apply to him to assistance on any matter regarding the rule. Only he can change it and only he can ammend it or interpret it.

Once again, you have another example of fideity and obedience in areas where there is no room for dispute or difference of opinion unless it is authorized. There are other areas where the Church does leave room for dialogue and encourages further thought on a subject and even wants feedback from theologians, philosophers, and scientists. In those areas, the Church leaves open the door, not for disobedience, but for reflection, feedback and (name removed by moderator)ut.

One must still obey, even when one is involved in dialogue on a subject. You must obey until the Holy See says that there are changes in its position or that the dialogue is closed, as was the case in the ordination of women.

You will find no Dominican or other major religious order arguing the ordination of women. Pope John Paul II said that the cae was closed. That does not mean that you will not find individuals who want to push the limits. You’ll find those individuals in any human family. That doesn’t condemn the entire family.

I hope that I am being clearer.

Fraternally,

JR

Fraternally,

JR

Can’t you see how all this speculation is weakening the Church? Specifically, it is weakening its moral stances and losing moral high ground (based on Natural Law). St. Thomas did not do alot of this specualtive moral theology. Neither did St. Albert or St. Dominic. The Dominicans ought to get back to that model.

In the end, it won’t make much difference in a while. There are now more Muslims in the world that Catholics and they DO NOT waffle on their moral theology. Interested in learning Arabic?

 

[JReducation]

Can’t you see how all this speculation is weakening the Church? Specifically, it is weakening its moral stances and losing moral high ground (based on Natural Law). St. Thomas did not do alot of this specualtive moral theology. Neither did St. Albert or St. Dominic. The Dominicans ought to get back to that model.

In the end, it won’t make much difference in a while. There are now more Muslims in the world that Catholics and they DO NOT waffle on their moral theology. Interested in learning Arabic?

But wait a minute. You have to remember that there are somethings in Church Law and Religioius Law called Obediences. These cannot be changed without the permission of the Holy Father.

The Dominicans are a Pontifical Order. They must live according to the Rule of St. Augustine and the interpretation that they received from St. Dominic and their General Chapter. They cannot change that. Only the Pope can change that and he chooses not to let them change it.

Aquinas never help a place of authority within the Dominican Order. He is considered by the Dominicans a theological giant, but nonetheless “just another lay brother”, even though he was a priest. But mendicants don’t make those distinctions, only the laity does.

St. Albert does not play an authoritative role within the Dominican Order. Like St. Catherine of Siena, they are considered to be spiritual giants and their spirituaity is certain well observed. But they have no jurisdiction.

You’re askng the Order of Preachers to do something that only the Pope has jurisdiction to ask. Pope Paul VI and Pope Benedict have already stated that they do not want the five orders to change at this point. The five are: Augustinians (including Dominicans), Franciscans, Benedictines, Carmelites, and Jesuits. In recent chapters of the superiors general of thee orders, Pope Benedict thanked them for what they do in the Church and asked them to stay the course, especially in the area of rational inquiry and service to the poor.

The Holy Father wants these communities to engage in rational inquiry. He wants the tough questions about moral and social issues answered by these orders. He does not want disobedience to the Church. That is different. While one is studying, one must still obey what is in force at the time. Studying does not change the rules of moral law, canon law or liturgica law. Studies simply raises and answers questions. The rules can only be changed by the Holy See. The results of these studies are submitted to different committees in the Vatican who then edit them and submit their recommendations to the Holy Father for approval. The final voice is his. These orders have to submit to him.

What the Holy Father does not want is the laity intervening in the internal affairs of these orders. Nor does he want them to be infuenced by the laity. He wants them to retain their distance as they did when they were founded. This protects them from politicial secular influence and control.

Understand what I mean?

JR

 

[eichenb2]

But wait a minute. You have to remember that there are somethings in Church Law and Religioius Law called Obediences. These cannot be changed without the permission of the Holy Father.

The Dominicans are a Pontifical Order. They must live according to the Rule of St. Augustine and the interpretation that they received from St. Dominic and their General Chapter. They cannot change that. Only the Pope can change that and he chooses not to let them change it.

Aquinas never help a place of authority within the Dominican Order. He is considered by the Dominicans a theological giant, but nonetheless “just another lay brother”, even though he was a priest. But mendicants don’t make those distinctions, only the laity does.

