Is it against tradition for a pope to be a religious?

[JReducation]

During my man years doing this ministry (online teaching) I have noticed an involuntary resistance to the influence of religious life in wider Church, especially among left and right, not as much among those in the center. Once in awhile I see posters say that religious spirituality and customs have no place among the laity or that the Church has no right to generalize customs from the religious house to the parish. I’ve seen people say that the religious is not the same as other Catholics and he or she has nothing to say to the lay Catholic. I’ve always figured that those who make such comments don’t really understand that religious life has always influenced the Church, especially from the inside.

Many forms of liturgy, music, art and prayer have to come to the greater Church from the religious life. It’s just that they have been around for so long that today’s layman does not know that these began with religious. For example, how many lay people know that the tabernacle front and center was a novelty introduced by Franciscans? How many people know that the Stations of the Cross were another novelty introduced by Franciscans? How many people know that Francis of Assisi introduced plays and pageants into the liturgy as early as 1219 and they have always been there? How many people know that interfaith dialogue between Catholics and non-Catholics go back to the early Jesuits and the Dominicans of the 16th century and that dialogue between Catholics and Jews and Catholics and Muslims began with Franciscans in 1221? Many Catholics don’t know that Communion in the Hand was not a novelty introduced by 20th century bishops in Europe, but Franciscans of the Capuchin tradition back in the 1500s. The Europeans simply copied something that was already done. Just as in the past, other things that came out of the conventual life rattled people back then, these things rattle people today.

I don’t really want to discuss all of these things that the religious families have introduced into Catholic life over the centuries. There are too many contributions and everyone has an opinion. Most opinions are not very useful for two very important reasons. First, these opinions are not going to change reality. I’m of the belief that if one’s opinion does not have an impact than such an opinion is not very useful. Second, these opinions are often knee-jerk reactions. Knee-jerk reactions can change over time, as do most opinions.

However, I am interested in another phenomenon related to religious life and the larger Catholic tradition. On a thread about Pope Francis’ latest statement on Vatican II, a post wrote that he or she wanted to go back to the days when monasteries and convents were full. Let’s start with the fact that those monasteries and convents are filled with religious, not laymen. There are lay religious, but these men and women are not part of the laity.

Why would we want convents and monasteries full of religious, be they lay or clerics? Ever since Pope Francis was elected, many people on this forum have been hypercritical of everything that he does or refuses to do precisely because HE IS A RELIGIOUS.

If one does not want a pope who is a religious; if one does not want a pope who lives according to his religious vocation; if one does not want a pope who is an orthodox religious; if one does not want a pope who refuses to live in a palace, wear read shoes, wear the other royal garments that are traditionally part of the dress of secular pope, precisely because HE’S NOT A SECULAR POPE; then why want religious houses that are full?

Religious houses of men that are full increase the possibility of one of these men becoming a pope in the future. Or do we want religious houses that are full, but keep their charism and way of life out of our way? Why purpose do religious serve the average layman, if they are to remain out of the way, if they cannot bring their gifts to whatever office the Holy Spirit chooses to place them in?

As a religious, I find this attitude very offensive and very discouraging. I often feel as if someone were saying to me, “We like having you around so that you can do whatever we want. However, please don’t get in our way with your ecclesiology, your charism, your faith, your spirituality, your traditions, your history and your way of living the Gospel. We find it highly inconvenient and we’re not interested. Our only use for you is to have you pray for us, administer the sacraments, and run institutions for us.”

We want religious, but God forbid that if one of them becomes pope he should live as a religious. If that’s not offensive, what is?

I do admit that we have lost the tradition of electing our popes from among religious.

 

[choliks]

This relates to your “Catholics are Utilitarian” thread a few months back.

Probably because the Religious “disappeared” in the tapestry of secular Church life before Vatican II. Since the religious re-emerged with a thrust to be faithful to the charisms of the founders, people got agitated and uncomfortable. They’re not used to seeing the religious not walking in the shoes of the secular cleric, so to speak.

 

[twf]

I appreciate your frustration Brother. For what it’s worth, I have mentioned this important point to a number of people since the election. It is not fair to pit Benedict and Francis against each other when the former is a secular priest and the latter a consecrated religious. The papacy should be treated like any other episcopal office when it comes down to it - and it is certainly not unheard of for a religious man, upon elevation to the episcopate, to continue to wear his habit or to choose to live in community rather than in the episcopal palace.

