In 500 years time, what will be said of the 50 years since VaticanII?

[JReducation]

But it can also be argued that with its attempt at ecumenism, the Second Vatican Council could have been used to promote Protestant denominations and other faiths as well, thereby eliminating any future needs for councils solely for the Catholic Church. After all, everyone can be in some, even remote, union with the Pope and the bishops, no?

I believe this fear exists only the mind of some Catholics. You can tell those who say this to you to rest easy. Ecumenism is not a promotion of Protestantism or any other faith. It’s the promotion of unity. But unity must begin with honesty and self-correction. There are too many arrogant Catholics, still. Too many Catholics do not want to admit that our Catholic anscestors did a great deal of harm to each other, causing a split within the Christian Church and they did a great deal of harm to non Catholics. The cruelty went two ways and now we want to paint it as one way. That’s not the case. All the parties involved in the distancing between people of faith, Christian and others, were guilty of arrogance, impatience and at times violence.

Once we have accepted our role in the separation from others, we have to change our attitude and our language. We can no longer invite another to be in communion with us and call him a heretic or an apostate. That’s like a man corting a woman while saying to her that if she marries him he’ll make an honest woman out of her.

Then you move on to building trust. That means that you have to spend time together working on common goals. God knows that we have many: eliminate the culture of death, protect our children from pornography and moral relativism, protest our sick, elderly and poor, pray for peace and reconciliation, pray for insight so that we can listen to and understand each other. Ecumenism is not something that is achieved in a few years. It’s a process that has to be worked on and tweeked as you go along.

The idea of the aggiornamento was to replace the Catholic identity with Christian identity, the understanding that not the words, but the trust in God and the unity of the followers of Jesus Christ is what we need.

The enemy makes everything to prevent this unity. The enemy wants us to hate the Muslims as terrorist, hate the Protestants as heretics, even among Catholics hate the NO people. The unity would mean strength to resits the Enemy.

Unfortunately for many people words, what the call TRUTH, and their pride which tells them that they are the TRUE BELIEVERS and everybody else is wrong, prevents this unity.

I agree with what you’re saying and I will add what I always tell my students in theology. “Pride is a very addictive drug. It is very hard for the proud man to see himself as he truly is, because he is addicted to what he thinks he is.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Madaglan]

Wait. Can you go a little more into that?

In Eastern Christianity (Orthodoxy, Eastern Catholicism), there are in general two types of clergy: white clergy and black clergy. The white clergy are the priests and deacons who serve the lay people at the many parishes spread throughout the land. These clergy are most often married and have children. Black clergy are the monks who have been ordained priests (hieromonks) and deacons (hierodeacons). Black clergy have vows of celibacy and live to a greater degree separated from the world, in monastic settings. The Eastern bishops are chosen from the black clergy, the exception perhaps being a widower priest elevated to bishop.

The point I was getting at is that in the future certain liberal Catholics may point to this idea of distinction of clergy in support of a distinction between the female clergy and the male clergy. Instead of making the distinction that of celibacy and degree of monastic life, they would make it a distinction of sex.

 

[JReducation]

In Eastern Christianity (Orthodoxy, Eastern Catholicism), there are in general two types of clergy: white clergy and black clergy. The white clergy are the priests and deacons who serve the lay people at the many parishes spread throughout the land. These clergy are most often married and have children. Black clergy are the monks who have been ordained priests (hieromonks) and deacons (hierodeacons). Black clergy have vows of celibacy and live to a greater degree separated from the world, in monastic settings. The Eastern bishops are chosen from the black clergy, the exception perhaps being a widower priest elevated to bishop.

Just for clarification, in the Eastern Chruches, Catholic and Orthodox, consecrated religious wear black robes and veils. Some of them are ordained to the diaconate, priesthood and episcopal state. They are consecrated religious just like Franciscans, Benedictines, Dominicans, Carmelites, Carthusians, and Augustinians.

The Eastern Churches do not have Clerks Regular: Jesuits, Passionists, Fathers of Mercy, Holy Cross Fathers, Redemptorists. They only have monastic religious. In the west we have both: monastic religious, those named in the previous paragraph, and congregations of priests. The monastic religious of the east and west are not priests per se. Only some are. Their vocation is to live the consecrated life. In the East, these religious do not work among the laity or they have very little contact with the laity. In the west, we religious have much more contact with the laity by necessity. The number of lay people is much larger and the secular clergy is not enough. Many religious in the West are involved in apostolic work in parishes. However, this is changing as a result of Vatican II. The Council directed us to go back to our roots. That’s one of the several reasons for the closing of parishes.