St. Albert does not play an authoritative role within the Dominican Order. Like St. Catherine of Siena, they are considered to be spiritual giants and their spirituaity is certain well observed. But they have no jurisdiction.

You’re askng the Order of Preachers to do something that only the Pope has jurisdiction to ask. Pope Paul VI and Pope Benedict have already stated that they do not want the five orders to change at this point. The five are: Augustinians (including Dominicans), Franciscans, Benedictines, Carmelites, and Jesuits. In recent chapters of the superiors general of thee orders, Pope Benedict thanked them for what they do in the Church and asked them to stay the course, especially in the area of rational inquiry and service to the poor.

The Holy Father wants these communities to engage in rational inquiry. He wants the tough questions about moral and social issues answered by these orders. He does not want disobedience to the Church. That is different. While one is studying, one must still obey what is in force at the time. Studying does not change the rules of moral law, canon law or liturgica law. Studies simply raises and answers questions. The rules can only be changed by the Holy See. The results of these studies are submitted to different committees in the Vatican who then edit them and submit their recommendations to the Holy Father for approval. The final voice is his. These orders have to submit to him.

What the Holy Father does not want is the laity intervening in the internal affairs of these orders. Nor does he want them to be infuenced by the laity. He wants them to retain their distance as they did when they were founded. This protects them from politicial secular influence and control.

Understand what I mean?

JR

I apologize in advance for my bluntness. However, the wordiness and convoluted nature of your reply, while succinctIy avoiding the point of my reply, is disturbing to me.
St. Thomas held and holds a position of authority in the Church’s doctrine, regardless of your belittling his role. By the way, how do you be a Lay Priest?
The point that I, and others, expressed is the aforementioned orders seem to have fallen away (generally) from their original missions. My specific concern was the Dominicans. I have a huge amount of respect for St. Dominic, St. Thomas, and St. Albert. The Dominican order was founded as a Order of Preachers. “What are they to preach” one may ask. They were to preach (and practice) Orthodoxy, in a word. These days, in my opinion, most Dominicans seem to be spending too much time speculating about how to conform Catholicism to modern values. Christian values are timeless, not just modern.
Thankfully, God is raising up new orders that are returning to Orthodoxy and defending it; not speculating and following John Shelby Spongs of the world.

 

[JReducation]

I apologize in advance for my bluntness. However, the wordiness and convoluted nature of your reply, while succinctIy avoiding the point of my reply, is disturbing to me.

What I was trying to say is that you cannot take away the rights of a Pontifical Religioius Order to be obedient to itself. That violates Church law and the laws that govern religious life.

St. Thomas held and holds a position of authority in the Church’s doctrine, regardless of your belittling his role.

I’m not belittling his role in the Church at all. I said that he is a theological giant. But within his order he had no authority over his brothers. He was not its Prior General or its founder. Therefore, his order does not look to him as the guide for how to live their religious life. They look to St. Augustine and St. Dominic who are their fathers, as did St. Thomas as well.

By the way, how do you be a Lay Priest?

The Dominicans and the Franciscans were not founded as orders of priests. They were founded as lay orders of brothers. Priests were and still are allowed to join as long as they accept that within the order, their clerical status does not grant them any authority or special recognition according to the mind of Francis and Dominic. They are often referred to as lay Orders, because that’s the canonical status of the Order.

Any priest who belongs to the Order, such as Thoms or Anthony, are only to exercise that office when serving the sacramental needs of the faithful. They are often referred to as lay Priests or simply Friars. Just as priests who are not members of religious orders are called seculars. For example,the SSPX priests are seculars. This is the way that the Church divides priests, except for Carmelites and Jesuits who are clerical institutes.

cont

 

[JReducation]

The point that I, and others, expressed is the aforementioned orders seem to have fallen away (generally) from their original missions.

The Dominican order was founded as a Order of Preachers. “What are they to preach” one may ask. They were to preach (and practice) Orthodoxy, in a word.

That has not gone away. However, after Vatican II, Paul VI asked them to take their constitutions and revise them to meet the needs of the Church in a manner that was consistent with their tradition. They chose preaching and teaching.

Withing the teaching, comes the freedom for speculation. This is what some people want the Dominicans to stop doing. But they cannot stop doing that, because it is part of their identity as Dominicans to be scholars. And in addition, Paul VI sealed their revised statutes so that they cannot be touched again, except by another Pope. Pope Benedict does not want them to touch those statutes. He wants them to be speculative theologians, those who are theologians. Many are preachers. That’s the mission of the Angelicum Pontifical University in Rome, run by the Dominicans, to put tough questions on the table and grapple with them. The Holy See appreciates this.

