I want to be a priest

[Cashue]

I know I feel stupid for not knowing what a deacon is… But I know now! I’m 17yrs old… I don’t know why exacly why I wish I could wear one but maybe its because I feel different in some ways just like priests… U know what im saying? Like this time when I was at the airport I saw a priest wearing it and I just had a feeling… Something that was calling me or something like that… I don’t know what it was but it was special…

I think your desire to serve God is wonderful. I would say use this time to READ THE BIBLE FROM COVER TO COVER and pray to God everyday asking him sincerly what his path is for you. This is different from saying ‘dear God, this is what I want to do’ Rathe say ‘dear God, please, please show me what you want me to do’

So, while you are still young, read the bible from Genesis to Revelation (there are 66 books) this is a good way to see if you are really dedicated, and pray for guidance.

 

[Toribus]

This is plain untrue.

As a vowed religious I know. Yes we have our habit but there are places were we can not wear our habits when we minister. Some hospitals do not allow us to wear our habits also, in areas of high heat, the wearing of the habit is not always practical. In those situations we can and do wear the Roman Collar. This is, as you say, according to the practice of the order.

Do not forget, that some orders do not have a habit so all of their members wear the Roman collar.

Congratulations on finding your home in the church, and being accepted to simple vows! I am not yet as far along as you, though the Lord leads us at the pace of his choosing.

I find it strange that you say my statement is “plain untrue”, then go on to give an elaboration which agrees with it. If a hospital doesn’t permit you to wear your habit (for whatever reason) and you comply in order to conduct your duties there, that doesn’t change the fact that the habit remains more proper, and desirable if not for that requirement.

So too when using the collar in lieu of the habit for reasons of practicality - it’s a compromise with the ideal in light of circumstance, rather than a refutation of the ideal. It is common now for avowed men in formation to wear the collar as a distinguishing mark when the habit is impractical, but this is a continuation of the traditional practice (where these men would have already been tonsured as clerics, and therefore entitled to the collar) rather than a distinction from what I said above.

As for unhabited communities, they more often than not wear plain clothes (with a badge or pin to identify) rather than the Roman Collar. This is obvious for unhabited women religious, but more common for men than many realise. The Roman Collar is still, first and foremost, proper to clerics, and all non-clerics who wear it do so in reference to them. It’s never been a general piece of “churchy” attire applicable to anyone who happens to perform a sacred function, otherwise women would properly be wearing them too.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Congratulations on finding your home in the church, and being accepted to simple vows! I am not yet as far along as you, though the Lord leads us at the pace of his choosing.

I find it strange that you say my statement is “plain untrue”, then go on to give an elaboration which agrees with it. If a hospital doesn’t permit you to wear your habit (for whatever reason) and you comply in order to conduct your duties there, that doesn’t change the fact that the habit remains more proper, and desirable if not for that requirement.

Yes, the habit is the more “proper” and desirable, at least for me, but that does not change the fact that the Roman Collar is an option for non-clergy religious. Especially those orders/communities that do not have a habit.

What is plain untrue is that the Roman Collar is reserved for clergy and seminarians. After all, seminarians are nothing more than laymen studying for ordination. Vowed religious may and do wear the Roman Collar and it is not a violation of any rules or disciplines.

As for unhabited communities, they more often than not wear plain clothes (with a badge or pin to identify) rather than the Roman Collar. This is obvious for unhabited women religious, but more common for men than many realise. The Roman Collar is still, first and foremost, proper to clerics, and all non-clerics who wear it do so in reference to them. It’s never been a general piece of “churchy” attire applicable to anyone who happens to perform a sacred function, otherwise women would properly be wearing them too.

Yes this may be, but many male communities that do not have a habit use the Roman Collar when they are working in their ministries. Two that come to mind are the Christian Brothers and the Marist Brothers. I have seen both and been taught in the novitiate by the later.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

I think your desire to serve God is wonderful. I would say use this time to READ THE BIBLE FROM COVER TO COVER and pray to God everyday asking him sincerly what his path is for you. This is different from saying ‘dear God, this is what I want to do’ Rathe say ‘dear God, please, please show me what you want me to do’

So, while you are still young, read the bible from Genesis to Revelation (there are 66 books) this is a good way to see if you are really dedicated, and pray for guidance.

There are more than 66 books.

 

[LilyM]

There are more than 66 books.

72, I believe, in the Catholic Bible. Ie THE Bible, as canonised in the 300s.

 

[hitherwood1]

After all, seminarians are nothing more than laymen studying for ordination.

Absolutely NOT true. Under the old order, a tonsured seminarian was a cleric and termed Reverend. In the UK he was then released from military service and could not become a member of a jury - although I am not (yet) a seminarian, I think the same applies to Admission to Candidacy.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Absolutely NOT true. Under the old order, a tonsured seminarian was a cleric and termed Reverend. In the UK he was then released from military service and could not become a member of a jury - although I am not (yet) a seminarian, I think the same applies to Admission to Candidacy.