In the past, when a bishop did not have enough secular priests to staff his parishes, he would ask a Prior, Abbot or Minister of a religious order to ordain a few men and lend them to him to run a parish. They did it. Today, they are not doing it. They are ordaining only as many priests as they need to serve in their houses and in their ministries. As a result, when a bishop cannot find priests to staff a parish, he has to merge . In addition, many of the orders took on parishes that were once rural or urban poor. With the changes in economics and demographics, those parishes are no longer urban poor or rural poor. They are now middle class. Those religious orders are returning these parishes to the bishops. In some cases, they take on a new parish in a poor area. In other cases they move out of the diocese and go to another diocese. Finally, in other cases, they move to other ministries with the poor or internal ministries of the order such as their own schools, colleges, hospitals, missions or just living in a neighborhood as a Catholic presence.

The White Clergy of the East are the secular clergy of the West. Our secular clergy are usually diocesan deacons and priests. Though some belong to societies such as the SSPX, FSSP, Maryknoll, Missionhurst and Vincentians. They are secular men, just like the man in the pew, but they are ordained. As I have said above, there are not enough of them, though their numbers are growing, but not proportionate to the population.

The point I was getting at is that in the future certain liberal Catholics may point to this idea of distinction of clergy in support of a distinction between the female clergy and the male clergy. Instead of making the distinction that of celibacy and degree of monastic life, they would make it a distinction of sex.

Any Catholic who makes this analogy is one who has no understanding of the difference between the priesthood and the consecrated life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

It’s the promotion of unity. But unity must begin with honesty and self-correction. There are too many arrogant Catholics, still.

I will agree with that. However, this unity doesn’t mean everyone is in the same COMMunion (or Apostolic Succession or canonical status) with the Pope, which may have been implied from the documents on ecumenism. Even the Pope can’t force everyone on the planet to be in communion with him.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I will agree with that. However, this unity doesn’t mean everyone is in the same communion (or Apostolic Succession or canonical status) with the Pope, which may have been implied from the documents on ecumenism. Even the Pope can’t force everyone on the planet to be in communion with him.

True. But the Pope needs to build the bridges for people to cross over to come into communion with him. The choice whether to actually cross or not belongs to those other people and groups. But the bridge has to be there for it to become a possibility.

 

[Holly3278]

I think Blessed Pope John Paul II will be mentioned a lot.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by JReducation:

Just for clarification, in the Eastern Chruches, Catholic and Orthodox, consecrated religious wear black robes and veils. Some of them are ordained to the diaconate, priesthood and episcopal state. They are consecrated religious just like Franciscans, Benedictines, Dominicans, Carmelites, Carthusians, and Augustinians.

They are perhaps more similiar to the Benedictines, Carthusians–those who maintain cenobitic monasticism. The friars, while making vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, tend to serve the lay people more directly through preaching, spiritual instruction, etc., and are not strictly speaking monks.

The Eastern Churches do not have Clerks Regular: Jesuits, Passionists, Fathers of Mercy, Holy Cross Fathers, Redemptorists. They only have monastic religious. In the west we have both: monastic religious, those named in the previous paragraph, and congregations of priests. The monastic religious of the east and west are not priests per se. Only some are. Their vocation is to live the consecrated life. In the East, these religious do not work among the laity or they have very little contact with the laity. In the west, we religious have much more contact with the laity by necessity. The number of lay people is much larger and the secular clergy is not enough. Many religious in the West are involved in apostolic work in parishes. However, this is changing as a result of Vatican II. The Council directed us to go back to our roots. That’s one of the several reasons for the closing of parishes.

Yes, the Eastern Churches do not have Clerks Regular; they also traditionally have not had religious orders as has the West.

I notice that in the East, the tendency is for the lay people to seek out the ascetics. Lay people will go to monasteries and sketes (e.g. on Mt. Athos, or at local monasteries) for spiritual illumination from spiritual elders; while in the West, the friars and missionaries (e.g. Jesuits), as well as parish clergy, bring spiritual direction to the people in the form of spiritual retreats and homiletic talks.

The White Clergy of the East are the secular clergy of the West. Our secular clergy are usually diocesan deacons and priests. Though some belong to societies such as the SSPX, FSSP, Maryknoll, Missionhurst and Vincentians. They are secular men, just like the man in the pew, but they are ordained. As I have said above, there are not enough of them, though their numbers are growing, but not proportionate to the population.

