Priestly State of Life More Blessed?

[JReducation]

But chastity is not the same as celibacy, is it?

No. A celibate person must be chaste. But a chaste person need not be celibate.
Everyone is bound to chastity according to their state in life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

No. A celibate person must be chaste. But a chaste person need not be celibate.
Everyone is bound to chastity according to their state in life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I agree completely. Thanks! I think these terms are often misconstrued or misinterpreted. God bless.

 

[diggerdomer]

This is kind of a strange pronouncement. Because Trent was responding to two forces. There was a heretical movement that believed that celibacy was contrary to Divine Will because Genesis says that man should be fruitful and multiply. This movement actually merges with the Protestant Reformation. That’s why Protestants often find celibacy to be unscriptural. That was one force.

The other force were the teachings the of the great religious founders: Benedict, Albert, Basil, Augustine, Francis, Dominic and Bernard. They had all written that the consecrated celibate state was superior to the married state, based on what Christ says in the Gospel, what Paul says, and what the Desert Fathers taught. By the time Trent comes around these orders are very angry at the accusation that their way of life was non-scriptural. Trent comes down very hard and states that this is a doctrine that must be accepted or be anathemized.

Trent actually puts into words what the founders of the great religious orders had learned from Sacred Tradition and had taught to religious, clergy and laity. St. Francis and St. Bernard went as far as threatening with excommunication those who challenged this doctrine. In those days, Superiors General and Abbots had a lot of power. They were Ordinaries. They are still Ordinaries today, but their arena of authority is significantly reduced. It’s only within their own ministries. I believe that Bernard may have put it into writing. I know that Francis never wrote it. He preached it and others quoted him, including St. Bonaventure. St. Bonaventure defended the doctrine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you as always for your faithful, sincere thoughts.

I disagree that Paul taught the celibate state is always and everywhere superior to the married state. Many Catholic Biblical scholars who know way more than I do agree.

I have no problem with or agenda against those who choose the celibate state or those who choose the married state. Both, in my mind, are faithfully following their call as disciples of Christ.

The religious founders you noted were, of course, writing regarding people who did not choose marriage. I completely agree with their thought. That doesn’t in and of itself mean that the unmarried state is necessarily superior to the married state, especially considering the times they were experiencing.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you as always for your faithful, sincere thoughts.

I disagree that Paul taught the celibate state is always and everywhere superior to the married state. Many Catholic Biblical scholars who know way more than I do agree.

I have no problem with or agenda against those who choose the celibate state or those who choose the married state. Both, in my mind, are faithfully following their call as disciples of Christ.

The religious founders you noted were, of course, writing regarding people who did not choose marriage. I completely agree with their thought. That doesn’t in and of itself mean that the unmarried state is necessarily superior to the married state, especially considering the times they were experiencing.

They were certainly speaking about the religious life. There are two important points to remember. Up until the time of St. Bernard, consecrated celibacy was only mandatory for religious, which were brothers or nuns. There were very few priests in the religious life. This happened slightly later with the arrival of the Carmelites from Palestine in the 1200s and the founding of the Dominicans also in the 1200s. At that time, the idea of a consecrated celibate priest was not common. Many priests were celibate, by choice, not by design. It does not become a canon until the second milenium.

I bring this up because it’s important to understand where the great founders get their doctrine. They are inherting a doctrine that had been passed down by two traditions, the Desert Fathers and the Carmelites. Both traditions came from one source, Paul.

Paul is very explicit when he says that those who cannot live the celibate life should marry. But he encourages the celibate life as the preferred state of Christian life. He encourages widows to remain single, virgins to remain virgins.

In addition the early Fathers had met the Apostle John. Polycarp, I believe was the one who stated that John had insisted on remaining celibate because Jesus, Mary and Joseph were celibate. Benedict brings John the Baptist into the picture and the monks of Qumran, who were celibate for the sake of the Kingdom. There was a long Biblical and Patristic tradition of celibacy and an equally long belief that this was taught by Christ and of God’s design as a state in life not for everyone, but for a select few.