Our Lord reigns in heaven as a glorious king, but He also came to earth as a suffering servant who emptied Himself for the sake of His flock. In the local church the bishop is a living icon of Christ the Head; in the universal Church, the pope is the living icon of Christ the Head. The diverse men God calls to this most noble office are used by the Holy Spirit to emulate and emphasize different qualities of the Lord who’s vicars they are. By emphasizing and reviving certain traditional external trappings of the papacy, Pope Emeritus Benedict reminded us of the dignity of the office of bishop/pope as representative of Christ the King; Pope Francis, as a religious man, is choosing to place greater emphasis on his role as representative of Christ the suffering servant. (Disclaimer: Not to say that Pope Emeritus Benedict was not an excellent servant of the servants of God as well! In terms of personal preferences, I am more partial to Benedict’s style - but that is besides the point).

 

[Saints_Alive]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...wr8lto8UdkelbJfCHJmnAgmNNngRDBMESm4FUjLacDh8g

:knight2:

 

[JReducation]

This relates to your “Catholics are Utilitarian” thread a few months back.

Probably because the Religious “disappeared” in the tapestry of secular Church life before Vatican II. Since the religious re-emerged with a thrust to be faithful to the charisms of the founders, people got agitated and uncomfortable. **They’re not used to seeing the religious not walking in the shoes of the secular cleric, **so to speak.

Bold is mine.

This is very important. Speaking to one of the Franciscans of the Renewal one day, we were sharing the impression that many in the extremes, left and right, are uncomfortable with those religious who have gone back. I mean way back to the early days of religious life, not back to pre-Vatican II but post Vatican I.

The idea of Jesuit pope behaving like St. Ignatius or St. Francis of Assisi, rather than St. Pius X, rattles some people. While St. Pius X was a Franciscan, he was not a regular Franciscan. He was a secular Franciscan. This allowed him more wiggle room. Even St. Pius made the Vatican elite quite uncomfortable with his Franciscan simplicity.

Pope Leo XIII was also a Secular Franciscan. He rattled the bishops with an encyclical on St. Francis of Assisi and the Secular Franciscan Order in which encyclical he directed the bishops of the world to promote the Secular Franciscan order. This triggered discomfort, because many bishops were not familiar with Franciscan spirituality, much less with the spirituality and way of life of the Secular Franciscans.

Pope Nicholas IV also rattled the Holy See when he gave half of the Church’s money to the cardinals, created an collegiality (surprise) modeled on Franciscan collegiality. He made peace the object of his pontificate. He also refused to live at St. John Lateran and refused to wear shoes. He wore his Franciscan habit and sandals, even at mass.

It was after Vatican I that religious orders began to imitate the secular clergy, even wearing clerical shirts in place of habits. The secular seminaries began to imitate religious novitiates, even introducing community prayer, Gregorian chant, community schedule and a common dress code. By the early 20th century, you can’t tell the religious apart from the secular and the other way around.

Now, we’re trying to make that distinction and people don’t want it. What’s that about?

 

[JReducation]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...wr8lto8UdkelbJfCHJmnAgmNNngRDBMESm4FUjLacDh8g

:knight2:

Lost me . . . please help.

 

[Saints_Alive]

Lost me . . . please help.

What are the Dominicans ? Chopped liver ? They never get any ink around here !

 

[robert7685]

It probably would have helped if the Holy Father had simply reminded people that he was trained to avoid pomp and embrace simplicity. I know that he as the pope is not accountable to anyone on earth, but simply casting aside clothing meant to express symbolism, and eschewing the papal palace with only a vague reference to humility can have unintended consequences.

1. It can give the impression that the predecessors were not being humble in using what Pope Francis has cast aside. Plus, it puts any successor who wishes to bring them back in a tough spot. I can picture the accusations of puffed up pride and self exaltation.
2. It gives the impression that those things no longer have any meaning or value. That can have a devastating impact on the spiritual level.

Again, it’s unintentional.

On a final note, not everyone has been ripping the Pope to shreds. I give two prominent examples.

1. The Remnant Newspaper- Matthew Matt has repeatedly said that he has taken a wait and see stance, and that there is no reason to panic right now
2. The SSPX - As far as I’ve seen, they’ve been silent on the criticisms often cited on the internet, and have even **praised him for dedicating his pontificate to Our Lady of Fatima. **

 

[triumphguy]

What are the Dominicans ? Chopped liver ? They never get any ink around here !

Isn’t Aquinas’s legacy enough for one order?

 

[JReducation]

What are the Dominicans ? Chopped liver ? They never get any ink around here !

Why would you say something like that?