The White Clergy of the East may be compared to diocesan clergy in the West, to a certain degree. The secular clergy of the West is like the secular man in the pew in that he is a man and lives within the world (that is, is not considered a monastic); yet he necessarily vows celibacy if he is a priest (the exception being some former Anglican and other ministers who converted to Catholicism).

As I understand the situation, the Catholic Church needs both more secular and religious priests.
.

 

[JReducation]

They are perhaps more similar to the Benedictines, Carthusians–those who maintain cenobitic monasticism. The friars, while making vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, tend to serve the lay people more directly through preaching, spiritual instruction, etc., and are not strictly speaking monks.

Yes, the Eastern Churches do not have Clerks Regular; they also traditionally have not had religious orders as has the West.

I notice that in the East, the tendency is for the lay people to seek out the ascetics. Lay people will go to monasteries and sketes (e.g. on Mt. Athos, or at local monasteries) for spiritual illumination from spiritual elders; while in the West, the friars and missionaries (e.g. Jesuits), as well as parish clergy, bring spiritual direction to the people in the form of spiritual retreats and homiletic talks.

The White Clergy of the East may be compared to diocesan clergy in the West, to a certain degree. The secular clergy of the West is like the secular man in the pew in that he is a man and lives within the world (that is, is not considered a monastic); yet he necessarily vows celibacy if he is a priest (the exception being some former Anglican and other ministers who converted to Catholicism).

As I understand the situation, **the Catholic Church needs both more secular and religious priests. ** .

The bold is mine. I always like to point out that we have to be careful how we word this, because most Latin or Roman Catholics don’t know the difference between the consecrated life and the priesthood. There is a very large number of people who believe that every religious community ordains and that every religious community is a religious order. Both are incorrect. Unfortunately the terms have been used incorrectly.

Religious orders do not aspire to ordain men. They normally ordain only what THEY need, not what the local diocese needs. There are two exceptions: Dominicans and Jesuits. They were founded as orders for priests.

The congregations of priests are what we call Clerks Regular. These congregations were founded for a specific ministry. They adjust their daily life according to the needs of their ministry.

The orders: Franciscans, Augustinians, Benedictines, Carmelites, Norbertines, Trinitarians, Cistercians and Carthusians were not founded for a particular ministry. That’s why you will find that we do many different things and some of our men are not involved in any outside ministry. They work strictly within the community. We were founded to live the Gospel in a particular way, not to do a particular job in the Church. Therefore, we recruit men to live our way of life, not to be priests. The priesthood is a vocation within the call to live the life of the community. It’s up to the superior and his council to approve the ordination. No bishop can overrule him. The superior need not be a priest and is never a bishop. However, Christ calls through him.

We do need priests, but we don’t want to impose the priesthood on the orders. That would take the order back to where they were before Vatican II. That was a disaster. They were very clerical and very far removed from their charism and spirituality. Today, the orders are less clerical, much closer to their spirituality and to their charism.

Remember, no matter how much you may want priests in your parishes, you should never want them at the expense of hurting the religious life. The religious life has to survive in its pure state. Those communities that were founded as hermits, monks, friars must return to that way of life. Those that were founded to be apostolic communities of priests should return to that way of life.

As we all move closer to where we were meant to be, you will see less and less priests from religious communities in parishes. The congregations of priests were founded to teach, serve in the missions, serve among the poor, do outreach ministry, care for the sick and dying, and do retreat work and other ministries not usually done by parish priests.

What you’re going to see is more parishes being closed, merged or taken over by diocesan priests as the orders and congregations retreat to our origins and reduce the number of men that we ordain. You will see more Carmelite, Franciscan, Augustinian Friars who are not priests serving as spiritual directors, retreat masters, theology professors, administrators, health care professionals, physicians, hermits, cooks, gardeners, or doing outreach ministry. The number of ordinations in the religious orders is going to go down, because we are attracting less men.

The reason is simple. We’re no longer orders of parish priests. The big attraction WAS that you could be a Franciscan and a parish priest. Today, that is not a guarantee. You may be a parish priest or you may be assigned to walk the streets of NY as do the Franciscans of the Renewal, or assigned to teach as do Jesuits and Dominicans. Those guys who were entering the orders assured of serving in parishes are not taking their chances knowing that they may never be ordained or that if they are ordained, they may never set foot in a parish. They are joining congregations of priests. As I said, most of the congregations of priests do not do parish work or do so in very special areas such as the urban and rural poor and the missions. It’s going to depend on God to call men to be secular priests and hopefully these men will listen with an open heart.