This point is very important. Benedict probably explains it better than anyone that I’ve ever seen, maybe Augustine too. But the point was that the idea of a select few leads to the conclusion that it is a gift, not something that man can do on his own. Therein lies its superiority compared to marriage. Marriage is natural to mankind. God built it into humanity at creation. Celibacy is outside of the natural order. God gives the supernatural. Therein lies the root of the comparison.

This is the doctrine that had been handed down for 1500 or so years, until Trent is forced to make a definitive statement that popes and other councils have upheld. As I said, Trent had to make a definitive statement, because religious were under attack by heretics. One of the arguments that heretics were using to discredit celibacy was sexual abuse by some members of the secular clergy and by religious men. That story sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

From that point forward the fate of secular priests in the Roman Church is sealed. No more married men were ordained and the permanent diaconate was suspended. To this day the popes, in union with the Eastern patriarchs have been trying to encourage celibacy in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Interestingly enough the number of secular celibate priests among them has increased over the centuries, but more after Vatican II. The argument is that these priests also have a desire for this “higher” form of life, compared to their married counterparts.

It’s not much, because I’m not a Church historian. I had three semesters of Church history and then moved on to other courses. But I’m giving you what I got in bits and pieces on this subject. I say bits and pieces, because it comes up in different circumstances and in different areas of study: Patristics, Scripture, Mysticism, Church History, and Eschatology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

They were certainly speaking about the religious life. There are two important points to remember. Up until the time of St. Bernard, consecrated celibacy was only mandatory for religious, which were brothers or nuns. There were very few priests in the religious life. This happened slightly later with the arrival of the Carmelites from Palestine in the 1200s and the founding of the Dominicans also in the 1200s. At that time, the idea of a consecrated celibate priest was not common. Many priests were celibate, by choice, not by design. It does not become a canon until the second milenium.

I bring this up because it’s important to understand where the great founders get their doctrine. They are inherting a doctrine that had been passed down by two traditions, the Desert Fathers and the Carmelites. Both traditions came from one source, Paul.

Paul is very explicit when he says that those who cannot live the celibate life should marry. But he encourages the celibate life as the preferred state of Christian life. He encourages widows to remain single, virgins to remain virgins.

In addition the early Fathers had met the Apostle John. Polycarp, I believe was the one who stated that John had insisted on remaining celibate because Jesus, Mary and Joseph were celibate. Benedict brings John the Baptist into the picture and the monks of Qumran, who were celibate for the sake of the Kingdom. There was a long Biblical and Patristic tradition of celibacy and an equally long belief that this was taught by Christ and of God’s design as a state in life not for everyone, but for a select few.

This point is very important. Benedict probably explains it better than anyone that I’ve ever seen, maybe Augustine too. But the point was that the idea of a select few leads to the conclusion that it is a gift, not something that man can do on his own. Therein lies its superiority compared to marriage. Marriage is natural to mankind. God built it into humanity at creation. Celibacy is outside of the natural order. God gives the supernatural. Therein lies the root of the comparison.

This is the doctrine that had been handed down for 1500 or so years, until Trent is forced to make a definitive statement that popes and other councils have upheld. As I said, Trent had to make a definitive statement, because religious were under attack by heretics. One of the arguments that heretics were using to discredit celibacy was sexual abuse by some members of the secular clergy and by religious men. That story sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

From that point forward the fate of secular priests in the Roman Church is sealed. No more married men were ordained and the permanent diaconate was suspended. To this day the popes, in union with the Eastern patriarchs have been trying to encourage celibacy in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Interestingly enough the number of secular celibate priests among them has increased over the centuries, but more after Vatican II. The argument is that these priests also have a desire for this “higher” form of life, compared to their married counterparts.