Now, the laity wants them to change this and go back to teaching only what is already established dogma. But that is not the only thing that the Church wants them to do. The Church also wants them to give her feedback on her own teachings in areas such as morality, liturgy, scripture, philosophy and so forth.

The Church is not encouraging them to disobey, nor are Dominican friarss encouraging others to disobey. The encouragement is to think things through to their logial conclusion and to present these ideas.

In doing so, they are being faithful to the Church, because they are doing what the Holy See wants them to do. Dominic wanted them to obey the Holy See.

These days, in my opinion, most Dominicans seem to be spending too much time speculating about how to conform Catholicism to modern values. Christian values are timeless, not just modern.

In reality what they are doing is developing new systems of presenting old truths in a language that speaks to modern needs and modern intelligence. They are not changing doctrine. They are suggesting changes in areas that are related to disciplines.

Thankfully, God is raising up new orders that are returning to Orthodoxy and defending it; not speculating and following John Shelby Spongs of the world.

That is the mission of these new communities. Every community has its charism.

The first mistake that people make is to assume that all religious orders exist to serve the needs of the laity. That’s not always the case. Some were founded for scholarship, others to live in fraternity, others to be hidden from society, others to serve their members and so forth.

There is a common and understandable confusion among the laity between a religious order and an apostolic congregation. Apostolic congregations were founded to serve the laity. In their teaching and preaching, they cannot afford to speculate or debate. Their function is to communicate to the laity what the Church teaches, not the thinking that is taking place in the academic classroom or learning centers of the Church.

I for one agree that theologians should limit what they share with the laity, because there is a danger of being misunderstood.

But we must also support what Vatican II said, that it is the right of theologians and scholars to raise questions, as long as the final and authoritative conclusions are left to the Apostolic See. Don’t you think that sometimes the laity is too involved in what religious do or do not and want to run their work?

This is what many religious feel. When they begin to feel that way, they get frustrated and they want to pull away rather than spend their non academic time among lay people being brothers to them.

I’ll give you an example. Summorum Pontificum did not give priests in these orders permission to celebrate the EF. It was only granted to secular priests. Yet, many lay people are upset when these religious superiors do not allow the priests in their communities to celebrate the EF. Summorum Pontificum explicitly says that regular priests musst get permission from their major superiors who can only grant the permission if it is not in conflict with the statutes of their order. Many lay people, even on this forum where so many lay people read a great deal, don’t know this and get upset with religious who do not provide the EF. Religious, on the other hand, see this as an intrusion in their religious life and the rules of their communities.

That’s why many times the Church will encourage the religious to proceed without taking too much notice of what the laity wants to avoid the laity controlling how religious live and how they minister.

In some situations the laity are very good and well informed and do not have expectations or demands that create tension for the religious. But unfortunately, this is not always the case. I also admit that religious have often failed to educate the laity about themselves when they arrive at a parish, leaving people with the expectations that they had when they were under secular priests.

There is a serious communication problem between religious orders and the secular world regarding their mission and their way of life. This lends itself to disappointment and at times frustratioin and anger.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[eichenb2]

That has not gone away. However, after Vatican II, Paul VI asked them to take their constitutions and revise them to meet the needs of the Church in a manner that was consistent with their tradition. They chose preaching and teaching.

Withing the teaching, comes the freedom for speculation. This is what some people want the Dominicans to stop doing. But they cannot stop doing that, because it is part of their identity as Dominicans to be scholars. And in addition, Paul VI sealed their revised statutes so that they cannot be touched again, except by another Pope. Pope Benedict does not want them to touch those statutes. He wants them to be speculative theologians, those who are theologians. Many are preachers. That’s the mission of the Angelicum Pontifical University in Rome, run by the Dominicans, to put tough questions on the table and grapple with them. The Holy See appreciates this.

Now, the laity wants them to change this and go back to teaching only what is already established dogma. But that is not the only thing that the Church wants them to do. The Church also wants them to give her feedback on her own teachings in areas such as morality, liturgy, scripture, philosophy and so forth.

The Church is not encouraging them to disobey, nor are Dominican friarss encouraging others to disobey. The encouragement is to think things through to their logial conclusion and to present these ideas.