The future is going to be interesting, especially for parish life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[hartleymartin]

I think that many church historians in 2511 will write:

Great turmoil followed the council for some decades as the influence of the secular world, including the “sexual revolution” and fashionable but intrinsically flawed secular popular thought such as moral relativism, lead to widely varied and often wildly inaccurate interpretations of what the council actually intended.

 

[Madaglan]

The bold is mine. I always like to point out that we have to be careful how we word this, because most Latin or Roman Catholics don’t know the difference between the consecrated life and the priesthood. There is a very large number of people who believe that every religious community ordains and that every religious community is a religious order. Both are incorrect. Unfortunately the terms have been used incorrectly.

Religious orders do not aspire to ordain men. They normally ordain only what THEY need, not what the local diocese needs. There are two exceptions: Dominicans and Jesuits. They were founded as orders for priests.

The congregations of priests are what we call Clerks Regular. These congregations were founded for a specific ministry. They adjust their daily life according to the needs of their ministry.

The orders: Franciscans, Augustinians, Benedictines, Carmelites, Norbertines, Trinitarians, Cistercians and Carthusians were not founded for a particular ministry. That’s why you will find that we do many different things and some of our men are not involved in any outside ministry. They work strictly within the community. We were founded to live the Gospel in a particular way, not to do a particular job in the Church. Therefore, we recruit men to live our way of life, not to be priests. The priesthood is a vocation within the call to live the life of the community. It’s up to the superior and his council to approve the ordination. No bishop can overrule him. The superior need not be a priest and is never a bishop. However, Christ calls through him.

We do need priests, but we don’t want to impose the priesthood on the orders. That would take the order back to where they were before Vatican II. That was a disaster. They were very clerical and very far removed from their charism and spirituality. Today, the orders are less clerical, much closer to their spirituality and to their charism.

Remember, no matter how much you may want priests in your parishes, you should never want them at the expense of hurting the religious life. The religious life has to survive in its pure state. Those communities that were founded as hermits, monks, friars must return to that way of life. Those that were founded to be apostolic communities of priests should return to that way of life.

As we all move closer to where we were meant to be, you will see less and less priests from religious communities in parishes. The congregations of priests were founded to teach, serve in the missions, serve among the poor, do outreach ministry, care for the sick and dying, and do retreat work and other ministries not usually done by parish priests.

What you’re going to see is more parishes being closed, merged or taken over by diocesan priests as the orders and congregations retreat to our origins and reduce the number of men that we ordain. You will see more Carmelite, Franciscan, Augustinian Friars who are not priests serving as spiritual directors, retreat masters, theology professors, administrators, health care professionals, physicians, hermits, cooks, gardeners, or doing outreach ministry. The number of ordinations in the religious orders is going to go down, because we are attracting less men.

…
[had to delete the end of your post to meet the 6000 character limit]

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I apologize if I gave the impression that religious life not directed towards the priesthood is undesirable. I believe I understand the difference between religious life and the priesthood. In the East, there is a similiar situation in that not all monks are ordained. In some cases, Eastern Christians will even confess to a spiritual father who is a monk but not a priest, and then receive absolution from an ordained priest.

Thank you for describing the situation of the religious in relation to the parish situation. My understanding is that the friars (Dominicans & Franciscans) have as their mission to complement the spiritual guidance and education given at the parish level. Therefore, I would think that the friars would do whatever is of service & public ministry to the local parish and diocesan bishop. If the bishop of the diocese needs priests, the friars will provide whatever priests they can spare. The following passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia reflects my understanding:

The word *friar *is to be carefully distinguished in its application from the word monk. For the monk retirement and solitude are undisturbed by the public ministry, unless under exceptional circumstances. His vow of poverty binds him strictly as an individual but in no way affects the right of tenure of his order. In the life of the friar, on the contrary, the exercise of the sacred ministry is an essential feature, for which the life of the cloister is considered as but an immediate preparation.

newadvent.org/cathen/06280b.htm

I know amongst the Franciscans there have been, historically since the beginning of the order, movements toward a more hermetical, solitary way of life (e.g. early Capuchins), seen as the original charism of St. Francis. There also are the perennial movements towards greater poverty. It seems to me that once the Franciscans took off as an order, there was a tendency amongst the hierarchy to regularize them within ecclesiastical life so as to avoid spiritual extremes of poverty (as happened with the fraticelli).

 

[InquisitorMax]

In 2511: *"Vague wording of what were, in essence, Church legal documents, allowed modernists to influence Catholic thinking from 1970 to 2020. Even during this period there was much disquiet from traditionalists over how these documents were interpreted in practice.