It’s not much, because I’m not a Church historian. I had three semesters of Church history and then moved on to other courses. But I’m giving you what I got in bits and pieces on this subject. I say bits and pieces, because it comes up in different circumstances and in different areas of study: Patristics, Scripture, Mysticism, Church History, and Eschatology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Paul’s advice in 1 Cor (the only letter…the only one…that he deals with this issue) has to be taken in context. For instance, the expectation that Jesus’ return (second coming, judgment, etc.) was immanent. And so, Paul rightly counsels people to “remain as you are” (whether married or unmarried)–in other words, don’t worry about changing your vocation here and now, because the end is near, and those choices in that light are not as significant (perhaps) in terms of priority. Yes, he said he preferred people to remain as he is…at the time, single/celibate…which does not mean he was always single/celibate. And it does not mean that he foresaw thousands of years of earthly existence for the Church and was proclaiming some eternal doctrine. THis letter, as with all of his and other New Testament letters, were “occasional” – written to one audience, at one time, for specific reasons. Care has to be taken when extrapolating such to posit universal and eternal teachings.

 

[JReducation]

Paul’s advice in 1 Cor (the only letter…the only one…that he deals with this issue) has to be taken in context. For instance, the expectation that Jesus’ return (second coming, judgment, etc.) was immanent. And so, Paul rightly counsels people to “remain as you are” (whether married or unmarried)–in other words, don’t worry about changing your vocation here and now, because the end is near, and those choices in that light are not as significant (perhaps) in terms of priority. Yes, he said he preferred people to remain as he is…at the time, single/celibate…which does not mean he was always single/celibate. And it does not mean that he foresaw thousands of years of earthly existence for the Church and was proclaiming some eternal doctrine. THis letter, as with all of his and other New Testament letters, were “occasional” – written to one audience, at one time, for specific reasons. Care has to be taken when extrapolating such to posit universal and eternal teachings.

It certainly was the case that the Apostles believed that the second coming would be very soon. But we must never forget that it is the papacy that has the final voice on how we interpret and apply a biblical teaching. It has been the popes who have said that this is what is meant. It was an Ecumenical Council that estabishes it as a belief that may not be questioned. So the matter of what Paul meant is not something that the Church is open to discuss.

This has happened on a number of issue. The Immculate Conception and the Assumption are simply hinted at in the scritpures. But the tradition was embraced by the early Church. The Church binds everyone to believe it.

The point is that if the Church says that we must believe this and it says that it is basing its position on Paul, then there is no room for argument about what did Paul mean or why did Paul say it. The Church does not consider those points to be important to her faith. It works the other way around too. Paul said other things that the Church has dismissed as not important. They were important to Paul, but not important to the Church

We have to go with the Church’s interpretation and application of scritpure. Benedict XVI makes a big issue about this in his book, Jesus of Nazareth. He’s very anti-historical analysis of the scripture, except that which is approved by popes.

I’m not about to go there and argue that Paul said this because of this, when I know that the popes, doctors of the Church, the great founders and the Council of Trent all disagree with me. Not going there and I suggeset that you stay away from that too. The argument is not worth while just to end up out of communion with the Church.

In my life, I may be older than you, I’m old, I have learned to place distance between me and my ideas when the Church holds to another idea or when a pope a religious superior say that if I hold that idea I will be anathema. That’s all I need and I banish that thought from my mind.

Padre Pio said it best, “Obedience, obedience, obedience.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

IIt was an Ecumenical Council that estabishes it as a belief that may not be questioned.

Reference? Thanks…

 

[diggerdomer]

I

This has happened on a number of issue. The Immculate Conception and the Assumption are simply hinted at in the scritpures. But the tradition was embraced by the early Church. The Church binds everyone to believe it.

But those two items (Assumption and Immaculate Conception) have been clearly defined/declared as dogma by the Church. Unlike the issue of celibacy/etc that we are discussing on this thread.

Very significant difference.

 

[JReducation]

But those two items (Assumption and Immaculate Conception) have been clearly defined/declared as dogma by the Church. Unlike the issue of celibacy/etc that we are discussing on this thread.

Very significant difference.

Consecrated celibacy was define long before the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Consecrated celibacy was defined by Trent. All three of the above have been held as part of the faith of the Church for centuries, but defined at different times.