In doing so, they are being faithful to the Church, because they are doing what the Holy See wants them to do. Dominic wanted them to obey the Holy See.

In reality what they are doing is developing new systems of presenting old truths in a language that speaks to modern needs and modern intelligence. They are not changing doctrine. They are suggesting changes in areas that are related to disciplines.

That is the mission of these new communities. Every community has its charism.

The first mistake that people make is to assume that all religious orders exist to serve the needs of the laity. That’s not always the case. Some were founded for scholarship, others to live in fraternity, others to be hidden from society, others to serve their members and so forth.

There is a common and understandable confusion among the laity between a religious order and an apostolic congregation. Apostolic congregations were founded to serve the laity. In their teaching and preaching, they cannot afford to speculate or debate. Their function is to communicate to the laity what the Church teaches, not the thinking that is taking place in the academic classroom or learning centers of the Church.

I for one agree that theologians should limit what they share with the laity, because there is a danger of being misunderstood.

But we must also support what Vatican II said, that it is the right of theologians and scholars to raise questions, as long as the final and authoritative conclusions are left to the Apostolic See. Don’t you think that sometimes the laity is too involved in what religious do or do not and want to run their work?

This is what many religious feel. When they begin to feel that way, they get frustrated and they want to pull away rather than spend their non academic time among lay people being brothers to them.

I’ll give you an example. Summorum Pontificum did not give priests in these orders permission to celebrate the EF. It was only granted to secular priests. Yet, many lay people are upset when these religious superiors do not allow the priests in their communities to celebrate the EF. Summorum Pontificum explicitly says that regular priests musst get permission from their major superiors who can only grant the permission if it is not in conflict with the statutes of their order. Many lay people, even on this forum where so many lay people read a great deal, don’t know this and get upset with religious who do not provide the EF. Religious, on the other hand, see this as an intrusion in their religious life and the rules of their communities.

That’s why many times the Church will encourage the religious to proceed without taking too much notice of what the laity wants to avoid the laity controlling how religious live and how they minister.

In some situations the laity are very good and well informed and do not have expectations or demands that create tension for the religious. But unfortunately, this is not always the case. I also admit that religious have often failed to educate the laity about themselves when they arrive at a parish, leaving people with the expectations that they had when they were under secular priests.

There is a serious communication problem between religious orders and the secular world regarding their mission and their way of life. This lends itself to disappointment and at times frustratioin and anger.

Fraternally,

JR

Please show any official documentation that states that the Dominican order was founded, and continues to exist to for the purpose of speculative theology. Why are you making this so complicated. Perhaps, though, you do not see the point that I and others have made. It is not real complicated. Most Catholics are “cafeteria Catholics” who pick and choose what point of doctrine they want to emphasize or de-emphasize. Likewise, the orders has collective fallen in the same rut. What is easily excusable for the laity is not so easily overlooked for religious. Dominicans ought to be on the forefront of the battle against moral relativism and atheisms. Unfortunately, I have seen to many instances of them pushing other agendas. For example, a Dominican wrote “highly recommends” the movie “Brokeback Mountain” in a a review. Is this an example of what Dominicans are supposed to do; add to the confusion of the laity? I am going to bow out of this discussion because “what we have here is a failure to communicate”. Best of luck.

 

[Paenitens]

Having struck the match on this one, I’d like to keep the fire burning just a little longer.

JReducation, first of all, I’d like to thank you for your profound replies. You have spent much time addressing multiple issues, and you obviously have a better grasp of the histories and charisms of religious orders than I. In fact, you have enlightened me on more than a few points.

I would like to agree with eichenb2, however, in that you still haven’t addressed my initial concern, which is a noticeable lack of “fervor” in spreading the gospel from these groups of late, if not outright hostility towards the notion of doing so. Indeed, if the Franciscans never were intended to preach and actively rebuild Christ’s Church as I read you stating, and simply only live in fraternity with their brothers (and I truly do dispute this, to be honest); if the Dominicans were never primarily about preaching but more about teaching, to include speculative theology; if the Jesuits were ultimately intended only for scholasticism/academia, then just where does that leave us in this time of dire need for spreading the gospel, under pain of ridicule in some corners and death in others, including in it’s very Alma Mater of Europe, where it is all but relegated to an embarrassing historical footnote?