We have a number of very interesting Dominican popes. One of my favorites is Benedict XIII. He was a disaster as an administrator, but a very holy man who brought asceticism back to the papacy. He was extremely poor. He made Pope Francis look like nobility. He was also the pope who legalized smoking for Catholics, which is kind of funny. Until reading about him, I did not know that smoking had ever been forbidden.

It probably would have helped if the Holy Father had simply reminded people that he was trained to avoid pomp and embrace simplicity. I know that he as the pope is not accountable to anyone on earth, but simply casting aside clothing meant to express symbolism, and eschewing the papal palace with only a vague reference to humility can have unintended consequences.

1. It can give the impression that the predecessors were not being humble in using what Pope Francis has cast aside. Plus, it puts any successor who wishes to bring them back in a tough spot. I can picture the accusations of puffed up pride and self exaltation.
2. It gives the impression that those things no longer have any meaning or value. That can have a devastating impact on the spiritual level.

Again, it’s unintentional.

On a final note, not everyone has been ripping the Pope to shreds. I give two prominent examples.

1. The Remnant Newspaper- Matthew Matt has repeatedly said that he has taken a wait and see stance, and that there is no reason to panic right now
2. The SSPX - As far as I’ve seen, they’ve been silent on the criticisms often cited on the internet, and have even **praised him for dedicating his pontificate to Our Lady of Fatima. **

I don’t think that the religious popes of the past made any announcements either. They just did what they did. I don’t remember every reading that St. Pius V made any official statement about being a Dominican. He simply was a Dominican.

Did it affect his successors? Yes, in a very positive way. They loved him. He was a very warn and human person, so much so that his successor had a robe made for him that mimicked the Dominican habit. It was of the same off-white as the Dominican habit, with the shoulder cape that mimics the Dominican capuche and it had a belt. This evolved into the cassock worn by today’s secular popes.

 

[robert7685]

But in today’s environment, it may have been good to to explain it. Bear in mind that the examples you gave would have been virtually unnoticed outside the local level. Also remember that our faith is one that uses symbolism often in our traditions to convey deeper meanings. Just throwing it out with little explanation as the whole world watches is a far cry from what Pope Pius V or Nicolas IV did. That, as I said, can send signals the Holy Father doesn’t intend to convey.

ETA: Also, the main exceptions noted above ought to be of some comfort. Neither the Remnant nor the SSPX are complaining, and they’re among the most prominent voices of the traditional Catholics. It actually would be good for others to follow their example in this situation.

 

[JReducation]

But in today’s environment, it may have been good to to explain it. Bear in mind that the examples you gave would have been virtually unnoticed outside the local level. Also remember that our faith is one that uses symbolism often in our traditions to convey deeper meanings. Just throwing it out with little explanation as the whole world watches is a far cry from what Pope Pius V or Nicolas IV did. That, as I said, can send signals the Holy Father doesn’t intend to convey.

I understand your position. However, it’s also important to understand that of the religious. The religious is trained not to explain himself to the laity, to avoid contamination. Your place in the Church is to serve, not to engage in question and answer about your way of life. Very often, when you try to explain something, it rarely stops there. Usually, you explain and the person comes up with “But . . …” or "What about . . . . " and it can become an unending dialog.

History has proven that such dialogs only lead to the contamination of the religious. It rarely ends in the laity taking something positive from the religious. Most of the time, those laymen who question the religious life have already formed their opinions and are not about to change them. They want the religious to change. Whenever religious have tried to adapt to the lay culture, it has done serious damage to the religious life. The mind of the Holy Spirit is that religious life draw the layman into the mystery of the Kingdom of God, not that the layman draw the religious into his world.

ETA: Also, the main exceptions noted above ought to be of some comfort. Neither the Remnant nor the SSPX are complaining, and they’re among the most prominent voices of the traditional Catholics. It actually would be good for others to follow their example in this situation.

I agree with you 100% on this point.

 

[JReducation]

I guess my question is still not answered. My question is very simple. Why is it so wrong for this man to live like a religious?

This question triggers other questions that those of us who consider ourselves orthodox religious ask ourselves.

1. Are we of such little value to the layman?
2. Is our way of life an inconvenience when it becomes shared with the wider Church?
3. Why do people want to see the large religious houses of the past, if they don’t want to see us in the center of Church life living and working as our founders did, not as the religious of the 1950s? Many religious of the 1950s were as far from the founders as you can get. That’s why the Council called for a return to the roots.

Given the fact that Pope Benedict created more cardinals from religious orders and more bishops from religious orders than any of his predecessors and that every bishop that Pope Francis has elected, except one, is from a religious order, it stands to reason that won’t have to wait another 250 years for the next religious pope.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I guess my question is still not answered. My question is very simple. Why is it so wrong for this man to live like a religious?