Yes I do believe that tonsure did admit one to the clergy as did ordination to the minor orders.

Today, seminarians are not tonsured and the minor orders have been suspended.

A seminarian is a layman, as are vowed religious.

 

[hitherwood1]

Yes I do believe that tonsure did admit one to the clergy as did ordination to the minor orders.

Today, seminarians are not tonsured and the minor orders have been suspended.

A seminarian is a layman, as are vowed religious.

I see you didn’t study logic! There are a huge number of non sequiturs in your reply. I assumed that you had read that tonsure has been replaced by Admission, but you side-step that issue. Secondly, nobody was ORDAINED to minor orders - they were conferred.
If vowed religious are laymen - why would they wear a clerical collar which by definition assumes a clerical state - it serves absolutely no purpose except that the wearer has to keep asserting ’ I can offer you nothing - I can’t hear your confession, I’m not a priest, I’m not a fully fledged hospital pastor, I won’t be able to offer you counselling, I’m not able to administer the Anointing of the Sick, I can’t preside at your child’s baptism. The concept of a layman in a clerical collar is just a joke whether (as in the original posting) it is a teenager or a vowed religious - it signifies absolutely nothing and in a Church that relies deeply on significations, I find your reply deeply disturbing and ill-informed.

 

[RobNY]

Absolutely NOT true. Under the old order, a tonsured seminarian was a cleric and termed Reverend. In the UK he was then released from military service and could not become a member of a jury - although I am not (yet) a seminarian, I think the same applies to Admission to Candidacy.

“Can. 266 §1. Through the reception of the diaconate, a person becomes a cleric and is incardinated in the particular church or personal prelature for whose service he has been advanced.”

The clerical state does not begin until the diaconate.

And so, as far as I know, neither the minor orders of lector or acolyte make one a cleric.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PX.HTM

I think that for a short period of time the candidacy may have replaced the tonsure, but that’s not the case any more.

I see you didn’t study logic! There are a huge number of non sequiturs in your reply. I assumed that you had read that tonsure has been replaced by Admission, but you side-step that issue. Secondly, nobody was ORDAINED to minor orders - they were conferred.

While ByzCath may be wrong about some things, it doesn’t follow (or in latin, “non sequitur”) that he is making any logical mistakes.

It seems that vowed religious, who are not ordained to the diaconate at least, are yet not clerics (according to the new canon law, and the suppression of the old rites), and yet I’m pretty sure they do wear “clericals.” That being said, a cleric without the major orders couldn’t “offer anything” even in the old system, for what special authority did a cleric have in the old system? Of the things you listed, he did not have to be a priest, be able to offer confessions, give counseling, offer anointing of the sick, or even preside at a baptism. Being a cleric is a juridical standing, not a sacramental standing.

Surely curious things happen since the law has changed (like the interesting question of whether and in what capacity an acolyte may substitute for a subdeacon in the extraordinary form of the Mass, not being a cleric), but I think ByzCath has the idea basically right.

God bless,
Rob

 

[Tsuwano]

Yes I do believe that tonsure did admit one to the clergy as did ordination to the minor orders.

Today, seminarians are not tonsured and the minor orders have been suspended.

A seminarian is a layman, as are vowed religious.

Is it true that minor orders have been suspended? I’m under the impression they are usually granted at a date closer to priestly ordination than in the past, but that they are still valid and conferred upon those approaching ordination.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I see you didn’t study logic! There are a huge number of non sequiturs in your reply. I assumed that you had read that tonsure has been replaced by Admission, but you side-step that issue. Secondly, nobody was ORDAINED to minor orders - they were conferred.

Yes you are correct, minor orders were conferred and when they were conferred one became part of the clergy. Admission does not make one clergy.

If vowed religious are laymen - why would they wear a clerical collar which by definition assumes a clerical state - it serves absolutely no purpose except that the wearer has to keep asserting ’ I can offer you nothing - I can’t hear your confession, I’m not a priest, I’m not a fully fledged hospital pastor, I won’t be able to offer you counselling, I’m not able to administer the Anointing of the Sick, I can’t preside at your child’s baptism. The concept of a layman in a clerical collar is just a joke whether (as in the original posting) it is a teenager or a vowed religious - it signifies absolutely nothing and in a Church that relies deeply on significations, I find your reply deeply disturbing and ill-informed.

Vowed religious and seminarians may were clerics if it is approved by their superiors.

Then you must also think that a deacon wearing a clerical collar is a joke as they can not hear confessions, is not a fully fledged hospital pastor (which does not exist, I think you mean chaplain), and can not administer the Anointing of the Sick.

As a Catholic, as you claim to be, you should know that being clergy has nothing to do with counseling or with baptism as counseling is not a sacrament and baptism can be performed by anyone.

What I find deeply disturbing is people such as yourself who seem to think they have superior knowledge about religious life and the rules we must follow than those of us who actually life that life.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And so, as far as I know, neither the minor orders of lector or acolyte make one a cleric.

