Priestly State of Life More Blessed?

[Geremia]

Is the priestly and/or virginal state of life more blessed than married life? If so, why? Could this this imply that the sacrament of Holy Orders confers more grace than the sacrament of Matrimony? See 1 Corinthians 7:1-9.

 

[CarmeliteGirl25]

According the dogma of the Church, those who give up the natural desires of marriage and family to be a religious are more blessed than those who don’t. It was very difficult for me to understand this at the beginning, but I understand why now. It doesn’t detract from marriage at all. God calls people to the vocation He destined for them. Here’s a website for more information:

religious-vocation.com/

Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.

 

[JReducation]

According the dogma of the Church, those who give up the natural desires of marriage and family to be a religious are more blessed than those who don’t. It was very difficult for me to understand this at the beginning, but I understand why now. It doesn’t detract from marriage at all. God calls people to the vocation He destined for them. Here’s a website for more information:

religious-vocation.com/

Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.

This statement does not apply to the priesthood, because the priesthood is not a form of religious life. It applies only to those men and women who are religious, those who publicly profess the evangelical counsels in a stable religious community.

Some religious are also priests. But what makes them consecrated men is that they are religious, not that they are priests. Put simplly, any man who is a religious brother, woman who is a nun or a sister is covered by this statement. There are priests who are “brothers” because they are members of a brotherhood that lives a consecrated life.

Diocesan priests, also called secular priests, do not fall under this dogma. Diocesan priests do not live consecrated lives. They make no vows and are not part of a stable religious community for the sake of the Kingdom. Diocesan priests make two promises: celibacy (to remain single) and obedience to the local bishop (of couse, since the bishop is in communion with the pope, they obey the pope). These are promises, not vows. Therefore, they are not consecrated men. For that reason, the above dogma does not apply to them. It only applies to those who live the vowed life.

**Pope John Paul II , Vita Consecrata, no. 32

“As a way of showing forth the Church’s holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority. Precisely for this reason, it is an especially rich manifestation of Gospel values and a more complete expression of the Church’s purpose, which is the sanctification of humanity. The consecrated life proclaims and in a certain way anticipates the future age, when the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven, already present in its first fruits and in mystery,[62] will be achieved and when the children of the resurrection will take neither wife nor husband, but will be like the angels of God (cf. Mt. 22:30)”**

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[albertziggy]

According the dogma of the Church, those who give up the natural desires of marriage and family to be a religious are more blessed than those who don’t. It was very difficult for me to understand this at the beginning, but I understand why now. It doesn’t detract from marriage at all. God calls people to the vocation He destined for them. Here’s a website for more information:

religious-vocation.com/

Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.

Hi:

This topic focuses is on the religious being more blessed than those who chose the married state. I am just wondering where the members of the Secular Orders come in? If some members of the secular orders remain single and celibate, would they be on the same level as their cloistered counterparts? What about the married ones? Secular Orders are supposed to be equal to the Regular Orders (otherwise known as Religious Orders), and the members are considered consecrated.

Any ideas?

albertziggy

 

[thunderballs75]

St. Thomas Aquinas said that all religious life is higher than married life (although the married state is holy indeed). He also said that the state of a religious friar/monk is higher than a priest.

 

[skallal]

Hey all,

I think everyone here has added something to this discussion, and I hope to do the same. Thomas and the Church’s Magisterium do teach that consecration is a “more perfect” **state **than the married state. This is in **no way a judgment **on the people who live in either state. The point is to help those who are discerning to understand that the consecrated life offers better means for reaching the “perfection of charity” as the Vat 2 document is entitled. It is not an excuse for married people to not seek holiness, nor is it a reason for consecrated people to get lazy or put on airs. What it means is in the universal call to holiness, there are 2 good ways and one is better/easier/more perfect than the other for reaching this holiness which is “the perfection of charity,” consecration.