In 2021 Pope Pius XIII issued a Motu Proprio which interpreted the meaning and intent of the disputed documents in the light of tradition and how they were to be implemented in practice.

Almost overnight, thanks in no small part also to the evangelism of R. S., founder of the Order of S.C., more and more masses began to be said using the older missals and with the specific intent of reviving the aesthetics of the old rite, to the purpose of evangelism and conversion of non and lapsed Catholics alike …"*

‘How The West Was Won Back For Christ’ by G. M., available on Ment-Trans for K 3.20

 

[Madaglan]

In 2511: *"Vague wording of what were, in essence, Church legal documents, allowed modernists to influence Catholic thinking from 1970 to 2020. Even during this period there was much disquiet from traditionalists over how these documents were interpreted in practice.

In 2021 Pope Pius XIII issued a Motu Proprio which interpreted the meaning and intent of the disputed documents in the light of tradition and how they were to be implemented in practice.

Almost overnight, thanks in no small part also to the evangelism of R. S., founder of the Order of S.C., more and more masses began to be said using the older missals and with the specific intent of reviving the aesthetics of the old rite, to the purpose of evangelism and conversion of non and lapsed Catholics alike …"*

‘How The West Was Won Back For Christ’ by G. M., available on Ment-Trans for K 3.20

I think 500 years from now, JP2 will be regarded as a saint, but devotion to him will not be as unreserved as it is now. He will be highly regarded for his role in defeating communism, and for his evangelical travels around the globe; but he will be seen as an authoritarian figure, who squelched progressive movements, and was implicated in the pedophile priest scandals by moving these priests around.

If perchance the Catholic Church does a 180, returns to tradition, and discontinues the novelties that have been introduced, Catholics like Archbishop Marcel Lefevre who resisted the novelties and non-Catholic changes may be elevated to sainthood.

Maybe Catholicism will, like Orthodoxy, have a “Triumph of Catholicism” day, commemorating the day when spaceship churches were dynamited to the ground, barren altars replaced by the old resplendent ones, and Catholic art, music and praxis were restored to their former prominence.

 

[JReducation]

I apologize if I gave the impression that religious life not directed towards the priesthood is undesirable. I believe I understand the difference between religious life and the priesthood. In the East, there is a similar situation in that not all monks are ordained. In some cases, Eastern Christians will even confess to a spiritual father who is a monk but not a priest, and then receive absolution from an ordained priest.

Thank you for describing the situation of the religious in relation to the parish situation. My understanding is that the friars (Dominicans & Franciscans) have as their mission to complement the spiritual guidance and education given at the parish level. Therefore, I would think that the friars would do whatever is of service & public ministry to the local parish and diocesan bishop. If the bishop of the diocese needs priests, the friars will provide whatever priests they can spare. The following passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia reflects my understanding:

newadvent.org/cathen/06280b.htm

I know amongst the Franciscans there have been, historically since the beginning of the order, movements toward a more hermetical, solitary way of life (e.g. early Capuchins), seen as the original charism of St. Francis. There also are the perennial movements towards greater poverty. It seems to me that once the Franciscans took off as an order, there was a tendency amongst the hierarchy to regularize them within ecclesiastical life so as to avoid spiritual extremes of poverty (as happened with the fraticelli).

Unfortunately, that article has to be updated. It was very true that during the 1800s and forward the friars were at the disposal of the local bishops. Therefore, ordained many men at the request of the bishops. Vatican II turned this around. The mandate was to rewrite the constitutions to reflect the original rule.

In speaking of Dominicans and Franciscans, we have to look at them separately. They are both mendicants. Therefore, they are not tied to any diocese nor are they abound to support the ministry of any bishop. This includes ordaining men to meet the needs of a bishop or a diocese. This was never in the mind of either Dominic or Francis. In fact, they both sought the protection of the Holy See so as to be free from the bishops. The Holy See would appoint Cardinal Protectors. This way, no bishop could make any demands on them. They were bound to follow the bishop’s rules when in his diocese, but could leave at any time.

Later, the Cardinal Protectors ceased to exist. The friars came under the authority of the local bishops. This was in the late 18th century. That’s when the problem began. The bishops began to request ordained friars. Fast forward to the 20th century. The Church Creates the Sacred Congregation for Religious, which after 1985 became the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. In that process, the Church also declares that certain religious are exempt from the bishops and the laity. These become the exempt orders. There are several. Among them are the Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans, Carmelites, Augustinians, Benedictines, Cistercians and Carthusians. I know that I left out a few. But I can’t recall the whole list.