To me, I see an extremely disturbing trend, at least in the eight or so years I’ve been paying attention (I am essentially a revert to the faith). The trend is this: when placed in the presence of a member of an order (and in my experience this has primarily meant Jesuits) I inevitably leave more despondent in my faith than prior to the meeting. Why? In all questions religious I have found them either simply too cerebral or outright hostile to several key teachings of the Church.

Of course, that requires some explanation. In the first case, I have noticed that the Jesuitical (if that is a word) penchant for Academia has seemed to turn their Christianity into something overwhelmingly cerebral; it is a riddle to be solved and not a fire to be spread nor a salve to be shared with the sick. Or, in many other cases, I have found Jesuits to be outright hostile to various positions of the Church, prominently - you guessed it - homosexuality and abortion.

Additionally, when I see advertisements for (these are both real-world examples from the UK) Lay Dominicans who concentrate on projects such as testing out Lay preachers during Mass, or Religious/Vowed Dominicans (forgive if terminology incorrect) working on projects such as “The Liturgical Year as seen through Interpretive Dance” it all brings to mind visions such as fire fighters playing Double Dutch in front of a burning building. If we cannot rely on the sons and daughters of Fracis, Dominic, and Ignatius to face the forces which have been pummeling the Bride of Christ in our day, as they engaged them in their own day, then surely this is a Greek Tragedy (or shall I say Roman?) in its final act?

We need the cerebral philosophe, and I suppose we even need the interpretive dance. But so much more right now do we need the itinerant friars flooding the fast-food malls, and the Dominicans, over drinks, engaging locals in pubs, and the Jesuits responding to Jack Chick and Ian Paisley in public.

It’s the Lay faithful who are picking up the slack (think only of Catholic Answers, Opus Dei, Legion of Mary). But the Lay Faithful simply cannot find enough time among spouse, family, and job to do enough to turn the tide.

Thank you for your time and forgive me if I have offended against charity.

 

[JReducation]

Having struck the match on this one, I’d like to keep the fire burning just a little longer.

JReducation, first of all, I’d like to thank you for your profound replies. You have spent much time addressing multiple issues, and you obviously have a better grasp of the histories and charisms of religious orders than I. In fact, you have enlightened me on more than a few points.

I would like to agree with eichenb2, however, in that you still haven’t addressed my initial concern, which is a noticeable lack of “fervor” in spreading the gospel from these groups of late, if not outright hostility towards the notion of doing so.

Thank you for your time and forgive me if I have offended against charity.

I had to snip your post to get everything in.

Please do not apologize. I am not offended at all. Your qestions are important and they are very real. Please let me take this in pieces.

1. I did not mean to give the impression that Franciscans, Jesuits and Dominicans were not to preach. We have always preached. The founders had very specific priorities in mind when they founded us.

The Franciscans were founded as a movement to convert Catholics back to the Church through the example of their lives in fraternity. Our holy father wrote that we should preach always, but use words only when necessary.

The Dominicans were founded as an itinerant order of brother preachers. They were also to preach through education. That’s how they ended up in the great universities. That’s how Thomas Aquinas ended up most of his life in a university classroom. Much of his work was the result of his love for academic study of theology. This is a very Dominican way of preaching, along with preaching retreats and preaching from the pulpit.

The Society of Jesus was to be a society, not a religious order, of secular priests who were to protect the faith from the Protestant Reform and to preach in the missions. They were also to take over the great number of Catholic universities that had come into existence in Europe during the Rennaissance. Eventually they also picked up the foreign missions as a ministry. They were also to lead the Inquisition.

1. After the discovery of the Americas, the bishops in Europe needed to send missionaries to the “New World.” They asked the Dominicans, Franciscans and Jesuits to come. The three orders did so as a favor to the bishops. Later the bishops in the Americas needed priests to staff their new parishes and schools. Again they asked these orders to help. This is where the situation became complicated.

The Dominicans, who were initinerant preachers, never expected to find themselves as parish priests. They agreed to take on this ministry thinking that it would be short-term.

The Franciscans, who were a lay order, never expected to have to do this for a long time. They allowed more of their friars to be ordained to help the bishops, believing that this was a short-term commitment.

The Jesuits also thought that it would be a short-term commitment and that they would soon be back at the universities and running missions.