I get the impression, from your posts, that you have trouble accepting what the Church believes about consecrated celibacy. I’m curious as to why?

I don’t see it as a big issue. In fact most theologians don’t see it as an issue at all. People don’t even discuss it anymore. The discussion on the table these days is whether consecrated celibacy should continue to be a requirement for secular clerics, since they are not consecrated religious. Consecrated celibacy has always been part of the consecrated life: consecrated virgins, hermits, monks, friars, nuns, sisters, brothers, canons and clerks regular. This is not disputed nor is its superiority to the married state disputed. The Church believes this and holds on to this belief based on the teachings of Paul and the life of Christ.

It’s not up to us to question that. I’m not sure why you would want to question it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[VeroNihilVerius]

Brother JR,

Is there any way I could reach you to ask some questions? They are mostly discernment related, and you seem to be very knowledgeable on these things. If not, I understand, as you are probably very busy.

Thanks so much.

In Christ, Through Mary,

VNV

 

[diggerdomer]

Consecrated celibacy was define long before the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Consecrated celibacy was defined by Trent. All three of the above have been held as part of the faith of the Church for centuries, but defined at different times.

I get the impression, from your posts, that you have trouble accepting what the Church believes about consecrated celibacy. I’m curious as to why?

I don’t see it as a big issue. In fact most theologians don’t see it as an issue at all. People don’t even discuss it anymore. The discussion on the table these days is whether consecrated celibacy should continue to be a requirement for secular clerics, since they are not consecrated religious. Consecrated celibacy has always been part of the consecrated life: consecrated virgins, hermits, monks, friars, nuns, sisters, brothers, canons and clerks regular. This is not disputed nor is its superiority to the married state disputed. The Church believes this and holds on to this belief based on the teachings of Paul and the life of Christ.

It’s not up to us to question that. I’m not sure why you would want to question it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I have no problem with what the Church teaches regarding consecrated celibacy. Nor marriage.

 

[JReducation]

I have no problem with what the Church teaches regarding consecrated celibacy. Nor marriage.

Then we can shake hands and lay this subject to rest. I believe the bigger issue on the table that affects both celibate and married folks is fidelity. The world today is challenging our belief in fidelity to the commitments that we make and it’s teaching our children, not only that consecrated celibacy has not intrinsic value, but that it’s unnatural and sex is always healthy, which is not true. Celibacy in not unnatural and sex is not always healthy. I would even add that without an understanding of marrriage celibacy makes not sense. Therefore, we must protect marriage from social changes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

Then we can shake hands and lay this subject to rest. I believe the bigger issue on the table that affects both celibate and married folks is fidelity. The world today is challenging our belief in fidelity to the commitments that we make and it’s teaching our children, not only that consecrated celibacy has not intrinsic value, but that it’s unnatural and sex is always healthy, which is not true. Celibacy in not unnatural and sex is not always healthy. I would even add that without an understanding of marrriage celibacy makes not sense. Therefore, we must protect marriage from social changes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Ok.

I would also add that without an understanding of celibacy, marriage (sacramental) doesn’t make sense.

Completely agree on the challenge and necessity of fidelity.

Thank you as always.

 

[JReducation]

Ok.

I would also add that without an understanding of celibacy, marriage (sacramental) doesn’t make sense.

Completely agree on the challenge and necessity of fidelity.

Thank you as always.

It’s funny that you mention this. I had a class with my fathers at the pregnancy center today. They were asking me about celibacy. I told them that they had to understand marriage in order to understand celibacy. Without an understanding of marriage, consecrated celibacy makes no sense.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[simple_soul]

*I think its funny that both of you should be talking about how one can not truly understand celibacy unless they understand “matrimonial” marriage and the other way around.

I was just talking with a good friend of mine about how it would seem that this could be said of all vocations. I believe we would understand our true calling through our vocation if we did understand the role of every vocation.

So I thought I would share our thoughts so far:

Here is the list:

Consecrated Virgin:

Hermit:

Monk or Nun:

Active religious:

Married person:

Every vocation listed here represents our relationship with God. Or better, what our relationship with God should be if we choose.