The mandate that is given to these orders is to return to our roots. He is where Dominicans and Franciscans part company.

Dominicans were founded as an order of Brother Priests. Today, we call them a clerical order or an order of clerics. However, they are not to serve the local bishop or the parish needs of the local diocese. They are to be friars. They are to be itinerant preachers and teachers. What they are doing is gradually placing more men in those positions and not taking on more parishes.

Franciscans were founded as an order of brothers. A man who was a priest could join the order, as long as he gave up his clerical privileges. He did not serve in a parish. He was not called Father, only Francis and his successors were called Father. He had to submit to the authority of his superior, be that superior a priest or not. He did whatever work was assigned to him. He was expected to celebrate the Eucharist for the brotherhood and the laity was always welcome to attend.

With the passage of time, the friars were pulled into parish work. Originally, it was in mission territories, because there were no diocesan priests. As dioceses grew around them, the bishops did not replace the friars with secular priests, as was expected. This brought disaster to the Franciscan family. What happened is what the article in the encyclopedia says. It became an assumed “fact” in the rest of the Church that the Franciscans were mostly priests, who had some religious formation, but their priestly work did not interfere with their religious life. Well, this was not the case.

The order was almost decimated. Thousands of friars were ordained and assigned to parishes. They often lived alone, had their own money, their own car, and they made their own schedules. Often they had no local superior to hold them accountable. Their lives revolved around the needs of the parish, the diocese and the lay faithful. Everything that was Franciscan was put on the back burner. For example, friars could not leave parishes to go on community retreats and to community chapters.

 

[JReducation]

What is happening is that friars are being pulled back into community life, less men are being ordained and parishes are being closed, given over to the bishops and friars are being reassigned to ministries that allow them to live in community. If a parish cannot take care of itself so that the friars can pray the LOTH, attend community recreation, community meals, community retreats, chapters,spend time in solitude or caring for each other and if parishes cannot accommodate to friars who are not ordained, but are trained theologians, spiritual directors, and parish administrators, this presents a problem. In those situations the friars may have to pull out to protect the Franciscan way of life. Also, the Franciscan Renewal has made it very clear that the friars will not stay in any parish or neighborhood that rises to middle class. As soon as that happens, the friars close shop and leave. This is part of the return to the roots, to become itinerant brothers. The ordained friar is a brother who serves the Church through priestly ministry, but not necessarilly in a parish. Many are now helping in parishes, but keeping the freedom to retreat to the friary after celebrating mass and hearing confessions.

Today, we have more men living in neighborhoods who are not involved in any ministry. They are a Franciscan presence among their neighbors. The friars are very happy doing this. There is a lot more work in outreach ministries. Therefore, there is no longer the pressure to ordain. Today, the focus in recruiting is to promote the Franciscan way of life. A man who feels called to the priesthood presents this to the Minister. The Minister consults with the council. After the friar makes perpetual solemn vows, the local house votes on whether or not Christ is calling this man to Holy Orders. However, the vote of the house is only consultative. The council and the Minister are the voice of Christ. The Minister can overrule the council, though it rarely happens.

As you can see, there is a very strong return to the 13th century and the embrace of poverty is stronger than ever. Many houses no longer have TV, radio, internet, beds, or other furnishings, except tables and chairs. More friars are sleeping on floors. Things such as medical insurance are being stopped. Friars are asking the lay faithful for help paying medical bills. When we can’t get the money, we use public clinics like anyone else. Cars are slowly starting to become a thing of the past. More friars are hitch hiking and taking public transportation. A group of friars from Boston were assigned to Costa Rica. They hitch hiked all the way there. The only belongings they had was their habit, breviary and a few changes of underwear in a backpack. We’re going to see this more often than not as we move toward the future. Many younger friars are leaving parishes and schools to stay at home to care for older friars. Ordained friars are taking positions in soup kitchens, homeless shelters, pregnancy centers and helping out the local diocesan clergy on Sunday with a mass, only when the local superior allows it.

It’s time for the article in New Advent to be rewritten to reflect what is in the constitutions of the different Franciscan obediences, the original rule and the return to the roots. Of course, we’re going to get less men entering, because it’s a much more demanding life. It requires four-years of college, four-years of theology, a year of postulancy, a year of novitiate, three to five years in temporary vows and there is no longer a promise that you will become a priest. Ordinations are determined case by case and according to the need of the friars. If we’re in a ministry where we need a priest and there is none, logic says, ordain one of our own. If there are priests, then we don’t have to do that.