1. The bishops became very comfortable and did very little to ordain men to the priesthood. They kept handing more and more priestly duties to these three orders and any other religious order who vonlunteered to help.
2. In the 1950s the members of these orders had begun to complain to their major superiors. They had turned into parish priests. Their entire day was dedicated to serving the laity. They no longer had community recreation, community meals, the Liturgy of the Hours five times a day, community mass, community chapter, community retreat, community duties.

Among the Franciscans the number of friar priests outnumbered those friars who were not priests. They had grown so accustumbed to running parishes, that they started to run the order. Eventually the order was run by Franciscans who were priests. Franciscans who were lay men had no voice and no longer had a place in ministry. They were reduced to being the servants and house boys of the friars who were priests, so that the priests could serve the laity. The same thing happened among the Dominicans and the Jesuits.

The major superiors complained to Pope Piu XII. They wanted to pull their men out of parishes, hospitals, and other pastoral duties that were for priests. They wanted to go back to living their fraternity life and dedicating their two to three hours a day to itinerant preaching and occasional parish mission or reatreat for the laity. The Pius XII promised to get them out of there and to help them reduce the numbers of priests. He also primised them that he would help the non ordained friars get their place in the community again. The plan was to push the bishops to recruit secular men to become secular priests (diocesan priests today). Unfortunately, Pius died and the bishops never helped out these religious orders.

When Vatican II came along, the Major Superiors found that the only way to recover their men and recover their way of life was to ask the Council for a document that would liberate them to go back to their quiet existence in the friary and their part-time involvement in preaching and teaching. The Council produced a document called, Perfectae Caritatis. It demanded that all religious recover the spirit of their founders. It also demanded that all religious of Pontifical Right, rewrite their constitutions and submit them to Pope John XXIII for approval. Pope John died.

Several years passed and nothing happened. By this time the Major Superiors and the religious were beside themselves. The Council had openned the door for the laity, but the laity was not sympathetic to the needs of the religious.

 

[JReducation]

conclusion

Finally, in 1978, Pope Paul VI took action. He reviewed all of the revised Constitutions. He had the Congregation for Religious review them for fidelity to the Church and to the founders.

During this rewriting of the Constitutions, the Dominicans added the study of speculative theology in order to answer the more pressing questions of a highly secularized and more educated world. It was approved. They were still preachers, but now they were also officially scholars.

The Jesuits were given the task of challenging the theology of the Church and scrutinizing the Magisterium to ensure that everything that is said and taught is consistent with what the Pope wants to see taught. They were to be the most schoarly of all. They were given a tremendous responsibility, to study and clarify the Magisterium so that it says what the Pope believes it should say and to make sure that no one abuses the Magisterial teachings of the Church by making implications or interpretations that were not meant to be there. In other words, they replaced their old duties within the Inquisition with new duties, restudying the Magisterium and heping the bishops and Holy Father with writing and educating.

The Franciscans were told to restore equality in their order, to reduce the number of ordinations, to return to community life even if they had to give up parishes and other priestly ministries and to pick up the slack on itinerant preaching to youth, the poor, sick, elderly, immigrant, homeless and any other disadvantaged group. They were given the task to develop social programs for the poor with the help of the laity. They were told to pick up the slack of serving as spiritual directors in places where the priests are not trained in spiritual direction. I should add here, that the study of the spiritual life is not required by the Catholic Church in order to be a priest. You only have to take a one semester course. If you are going to be a religioius, you must study 6 years of it. Some diocean priests like this field and take many courses or attend many workshops, but not all.

In essence that’s the life style and mission of the three great orders today. There are always going to be some loose canons who are going to say or do dumb things. Unfortunately, this is part of any family.

As a result of many religious orders going back to the work that they had done in the past or taking on new ministries, the laity has had to pick up the slack.

The Franciscans, Dominicans, and Carmelites have tried very hard to have the Secular Orders take up this slack. However, man lay people still refuse to use a Secular Franciscan as a spiritual director, pastoral associate or a Lay Dominican as retreat master, even though he or she belongs to the Order of Preachers, or a Carmelite as guide in the mystical life, even though this is their specialty.

It’s a pity. I don’t know the numbers in other orders, but there are 600,000 Secular Francicans who run ministries in 114 countries around the world, except the USA, because the American laity always wants a priest. The Secular Orders and the Religious Brothers are often very well trained in theology and pastoral care. They don’t hear confessions or celebrate sacraments, but they can serve in any other capacity. We also have the permanent secular deacons.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Paenitens]

The Franciscans were founded as a movement to convert Catholics back to the Church…The Society of Jesus was to … protect the faith from the Protestant Reform and to preach in the missions.

