I do not think this is so. The apostolic society would be the one sponsoring the seminarian. The diocese has no control over those who belong to an apostolic society. The ordinary of the society is the superior not the bishop.
The link to the FSSP website which I supplied earlier in the thread provides all that information.How many times do we have to go through this on this forum? :banghead:
The priests of the Society of St. Peter and the priests of the Institute of Christ the King ARE NOT CONSECRATED MEN.
They are secular men.
They are not diocesan priests, as they are not incardinated into a diocese. They are incardinated into their society.
However, because they are not consecrated men (monks, friars, brothers, clerks regular or canons) they do not live in community. The share a house as do many diocesan priests and other secular priests such as Maryknoll, Missionhurst, Vincentians, Oratorians or Opus Dei.
Community living means that you jointly own the house. No one has a bank account, but all assets are owned in common. No one has personal property, not even a computer. Everything belongs to the community and the superior has the authority to allow you to use it or to command that you not use it.
It means that you must pray, eat, and recreate together. You must make an annual retreat with your brothers. You must participate in a community chapter. You are accountable to the community for your faults against the rule.
The superior decides your daily schedule or it’s decided in a house chapter or some other form of house meeting where everyone who is vows gets to vote and everyone is bound to obey, even if they voted against the measure. The community decides how much you have of anything: money, clothing, time off, education, healthcare, books, even the color of your toothbrush, if the community so desires to micromanage.
Every community decides how much or how little they will control and you have to accept it. You’re like a child in the care of his or her parents. You have what they give you. You do what they say. You may not do what they do not allow. You have the friends that they approve. You go on trips that they endorse. You have a schedule that they give you and you have as much or as little freedom as your parents decide you can have.
In community, this can change from one day to the next. One day you are allowed to have a monthly allowance and have a weekly day to yourself and the next day, a chapter takes place and the rules of the game change. No more allowance and no more weekly day to yourself. You have no say in the matter. The superior, his council and the chapter rule. No one wants to hear your opinion and not one asks for it. You do as the constitutions say you do. The superior’s job is to see that you comply with those constitutions.
In addition, those who form a community belong to a common spiritual school. Carmelites all follow the Carmelite school of spirituality. Dominicans follow the Augustinian school. Franciscans follow the Franciscan school. There is little diversity allowed. You can’t be a Carmelite with a Franciscan worldview. You’ll be like a fish out of water in the priory. Your presence will disrupt the life of the priory. The spiritual life is shared. There are personal inclinations. For example, I love Jesuit scholarship and Carmelite mysticism. But I can only use as much as is possible without it becoming a burden to my brothers. I would be out of compliance if I decided to spend most of my day in solitude, because I like Carmelite spirituality. Franciscans were not built that way. A little solitude is a good thing, too much solitude and you’re a fish out of water.
Secular priests who live together, such as the FSSP do not have any of these restrictions. They are secular men, just like most of you are. They live together as housemates. They are expected to treat each other with fraternal charity, respect and to cooperate with each other. They are encouraged to eat and pray together so as to avoid loneliness and to build up their spiritual life. None of this can be mandated under penalty of sin, because that only happens when you consecrate your life to the Lord through vows.
The priests of the FSSP, ICKSP, Maryknoll, Missionhurst and Opus Dei do not consecrate their lives in this manner. They make two PROMISES, not vows. They promise not to marry (celibacy). They do not vow to be chaste, as do religious. The promise to obey their bishop or the superior of their society, but this promise is binding only on matters of policy and ministry, not on personal matters.
I hate reruns.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Could you elaborate? I would like to get some observations.
Not to muddy the waters but what of groups like SOLT (Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity) who make solemn promises of poverty, chastity, and obedience?How many times do we have to go through this on this forum? :banghead:
The priests of the Society of St. Peter and the priests of the Institute of Christ the King ARE NOT CONSECRATED MEN.
They are secular men.
They are not diocesan priests, as they are not incardinated into a diocese. They are incardinated into their society.
However, because they are not consecrated men (monks, friars, brothers, clerks regular or canons) they do not live in community. The share a house as do many diocesan priests and other secular priests such as Maryknoll, Missionhurst, Vincentians, Oratorians or Opus Dei.
Community living means that you jointly own the house. No one has a bank account, but all assets are owned in common. No one has personal property, not even a computer. Everything belongs to the community and the superior has the authority to allow you to use it or to command that you not use it.
It means that you must pray, eat, and recreate together. You must make an annual retreat with your brothers. You must participate in a community chapter. You are accountable to the community for your faults against the rule.