It will be interesting to see what we’re going to be like in 500 years. I hope that future generations will say that we tried very hard to remain faithful to the founder.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Timothysis]

Preferring a mass in one’s everyday language means that one is unwillinging to make that little extra effort that used to be required of every Latin Rite Catholic.

Then call me unwilling. I studied 13 hours of French in college and never left with anything more than anger and frustration. There wasn’t anyone who, after completing the requirements for their degree, even pretended that they could speak French.

Is it really so “unwilling” to be able to go to Mass and participate with your full heart AND mind in the language that we know? Is it really so unreasonable to participate in a language that we know and understand?

I’ll say it again, that I think that your preference for Latin is more about the language itself than with the celebration of Mass.

 

[Madaglan]

What is happening is that friars are being pulled back into community life, less men are being ordained and parishes are being closed, given over to the bishops and friars are being reassigned to ministries that allow them to live in community. If a parish cannot take care of itself so that the friars can pray the LOTH, attend community recreation, community meals, community retreats, chapters,spend time in solitude or caring for each other and if parishes cannot accommodate to friars who are not ordained, but are trained theologians, spiritual directors, and parish administrators, this presents a problem. In those situations the friars may have to pull out to protect the Franciscan way of life. Also, the Franciscan Renewal has made it very clear that the friars will not stay in any parish or neighborhood that rises to middle class. As soon as that happens, the friars close shop and leave. This is part of the return to the roots, to become itinerant brothers. The ordained friar is a brother who serves the Church through priestly ministry, but not necessarilly in a parish. Many are now helping in parishes, but keeping the freedom to retreat to the friary after celebrating mass and hearing confessions.

Today, we have more men living in neighborhoods who are not involved in any ministry. They are a Franciscan presence among their neighbors. The friars are very happy doing this. There is a lot more work in outreach ministries. Therefore, there is no longer the pressure to ordain. Today, the focus in recruiting is to promote the Franciscan way of life. A man who feels called to the priesthood presents this to the Minister. The Minister consults with the council. After the friar makes perpetual solemn vows, the local house votes on whether or not Christ is calling this man to Holy Orders. However, the vote of the house is only consultative. The council and the Minister are the voice of Christ. The Minister can overrule the council, though it rarely happens.

…

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for your two informative back-to-back posts. What you write calls to mind something I heard last weekend when I ate out with friends. We were discussing the closing of ethnic-based parishes in the area, and one gentleman brought up the Croation parish that was closed, even though it had a considerable number of parishoners. According to him, the bishop asked the two Franciscan priests at the parish to leave. He made it sound as though the bishop simply wanted to merge the churches, and so closed the ethnic ones, merging them with everyone else. At the time, I wondered why the bishop would ask the Franciscans to leave and then close the thriving, financially healthy parish. Now, after reading your explanation, I’ve thought maybe it was to return the Franciscans to where they belonged, but there are still some questions in my mind. Whether or not the Franciscan way of life was a consideration of the bishopasking the Franciscans to leave, the question I wonder: would it be acceptable for Franciscans to leave an active parish when there is no replacement for them?

Your mention of a younger generation of more itinerant friars who more fully embrace poverty is something I have yet to see, although I would be interested in seeing these men in the years to come. I’ve been to Franciscan University, and the friars there lived community life and according to a rule, but they were in charge of running a univeristy, teaching, advising, etc. and they struck me more as friars who worked with a largely middle-class and upper-class base of students who attended the school. Which leads me to a question: is Franciscan involvment in higher education conformable to the Franciscan way of life? Also, is there room for academic friars (e.g. persons like John Duns Scotus) in the Franciscan way of life?

I did not realize the long period of formation for a Franciscan. I note that there are four years of theology but no years of philosophy. I know that diocesean seminarians take something like 2 years of philosophy before something like 4 years of theology. Does Franciscan formation involve the taking of philosophy courses? Are they incorporated into the 4 years of college or 4 years of theology?

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for your two informative back-to-back posts. What you write calls to mind something I heard last weekend when I ate out with friends. We were discussing the closing of ethnic-based parishes in the area, and one gentleman brought up the Croation parish that was closed, even though it had a considerable number of parishoners. According to him, the bishop asked the two Franciscan priests at the parish to leave. He made it sound as though the bishop simply wanted to merge the churches, and so closed the ethnic ones, merging them with everyone else. At the time, I wondered why the bishop would ask the Franciscans to leave and then close the thriving, financially healthy parish. Now, after reading your explanation, I’ve thought maybe it was to return the Franciscans to where they belonged,

There is probably misinformation here. No bishop has the authority to ask Franciscan friars to leave a parish. That is called suppression. Franciscans are exempt religious. Once the bishop welcomes them into his diocese he cannot dispose of them, not matter what laws they break. He can only complain to their superior. Only the superior can pull them. If they left, it was because the superior pulled them. The bishop is informed of this before it happens.