1)Take the first, Consecrated Virgin.
God created us to know, love and serve Him nothing else. In order for us to do this we have to consecrate ourselves to Him and keep ourselves pure for Him in heart, mind, and soul. From my understanding this is something we are all called to do.

2)Then the Hermit, know if I remember correctly hermits go and live in desolate places away from all mankind and need to totally depend on God and trust Him for everything. From my understanding
This is something we are all called to do also.

3)Then the role of a Monk or Nun, shows how after we have learned to keep ourselves pure in our love and trust in God for everything, we can then move to start communing with each other and unite ourselves to one another through the Holy Spirit, through our prayers, contemplations and conversations with others who live by 1 and 2 through the Holy Spirit. They remind us that it is us and God and that we are accountable to Him for everything.

1. Active Religious, Show how one then follows the Holy Spirit’s lead and takes what one has learned to do in 1, 2, and 3, out to the rest of the world to teach them and lead them through the steps of 1, 2, and 3 so that they in turn can learn to follow the Holy Spirit’s lead also.
2. Married Life, Shows how when the soul learns to completely and purely love and surrender to the Will of the Holy Spirit through a pure heart, mind, and soul. To completely put it’s trust in the Will of the Holy Spirit. And to not refuse the Holy Spirit’s Will of anything, it will be one with the Holy Spirit.

Understanding this helps me to understand why the Church puts the vocations in the order that they do. It would almost seem like she is showing us the pathway to perfect union with God. Which I believe we are all called to have.

 

[JReducation]

So I thought I would share our thoughts so far:

Here is the list:

Consecrated Virgin:

Hermit:

Monk or Nun:

Active religious:

Married person:

Every vocation listed here represents our relationship with God. Or better, what our relationship with God should be if we choose.

Understanding this helps me to understand why the Church puts the vocations in the order that they do. It would almost seem like she is showing us the pathway to perfect union with God. Which I believe we are all called to have.

By the way, you left out friars. These go between monks and active religious. They live the monastic life outside of the enclosure.

The Church does rank these ways of life in this verticle order. However, she does not say that one leads to the other. On the contrary, Canon Law is very clear that these vocations while they can overlap, they are not linked. Each is very unique and each is its own path. One never leads to the other. One can have combinations. For example: a consecrated virgin can be a nun, a sister, a hermit of a lay woman. The only thing that she cannot be is a wife. A woman called to be a consecrated virgin, can also be called to be a consecrated religious.

Let’s look at men. A man who is called to be a hermit, monk, friar or active religious can simultaneously be called to be a deacon, priest or bishop. He may even be a father, which is a distinct vocation from the consecrated life. What a man can never be is a consecrated virgin, even if he is a virgin. That call is only for women, just as the call to the sacrament of Holy Orders is only for man.

Having said that, among the religious there are also differences. Some religious belong to religious orders and some belong to congregations. Monks, nuns and friars always belong to religious orders. Religious orders always make solemn vows. The only other persons who make solemn vows are couples. The marriage vows are solemn vows.

Sisters and active never belong to religious orders and never make solemn vows. They belong to congregations and make simple vows. This means that their form of religious life does not have the same binding commitment as that of monks, nuns and friars. It also means that the Church does not grant them the same graces when they make vows and indulgences. There is a plenary indulgence attached to solemn vows, but not to simple vows. Only those who join a religious order can make solemn vows, not those who join a congregation. Married people make solemn vows. They too have special graces and indulgences.

However, even though married people make solemn vows, the Church still places the person who is a consecrated celibate in a higher state than the married or single person. This does not mean that the person who is a consecrated celibate is a holier person. The state in life is holier, not the person.

I can be on a higher run on a ladder, may appear taller because of it, but in fact I can actually be shorter than the person on the lower rung. Just because I’m part of a higher state in life, does not mean that I’m holier than a person in a lower state in life. Personal holiness and the holiness of the state in life are not the same thing. Each person must seek his holiness in his or her state in life.