Here’s where I hope we lock horns (fraternally, of course). My point all along has been that I don’t see this today…I have never seen it…I do not see these venerable orders countering/attacking heresy with any kind of fervor like we know they once did.

I see priests/brothers who, while quite possibly extremely dedicated Christians, are rather cloistered away from plain sight…for example in universities (and not mingling with the student body, but rather sequestered away in a faculty room doing high-level research) or in an office writing tracks on social justice, to name one example.

If the Franciscans, Dominicans, and Jesuits are not to be found on college campuses preaching in quads, crashing Greek parties, mingling in cafeterias on Sunday mornings talking to hung-over and probably regret-laden students; if the Franciscans, Dominicans, and Jesuits are not to be found in public squares, outside of churches, engaging commoners and intellectuals alike; if the Franciscans, Domincans, and Jesuits are no to be found roaming around The Mall in Washington, D.C., or Union Square in San Francisco, making themselves available for discussions & debates in plain site…These are where our modern-day Albigensians can be found…this is where we’re losing generation after generation of Catholics (and other Christians) to extreme individualism, outright atheism, and Islam.

Your posts have been extremely insightful, and I thank you for them. You have made me carefully consider whether my criticism is founded…whether I’m attacking the wrong organizations. I do understand your point that these orders, to varying extents, deliberately choose a more cerebral, background milieu rather than a more conspicuous one. I still am dismayed, especially in looking back at their histories, that they all have seemed to vanish out of public sight, at least in the Western world, where they are desperately needed today.

 

[Eucharisted]

Why is the Dominican habit white? Dose it symbolize Christ, the truth?

How do you clean the habits?

Do you frequent the Holy See website? (www.vatican.va)

 

[eichenb2]

Having struck the match on this one, I’d like to keep the fire burning just a little longer.

JReducation, first of all, I’d like to thank you for your profound replies. You have spent much time addressing multiple issues, and you obviously have a better grasp of the histories and charisms of religious orders than I. In fact, you have enlightened me on more than a few points.

I would like to agree with eichenb2, however, in that you still haven’t addressed my initial concern, which is a noticeable lack of “fervor” in spreading the gospel from these groups of late, if not outright hostility towards the notion of doing so. Indeed, if the Franciscans never were intended to preach and actively rebuild Christ’s Church as I read you stating, and simply only live in fraternity with their brothers (and I truly do dispute this, to be honest); if the Dominicans were never primarily about preaching but more about teaching, to include speculative theology; if the Jesuits were ultimately intended only for scholasticism/academia, then just where does that leave us in this time of dire need for spreading the gospel, under pain of ridicule in some corners and death in others, including in it’s very Alma Mater of Europe, where it is all but relegated to an embarrassing historical footnote?

To me, I see an extremely disturbing trend, at least in the eight or so years I’ve been paying attention (I am essentially a revert to the faith). The trend is this: when placed in the presence of a member of an order (and in my experience this has primarily meant Jesuits) I inevitably leave more despondent in my faith than prior to the meeting. Why? In all questions religious I have found them either simply too cerebral or outright hostile to several key teachings of the Church.

Of course, that requires some explanation. In the first case, I have noticed that the Jesuitical (if that is a word) penchant for Academia has seemed to turn their Christianity into something overwhelmingly cerebral; it is a riddle to be solved and not a fire to be spread nor a salve to be shared with the sick. Or, in many other cases, I have found Jesuits to be outright hostile to various positions of the Church, prominently - you guessed it - homosexuality and abortion.

Additionally, when I see advertisements for (these are both real-world examples from the UK) Lay Dominicans who concentrate on projects such as testing out Lay preachers during Mass, or Religious/Vowed Dominicans (forgive if terminology incorrect) working on projects such as “The Liturgical Year as seen through Interpretive Dance” it all brings to mind visions such as fire fighters playing Double Dutch in front of a burning building. If we cannot rely on the sons and daughters of Fracis, Dominic, and Ignatius to face the forces which have been pummeling the Bride of Christ in our day, as they engaged them in their own day, then surely this is a Greek Tragedy (or shall I say Roman?) in its final act?