The superior decides your daily schedule or it’s decided in a house chapter or some other form of house meeting where everyone who is in vows gets to vote and everyone is bound to obey, even if they voted against the measure. The community decides how much you have of anything: money, clothing, time off, education, healthcare, books, even the color of your toothbrush, if the community so desires to micromanage.
Every community decides how much or how little they will control and you have to accept it. You’re like a child in the care of his or her parents. You have what they give you. You do what they say. You may not do what they do not allow. You have the friends that they approve. You go on trips that they endorse. You have a schedule that they give you and you have as much or as little freedom as your parents decide you can have.
In community, this can change from one day to the next. One day you are allowed to have a monthly allowance and have a weekly day to yourself and the next day, a chapter takes place and the rules of the game change. No more allowance and no more weekly day to yourself. You have no say in the matter. The superior, his council and the chapter rule. No one wants to hear your opinion and not one asks for it. You do as the constitutions say you do. The superior’s job is to see that you comply with those constitutions.
In addition, those who form a community belong to a common spiritual school. Carmelites all follow the Carmelite school of spirituality. Dominicans follow the Augustinian school. Franciscans follow the Franciscan school. There is little diversity allowed. You can’t be a Carmelite with a Franciscan worldview. You’ll be like a fish out of water in the priory. Your presence will disrupt the life of the priory. The spiritual life is shared. There are personal inclinations. For example, I love Jesuit scholarship and Carmelite mysticism. But I can only use as much as is possible without it becoming a burden to my brothers. I would be out of compliance if I decided to spend most of my day in solitude, because I like Carmelite spirituality. Franciscans were not built that way. A little solitude is a good thing, too much solitude and you’re a fish out of water.
Secular priests who live together, such as the FSSP do not have any of these restrictions. They are secular men, just like most of you are. They live together as housemates. They are expected to treat each other with fraternal charity, respect and to cooperate with each other. They are encouraged to eat and pray together so as to avoid loneliness and to build up their spiritual life. None of this can be mandated under penalty of sin, because that only happens when you consecrate your life to the Lord through vows.
The priests of the FSSP, ICKSP, Maryknoll, Missionhurst and Opus Dei do not consecrate their lives in this manner. They make two PROMISES, not vows. They promise not to marry (celibacy). They do not vow to be chaste, as do religious. They promise to obey their bishop or the superior of their society, but this promise is binding only on matters of policy and ministry, not on personal matters.
I hate reruns.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
By tenuous religious standing and loose operation, they probably mean what I described above. They borrow from the religious life whatever works for them, but at not bound to it. They can throw it out tomorrow, if it does not work for them, unlike Dominicans who cannot simply throw out the Rule of St. Augustine. They are stuck with it and they have to make it work. They have to adjust to the rule.
I was a bit put off primarily in the emphasis placed on the secular nature of the order and “promises” in lieu of “vows” by Br. JR. I believe it is the person; the mind, the intentions, the devotion and of course the incardination of the man that make him a priest not the difference between a vow or promise.
The vow or a promise does make a distinction between whether the man is a regular or a secular priest. This is important as one has requirements that the other one does not.
The FSSP is not an order. Orders are for monks, nuns, friars and Jesuits. The FSSP do not fit into any of these.
This has always been a very confusing notion. I believe that it has to do with the language and our own desire to rank things.
I Believe St Thomas Aquinas said that both bishops and religious were in a ‘state of perfection’
Highest and greatest are frankly interchangeable, we all agree (I hope) that whatever a persons vocation is, that is the greatest vocation for them but some vocations are higher, that is greater than others, that is the sure teaching of St Thomas Aquinas and I believe of the Church.
I was always under the impression that the priesthood is the highest vocation there is as they are able to administer the sacraments, particularly Penance and the Eucharist.
I suspect you’re right actually, still the principle holds.
I’m sorry but you’re wrong, St Thomas Aquinas’ teaching and that of the Church on this is quite clear. No one is putting down anyone or any vocation but the ranking was put there by God not man and has been confirmed not only by the church itself but numerous saints including St Thomas Aquinas and St Alphonsus to name two of the most prominent.Why must we, as humans, always be so obsessed with ranking things ( good, better, best).
When the term ‘greatest’ is used when describing the vocations that God has given us, it is never used in the context of putting one above the other. It is used only to describe the degree to which one will live out Christ’s teachings. Example: A religious consecrated person lives out Christ’s teaching of blessed poverty and charity in its most literal sense, thus making their primary vocation (being sanctification which we all share), their highest, or only, priority. However one called to marriage will only be able to live according to the needs of their family, and cannot live in LITERAL blessed poverty while still being able to care for the family to which God has entrusted to them.
Bascially the degrees at which the secondary vocations are ‘ranked’ are only based on how literal Christ’s teachings can be practiced.
Hope this makes it a little more clear
God Bless