This question triggers other questions that those of us who consider ourselves orthodox religious ask ourselves.

1. Are we of such little value to the layman?

I honestly have no idea what you do.

I went to a school allegedly run by Franciscans. You might see one passing through the halls, but they never really talked to us. It was a good school though, so I’m thankful for that. I’m just not sure what they were doing the whole time…lol.

Do you do other things besides running schools? Or is that your main work?

If it helps, I like St. Francis and our new Pope, as well.

1. Is our way of life an inconvenience when it becomes shared with the wider Church?

I don’t think so. I don’t see why it would be.

1. Why do people want to see the large religious houses of the past, if they don’t want to see us in the center of Church life living and working as our founders did, not as the religious of the 1950s? Many religious of the 1950s were as far from the founders as you can get. That’s why the Council called for a return to the roots.

Given the fact that Pope Benedict created more cardinals from religious orders and more bishops from religious orders than any of his predecessors and that every bishop that Pope Francis has elected, except one, is from a religious order, it stands to reason that won’t have to wait another 250 years for the next religious pope.

Keep doing whatever you think is right. I don’t really care, as I know that religious or not so religious, the Church herself will be fine.

 

[choliks]

I honestly have no idea what you do.

I went to a school allegedly run by Franciscans. You might see one passing through the halls, but they never really talked to us. It was a good school though, so I’m thankful for that. I’m just not sure what they were doing the whole time…lol.

Do you do other things besides running schools? Or is that your main work?

If it helps, I like St. Francis and our new Pope, as well.

I don’t think so. I don’t see why it would be.

Keep doing whatever you think is right. I don’t really care, as I know that religious or not so religious, the Church herself will be fine.

Actually, without the religious, the Church will be crippled.

 

[JReducation]

I honestly have no idea what you do.

Religious do many things. But everything that religious do can be done by seculars. What makes a religious a special gift to the Church is how he lives the Gospel, not what he does. He does nothing different than what a secular priest or a secular layman does. We’re not in the business of doing. We’re in the business of being. For example, a Jesuit, as is the case of the pope, is in the business of being a Son of St. Ignatius. What he does is not important to them. How he lives, is very important. He must live the Gospel as St. Ignatius lived it and taught it.

I went to a school allegedly run by Franciscans. You might see one passing through the halls, but they never really talked to us. It was a good school though, so I’m thankful for that. I’m just not sure what they were doing the whole time…lol.

Do you do other things besides running schools? Or is that your main work?

Good gravy, NO! Schools is that last thing that Franciscans do or want to do. The only reason that Franciscans became involved with schools was to help out the local bishops. Franciscans have always been at universities, missions, and living among the poorest of the poor.

If it helps, I like St. Francis and our new Pope, as well.

LOL, I’m glad that you like both holy fathers, St. Francis and Pope Francis. It’s not about helping us. It’s about helping people accept this man as he is rather than try to make him into the image and likeness of a secular priest.

Keep doing whatever you think is right. I don’t really care, as I know that** religious or not so religious**, the Church herself will be fine.

The term “religious” here is not an adjective. It’s a noun. It refers to a consecrated man or woman. One is either consecrated or secular.

It’s not exaclty accurate to say that the Church can survive without religious. The Church teaches that religious life is essential to the existence of the Church. There is no such thing as a Catholic Church without religious life anymore than a Catholic Church without husbands, wives, parents, and clergy.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Religious do many things.

No, I know that, I just meant Franciscans in particular.

But everything that religious do can be done by seculars. What makes a religious a special gift to the Church is how he lives the Gospel, not what he does. He does nothing different than what a secular priest or a secular layman does. We’re not in the business of doing. We’re in the business of being. For example, a Jesuit, as is the case of the pope, is in the business of being a Son of St. Ignatius. What he does is not important to them. How he lives, is very important. He must live the Gospel as St. Ignatius lived it and taught it.

Good gravy, NO! Schools is that last thing that Franciscans do or want to do. The only reason that Franciscans became involved with schools was to help out the local bishops. Franciscans have always been at universities, missions, and living among the poorest of the poor.

What happened to not explaining anything to lay people? Haha, thanks for the explanation, though.

LOL, I’m glad that you like both holy fathers, St. Francis and Pope Francis.

I didn’t know that you could call someone “holy father” if they weren’t the Pope. Hm.

It’s not about helping us. It’s about helping people accept this man as he is rather than try to make him into the image and likeness of a secular priest.