The issue here is that many lay people take issue with this ranking. To those of us who are religious, this seems very strange. I’ll explain why. An active religous who belongs to a congregation does not take exception to being on a lower rung than a monk or a nun. It is an accepted fact and no one gives it a second thought.

A friar, who actually spans both the monastic life and the apostolic life, does not take exception to being in the middle rung between a monk and an active religious. To us, this is a fact and we’re perfectly happy with it. We know that we are not monks and that we were not called to be monks, because it is such a high state in life, that there is no way that we could achieve salvation in that state. Jesus in his mercy has called us to be friars, because we can rise to the challenge in this state in life, but not in monastic life. We’re not all made the same nor do we all receive the same graces. Chirst told us this in his parables.

So, to us religious, the question on this thread is one that we never discuss among ourselves, because it’s not important. What is important is to be in the state where Christ has called us and to live faithfully according to that state. Christ will never call us to a state in life where we will certainly fail. He will only call us to a state in life where we have a 100% chance of succeeding, if we are faithful. For us, that’s all that we need to know in order to be happy. I am where I can achieve sanctity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[simple_soul]

By the way, you left out friars. These go between monks and active religious. They live the monastic life outside of the enclosure.

*Dear Br. JR, I most sincerely meant no disrespect by this. I was just working from the list you provided on post # 121. I honestly never really new the distinctions between hermits, monks, friars, or active religious before I came across your path. I am still trying to keep them all strait. *

The Church does rank these ways of life in this verticle order. ** However, she does not say that one leads to the other.** On the contrary, Canon Law is very clear that these vocations while they can overlap, they are not linked. Each is very unique and each is its own path. One never leads to the other. One can have combinations. For example: a consecrated virgin can be a nun, a sister, a hermit of a lay woman. The only thing that she cannot be is a wife. A woman called to be a consecrated virgin, can also be called to be a consecrated religious.

I believe I understand this. Not that I could ever explain fully the whys of it. What I am trying to say is that this order will help us understand how our “personal” relationship with God should be no matter what our vocation is.
Does this make sense?

Let’s look at men. A man who is called to be a hermit, monk, friar or active religious can simultaneously be called to be a deacon, priest or bishop. He may even be a father, which is a distinct vocation from the consecrated life. What a man can never be is a consecrated virgin, even if he is a virgin. That call is only for women, just as the call to the sacrament of Holy Orders is only for man.

Having said that, among the religious there are also differences. Some religious belong to religious orders and some belong to congregations. Monks, nuns and friars always belong to religious orders. Religious orders always make solemn vows. The only other persons who make solemn vows are couples. The marriage vows are solemn vows.

Sisters and active never belong to religious orders and never make solemn vows. They belong to congregations and make simple vows. This means that their form of religious life does not have the same binding commitment as that of monks, nuns and friars. It also means that the Church does not grant them the same graces when they make vows and indulgences. There is a plenary indulgence attached to solemn vows, but not to simple vows. Only those who join a religious order can make solemn vows, not those who join a congregation. Married people make solemn vows. They too have special graces and indulgences.

However, even though married people make solemn vows, the Church still places the person who is a consecrated celibate in a higher state than the married or single person. This does not mean that the person who is a consecrated celibate is a holier person. The state in life is holier, not the person.

*I understand what you are saying here. I am going to print this up so that I can study it and understand it well enough so that I can repeat it. Just the thought of trying to repeat it makes my head start to spin. *

I can be on a higher run on a ladder, may appear taller because of it, but in fact I can actually be shorter than the person on the lower rung. Just because I’m part of a higher state in life, does not mean that I’m holier than a person in a lower state in life. Personal holiness and the holiness of the state in life are not the same thing. Each person must seek his holiness in his or her state in life.

**The issue here is that many lay people take issue with this ranking. ** To those of us who are religious, this seems very strange. I’ll explain why. An active religious who belongs to a congregation does not take exception to being on a lower rung than a monk or a nun. It is an accepted fact and no one gives it a second thought.