I wonder: would it be acceptable for Franciscans to leave an active parish when there is no replacement for them?

Yes, because the preservation of the Franciscan way of life is the first priority of the order. This is not just for Franciscans, but for all religious orders. Religious orders have a moral duty to protect and preserve their way of life first, then the diocese and the needs of the lay faithful. Usually, they go hand in hand. It’s a matter of degrees. In the case of Franciscans, the need of the lay faithful is to have friars that live the Franciscan life, not friars who say mass and hear confessions. The lay faithful can find diocesan priests to do that. But they cannot find diocesan priests to witness to the Gospel in the manner of St. Francis.

Your mention of a younger generation of more itinerant friars who more fully embrace poverty is something I have yet to see, although I would be interested in seeing these men in the years to come.

Check out Franciscans of the Renewal

I’ve been to Franciscan University, and the friars there lived community life and according to a rule, but they were in charge of running a university, teaching, advising, etc. and they struck me more as friars who worked with a largely middle-class and upper-class base of students who attended the school. Which leads me to a question: is Franciscan involvement in higher education conformable to the Franciscan way of life? Also, is there room for academic friars (e.g. persons like John Duns Scotus) in the Franciscan way of life?

Franciscans will always be involved in higher education, because it’s part of our heritage. Our first generation of friars were involved at the universities of Padua, Paris, Oxford and Salamanca. These universities do not constitute middle class parishes. They are in a different situation. If the friars do not run them, they cease to exist. If the friars do not run a parish, the bishop has to provide for those people. Bishops do not have to provide colleges and universities. Education has always been the work of religious.

I did not realize the long period of formation for a Franciscan. I note that there are four years of theology but no years of philosophy. I know that diocesan seminarians take something like 2 years of philosophy before something like 4 years of theology. Does Franciscan formation involve the taking of philosophy courses? Are they incorporated into the 4 years of college or 4 years of theology?

I did not mention philosophy because in the USA we do not accept men until they complete their college degree. They should already come with either a philosophy degree or they take the required philosophy courses in grad school, which extends the number of years, instead of four years to get a Master’s Degree, it will take them five to six. Most people can get the 30 credits in philosophy in one year or 1.5 yrs.

When we speak about formation, we’re talking about formation after college. Once in a while, you may get a really good candidate who is in his last year of college and he will be admitted as a postulant and allowed to attend school at the same time that he does his postulancy. Most of us usually suggest that they do one thing at a time. However, there is no law that says that a postulant or a friar in temporary vows cannot be in school during formation. The only time when you cannot be in school, because Canon Law forbids it, is during novitiate. During the novitiate year, you may not leave the house. Your year is spent studying the Holy Rule, history of the order, Franciscan Spirituality, Franciscan Theology, Franciscan Liturgy, Francis’ life and writings, Canon Law for religious, external customs and everything Franciscan. Franciscans have an obsession with Franciscan life and Francis of Assisi. We admit it. LOL

He continues to exert a very powerful influence over his sons, more so than over his daughters. I’ve always found that rather interesting.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[InquisitorMax]

Look, look, look, it’s very simple.

If Latin is used some of the laity will apostasise. Especially if the old rite is used. People are too busy and too simple to get to grips with it. Some also very much detest Latin. And Chant.

The Mass must be made as simple as possible so that the most indifferent or unintelligent person can understand it quickly.

Mass must also be short, so people can get to their cars in time and go shopping.

It’s primarily directed at the congregation so their wishes are paramount.

You can’t have a Mass without a congregation.

The old rite had failings which the Novus Ordo fixed.

 

[JReducation]

Look, look, look, it’s very simple.

If Latin is used some of the laity will apostasise. Especially if the old rite is used. People are too busy and too simple to get to grips with it. Some also very much detest Latin. And Chant.

The Mass must be made as simple as possible so that the most indifferent or unintelligent person can understand it quickly.

Mass must also be short, so people can get to their cars in time and go shopping.

It’s primarily directed at the congregation so their wishes are paramount.

You can’t have a Mass without a congregation.

The old rite had failings which the Novus Ordo fixed.

What was that?

 

[InquisitorMax]

Irony.