My thing is that he was elected as the Pope. So I don’t care what he wears. He’s the Pope. I don’t know why people take an issue on whether he’s doing things their way or someone else’s way. Again, he’s the Pope. So Catholics should accept him, trusting that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. I’m right there with you on this.

The term “religious” here is not an adjective. It’s a noun. It refers to a consecrated man or woman. One is either consecrated or secular.

With respect, I knew that!

When I said, “not so religious”, it was just a funny way to say “secular.”

Obviously, if we had a Pope that was “not so religious” that would be… uh… really, really weird. I just had this mental image of someone asking the Pope to join him in Bible Study and the Pope saying, “Nahh… I’m not so religious.” LOL.

It’s not exaclty accurate to say that the Church can survive without religious. The Church teaches that religious life is essential to the existence of the Church. There is no such thing as a Catholic Church without religious life anymore than a Catholic Church without husbands, wives, parents, and clergy.

I’m just saying that I have faith in the Church and in the Holy Spirit to guide and protect her. Whether that means 1 religious or 100,000,000 religious, I have faith that God will provide for His Church. Right?

Anyway, I am sorry for getting this thread off subject a bit. I just want to say that I agree with you. I trust in Pope Francis to do what is right, as he is our Pope. Who am I to say how he should dress?

 

[pnewton]

I guess my question is still not answered. My question is very simple. Why is it so wrong for this man to live like a religious?
.

While I appreciate the distinction between difference spiritualities, I honestly do not understand them all. I know precious little about Jesuit spirituality beyond what you have described here. Yet that is who we have been give as Pope. I think it is a great gift, just as Blessed John Paul was a gift of tremendous Marian devotion. As he inspired us to greater devotion, now may be the time we most as a Church need the inspiration of Pope Francis.

When I think of tradition, the last thing I think of is some sort of homogenous papacy in terms of gifts, in terms of ministry. Our last two popes, the only two I have know were very different men of different gifts. Now we have Pope Francis who is an absolute eye-opener when it comes to differences. Instead of dissecting his every move for some sign of where he is heading, I find it more profitable to hold him up as a mirror on my own sins of omission. I am not a religious, but I have be impressed that I need to be open some of their habits. St. Paul exhorted the church to imitate him as he imitated Christ. I see this Pope in much the same light. I need to learn from him in his imitation of Jesus.

 

[mcrts]

I personally think religious are cool! The franciscan friars who come to my Parish always have an interesting message to share at mass. Without the religious orders, Catholicsm would never have spread as far as it did, to Asia and Africa. We in Asia are reaping the work of the religious orders like Franciscan, Gabrielites, IJ sisters and many more orders which came all the way from their home country to the “Far East”.

You all have a great calling. I guess it takes someone from a ‘missionary’ country to appreciate that.

 

[Cat]

I don’t think that people are specifically “against” Pope Francis because he is a religious.

I think that there is a group of Catholics who are convinced that every Catholic should be doing things exactly the same way, especially in the Mass, but also outside the Mass.

For them, there is no room for any variation in the liturgy, and they have a very difficult time with the EF and OF co-existing. They don’t understand that Holy Mother Church is a large “umbrella” with room for many different types of Catholics and many different liturgies.

There is something about their personality that has a difficult time accepting diversity, and so they long for everything to be exactly the same everywhere.

I’ve read posts over and over again on this forum about how Catholicism needs to be “unified”: ALL Masses all over the world should be done in Latin, with Gregorian chant, and NO variation at all. Any error in the liturgy, no matter how small, is considered the beginning of the end–it is a major disaster, an act of utter irreverence toward Jesus, and the harbinger of the end of the Church. The priest who allows the error is considered a “liberal” or worse.

And any variation in the liturgy, even if it is allowed by the rubrics, is highly suspect. Huge debates have occurred on CAF over variations in the liturgy that are clearly allowed in the rubrics; .e.g., musical instruments other than the pipe organ. Many of the people with the “All Masses Should Be The Same” mindset seem to believe that all the variations that have developed over time were once “aberrations” that the Church reluctantly was forced into allowing, and therefore, we should all resist these variations because they were once errors. Yes, I’ve seen this argument over and over on CAF. It’s amazing.

So of course, Catholics with this mindset would see Pope Francis’ act of washing women’s feet as absolutely unacceptable and heretical.

It’s my personal opinion that a lot of these Catholics have very little knowledge of Church history and theology, which of course means they don’t know about or understand the differences between religious and secular priests. I think a lot of these Catholics learned one way of doing Mass and daily life, and to them, THAT way is THE way, and there is no other way.