We need the cerebral philosophe, and I suppose we even need the interpretive dance. But so much more right now do we need the itinerant friars flooding the fast-food malls, and the Dominicans, over drinks, engaging locals in pubs, and the Jesuits responding to Jack Chick and Ian Paisley in public.

It’s the Lay faithful who are picking up the slack (think only of Catholic Answers, Opus Dei, Legion of Mary). But the Lay Faithful simply cannot find enough time among spouse, family, and job to do enough to turn the tide.

Thank you for your time and forgive me if I have offended against charity.

Great post and exactly my sentiment. As regards the Dominicans, they certainly have the theological bloodline to engage the modern world and its moral relativeism, but for some reason (I am generalizing her) lack the will to do so. If I do commit to the CC, I may join a Lay Dominican order and work in this regard.

 

[eichenb2]

conclusion

Finally, in 1978, Pope Paul VI took action. He reviewed all of the revised Constitutions. He had the Congregation for Religious review them for fidelity to the Church and to the founders.

During this rewriting of the Constitutions, the Dominicans added the study of speculative theology in order to answer the more pressing questions of a highly secularized and more educated world. It was approved. They were still preachers, but now they were also officially scholars.

The Jesuits were given the task of challenging the theology of the Church and scrutinizing the Magisterium to ensure that everything that is said and taught is consistent with what the Pope wants to see taught. They were to be the most schoarly of all. They were given a tremendous responsibility, to study and clarify the Magisterium so that it says what the Pope believes it should say and to make sure that no one abuses the Magisterial teachings of the Church by making implications or interpretations that were not meant to be there. In other words, they replaced their old duties within the Inquisition with new duties, restudying the Magisterium and heping the bishops and Holy Father with writing and educating.

The Franciscans were told to restore equality in their order, to reduce the number of ordinations, to return to community life even if they had to give up parishes and other priestly ministries and to pick up the slack on itinerant preaching to youth, the poor, sick, elderly, immigrant, homeless and any other disadvantaged group. They were given the task to develop social programs for the poor with the help of the laity. They were told to pick up the slack of serving as spiritual directors in places where the priests are not trained in spiritual direction. I should add here, that the study of the spiritual life is not required by the Catholic Church in order to be a priest. You only have to take a one semester course. If you are going to be a religioius, you must study 6 years of it. Some diocean priests like this field and take many courses or attend many workshops, but not all.

In essence that’s the life style and mission of the three great orders today. There are always going to be some loose canons who are going to say or do dumb things. Unfortunately, this is part of any family.

As a result of many religious orders going back to the work that they had done in the past or taking on new ministries, the laity has had to pick up the slack.

The Franciscans, Dominicans, and Carmelites have tried very hard to have the Secular Orders take up this slack. However, man lay people still refuse to use a Secular Franciscan as a spiritual director, pastoral associate or a Lay Dominican as retreat master, even though he or she belongs to the Order of Preachers, or a Carmelite as guide in the mystical life, even though this is their specialty.

It’s a pity. I don’t know the numbers in other orders, but there are 600,000 Secular Francicans who run ministries in 114 countries around the world, except the USA, because the American laity always wants a priest. The Secular Orders and the Religious Brothers are often very well trained in theology and pastoral care. They don’t hear confessions or celebrate sacraments, but they can serve in any other capacity. We also have the permanent secular deacons.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

JR

If nothing else, you can be counted for giving it a positive spin. I tend to agree with a previous post though about the firemen playing Double Dutch in front of a burning building.

 

[JReducation]

Why is the Dominican habit white? Dose it symbolize Christ, the truth?

How do you clean the habits?

Do you frequent the Holy See website? (www.vatican.va)

The white Dominican habit was to be made out of undyed wool. That’s why it’s white. It is the habit of the Augustinian Order, but in white.

They are very difficult to keep clean, that’s why they are rarely worn for everyday use. The friars usually get only one or two max.

 

[JReducation]

If nothing else, you can be counted for giving it a positive spin. I tend to agree with a previous post though about the firemen playing Double Dutch in front of a burning building.

I was not trying to spin anything, but to tell the history of what happened and why. The orders are still trying very hard to live the life for which they were founded. We must keep in mind that in an order, as opposed to a congregation, the way of life is a priority over the activities of the order.

The activities of the order must flow from their way of life. We also have to understand that the world is a much bigger place than it was when these orders were founded and there are all kinds of events and issues cropping up everywhere.

JR