When these were minor orders, along with exorcist, porter and sub-deacon, they did carry with them being clergy. But the minor orders have been suppressed in the Latin Church (except for the religious groups that practice the Extraordinary Form) and in the Byzantine rite Churches were sub-deacon still exists.

While ByzCath may be wrong about some things, it doesn’t follow (or in latin, “non sequitur”) that he is making any logical mistakes.

It seems that vowed religious, who are not ordained to the diaconate at least, are yet not clerics (according to the new canon law, and the suppression of the old rites), and yet I’m pretty sure they do wear “clericals.” That being said, a cleric without the major orders couldn’t “offer anything” even in the old system, for what special authority did a cleric have in the old system? Of the things you listed, he did not have to be a priest, be able to offer confessions, give counseling, offer anointing of the sick, or even preside at a baptism. Being a cleric is a juridical standing, not a sacramental standing.

Surely curious things happen since the law has changed (like the interesting question of whether and in what capacity an acolyte may substitute for a subdeacon in the extraordinary form of the Mass, not being a cleric), but I think ByzCath has the idea basically right.

God bless,
Rob

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Is it true that minor orders have been suspended? I’m under the impression they are usually granted at a date closer to priestly ordination than in the past, but that they are still valid and conferred upon those approaching ordination.

The minor orders of exorcist, porter, and sub-deacon have been suppressed. Lector and acolyte still exist but are no longer considered minor orders. One is now installed as a lector and acolyte.

 

[hitherwood1]

counseling is not a sacrament

If you can show me where I stated it WAS a sacrament, I will happily retract and repent.
I am referring to an incident told to me by my parish priest. He was on a plane from Chicago to LA - he is a qualified liturgist trained at Notre Dame. He sat beside a female passenger and he was wearing his clericals. Over the next two hours she poured out her life and soul to him, including her matrimonial woes. He was able to offer counselling because this had been included in his seminary training and because he was familiar with marriage tribunals, he was able to offer practical advice and reconciliation.

If you search the vocations sites or the internet in general, you will find that non-ordained collar wearers are continually having to add the rider “I’m sorry, but I am not a priest”.
Please - and this is still outstanding - a clerical collar signifies what exactly?

And no I do not pretend to know everything about religious life - at least you are right on that score. I am a 15 year old struggling with my vocation, but after reading your reply I’m more inclined to join a Diocese than a Religious Order - they appear to be gentler!

 

[miniquedoes]

And no I do not pretend to know everything about religious life - at least you are right on that score. I am a 15 year old struggling with my vocation, but after reading your reply I’m more inclined to join a Diocese than a Religious Order - they appear to be gentler!

Wow your a little young to be so arrogant don’t you think? :tsktsk:

 

[ayet]

Clerical dress is reserved to clerics. In light of longstanding practice, the privilege is extended to seminarians who under present law are not technically clerics until ordained Deacons and to altar servers while performing their liturgical duties. The proper dress of avowed religious is not the Roman Collar, but the habit. Religious who are also clerics of course have the option to wear both, according to the practice of their order.

As for people who are not entitled to wear clerical dress, but doing so anyway, this is considered “impersonating a cleric” by the Code of Canon Law. This is very bad, and subject to canonical sanctions (ie: it’s a crime and you could be punished). This is especially true if one is impersonating a cleric with malevolent cause - assuming honours not in accord with one’s personal dignity, abusing the confidence of the faithful, etc.

Basically, unless the Church tells you that you can wear a Roman Collar, you shouldn’t be anywhere near it. If your primary reason for wanting to be a priest is to wear the uniform… frankly, it’s not unheard of. All vocations start somewhere, and many priests have admitted that the first time they thought about it was imagining themselves in the collar.

But it takes prayer to get any further, prayer and study. Finding out what a deacon is might be a good start. =)

how about ex-convent nun wearing habit? this old woman says "i continue my promise and made my own habit :nun1: "

 

[budgie2]

Mmmm… I’m not that crazy !!! But seriously I think I would look so cool with it and people at the street would be like “ohh wow thats awesome!” LOL

My priests don’t look like that. They’re all in the seventies. Not if you’re too good looking.

 

[budgie2]

Just regards your picture on the first page advertising priestwear. Our priests don’t look like that although I saw a priest in Spain that loved himself. Our priests are over seventy. Not if you’re too good looking.

 

[hitherwood1]

Wow your a little young to be so arrogant don’t you think? :tsktsk:

So, is it more acceptable in older people? At least teens can grow out of it - it seems adults can’t, otherwise why make such a silly remark?

 

[miniquedoes]

So, is it more acceptable in older people? At least teens can grow out of it - it seems adults can’t, otherwise why make such a silly remark?

Because you are trying to correct those who have a lot more experience in religious life and actually know what they are talking about If you think you are being called to the priesthood you should start working on humility. I am not saying this to be mean but you come across as rude when replying to some of the people on here