A friar, who actually spans both the monastic life and the apostolic life, does not take exception to being in the middle rung between a monk and an active religious. To us, this is a fact and we’re perfectly happy with it. We know that we are not monks and that we were not called to be monks, because it is such a high state in life, that there is no way that we could achieve salvation in that state. Jesus in his mercy has called us to be friars, because we can rise to the challenge in this state in life, but not in monastic life. We’re not all made the same nor do we all receive the same graces. Christ told us this in his parables.

I personally believe the very thing that undermines this is the fact that we do get too caught up in comparing our state in life to others instead of just being concerned with doing what we need to do to perfect our own.

So, to us religious, the question on this thread is one that we never discuss among ourselves, because it’s not important. What is important is to be in the state where Christ has called us and to live faithfully according to that state. Christ will never call us to a state in life where we will certainly fail. He will only call us to a state in life where we have a 100% chance of succeeding, if we are faithful. For us, that’s all that we need to know in order to be happy. I am where I can achieve sanctity.

*OK, there you go again. This is so simple and beautifully put that it makes me cry.

 

[elizabeth_anne_1]

I think a difficulty that people have in accepting this is that not everyone who desires to “give everything” in consecrated life is in fact called to do so. For me it can seem like this whole “more blessed state of life” thing rubs salt in my wounds. Not only is there a way to follow Jesus more closely, which is highly emphasized in the Church, but Jesus has not called me to it as much as I desire it. Sometimes I see religious and I wonder, “Why them?” and “not me?” That being admitted to I do pray for them and thank God for their vocation, as discouraged as I am about my lack of a vocation. Any advice for dealing with feelings of rejection/jealousy?
Ellie Anne

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I personally believe the very thing that undermines this is the fact that we do get too caught up in comparing our state in life to others instead of just being concerned with doing what we need to do to perfect our own.

We should never do this.

As Jean-Pierre de Caussade, S.J., said in “Abandonment to Divine Providence”…

If you are not satisfied with what God chooses for you, what else can please you? does the food prepared for you by God himself disgust you? Well, can you say what other food would not seem stale to someone with so perverted a taste? We must realize that we cannot be really fed, strengthened, purified, enriched and made holy unless we fulfill the duties of the present moment. What else do you want? why look elsewhere? Are you wiser than God? Why do you seek anything different from what he desires? Do you imagine, considering his wisdom and goodness, that he can be wrong?

 

[simple_soul]

We should never do this.

As Jean-Pierre de Caussade, S.J., said in “Abandonment to Divine Providence”…

If you are not satisfied with what God chooses for you, what else can please you? does the food prepared for you by God himself disgust you? Well, can you say what other food would not seem stale to someone with so perverted a taste? We must realize that we cannot be really fed, strengthened, purified, enriched and made holy unless we fulfill the duties of the present moment. What else do you want? why look elsewhere? Are you wiser than God? Why do you seek anything different from what he desires? Do you imagine, considering his wisdom and goodness, that he can be wrong?

*Dear Br. David,

Thank you for sharing this quote of St. Jean Pierre de Caussade.
I believe we should all engrave this into our heart, mind and souls. Maybe then the next time the grass “seems” to greener and sweeter on the other side we can remember that it could never be as green nor taste as sweet as the grass God gives us in the pasture He wants us to be in.

But, I am not sure I understand why we should never compare vocations. Maybe you could explain why we should not a little more so that I might understand better. The reason I ask is because I have personally found that when I do compare the different vocations and their specific roles in this life. It has helped me to not only understand my vocation more clearly but it has also helped me to understand my path to holiness more clearly. Just because I have great admiration for other vocations and want to understand them and their purpose more clearly does not make me want to abandon my vocation in the least. I personally love my vocation and all of it’s sweet and bitter moments. But, more importantly I love God and I love surrendering to His Will. As hard as it might be at times. I still have no desire to put the relationship that He has with me in jeopardy by abandoning my vocation. But I do have the desire to fulfill my vocation to it’s fullest and I have found that understanding the other vocations through comparison has helped me to understand more clearly just what my vocation is and is not.

As always I pray this makes some sense. *