If we really want to throw Thomas into the mix, we should at least be complete. He admits that taking the vows is better than not taking vows whether as a lay person or as a priest, HOWEVER he also clearly states that the call to be a bishop (aka the fullness of the priesthood) is higher than both. This is why the Church calls some consecrated men out of their communities and into the service of the larger Church. As Thomas puts it, the highest state of life is not merely the life of contemplation, but contemplata aliis tradere, that is, handing on the fruits of one’s contemplation. That is the call of the Bishop successor of the Apostles, the highest role in the Church even though perfection is found in love alone…

 

[JReducation]

Hey all,

I think everyone here has added something to this discussion, and I hope to do the same. Thomas and the Church’s Magisterium do teach that consecration is a “more perfect” **state **than the married state. This is in **no way a judgment **on the people who live in either state. The point is to help those who are discerning to understand that the consecrated life offers better means for reaching the “perfection of charity” as the Vat 2 document is entitled. It is not an excuse for married people to not seek holiness, nor is it a reason for consecrated people to get lazy or put on airs. What it means is in the universal call to holiness, there are 2 good ways and one is better/easier/more perfect than the other for reaching this holiness which is “the perfection of charity,” consecration.

If we really want to throw Thomas into the mix, we should at least be complete. He admits that taking the vows is better than not taking vows whether as a lay person or as a priest, HOWEVER he also clearly states that the call to be a bishop (aka the fullness of the priesthood) is higher than both. This is why the Church calls some consecrated men out of their communities and into the service of the larger Church. As Thomas puts it, the highest state of life is not merely the life of contemplation, but contemplata aliis tradere, that is, handing on the fruits of one’s contemplation. That is the call of the Bishop successor of the Apostles, the highest role in the Church even though perfection is found in love alone…

One correction here. Religious are no longer called out of their religious state to serve as bishops. The 1983 code of canon law has clearly stated that religious called to the episcopal state remain consecrated religious and full members of their religious communities. A Jesuit called to the epsicopal state remains a Jesuit. They are not automatically secularized.

Also, someone asked about secular orders. There is a difference between a third order and a secular order. A Secular Order is a canonical order with all of the rights and duties of any order. There are third orders that are attached to religioius congregations. Canonically, they are not orders and they participate in the spiritual life and charism of their brothers and sisters, but they do not come under the category of order; therefore, their members are not part of religious life, though they are part of a religious family.

There is only one Secular Order with its own rule, its own government, its own generalate in Rome, its one delegate to the Holy See and its own founder. To the best of my knowledge, the Brothers and Sisters of Penance (aka SFO) are the only secular order that enjoys the same privileges, rights and duties as to friars and nuns. Even deacons, priests and bishops who belong to the Secular Franciscans must answer to the jurisdiction of the Minister General of the SFO.

I know that the Carmelites and others have Secular Orders and they live a very devout and ascetic life, but to the best of my kinowledge, they do not have the same autonomy as the Secular Franciscans. I beleive that they are attached to the friars and the superior general of the friars is their superior and they do not have a rule of thier own, but follow the rule of the friars and shape their constitutions around those of the friars. Someone correct me, if I’m wrong.

Fraternally,

JR,

 

[Mrs_Sally]

No. Our priest just spoke about this in his homily on Wednesday. The most holy vocation is the one carried out in complete obedience to the Lord. So if God wants you to marry and you become a priest or religious, your vocation is actual less because it isn’t your true vocation.

 

[JReducation]

No. Our priest just spoke about this in his homily on Wednesday. The most holy vocation is the one carried out in complete obedience to the Lord. So if God wants you to marry and you become a priest or religious, your vocation is actual less because it isn’t your true vocation.

This is in conflict with the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church. The dogma is that the call to religious life, as lived out by those who are members of religious orders and make vows to live the evengelical counsels: chastity, poverty and obedience, have responded to the most sacred and highest call of all. The priesthood and married life do not involve require the public profession of the evangleical counsels in a stable religiious family.

In addtion, the Church believes and teaches that those with legitimate authority in the Church have the final word on whether you have a vocation or not. If a bishop reject you for the priesthood. then you do not have a vocation. If the religious superior rejects you for vows, then you do not have a vocation to that way of life. The same would apply to marriage. If you are turned down, then you do not have a vocation.

In the case that you mentioned, if a mans has been allowed to be ordained, then he has a vocation to the diaconate or priesthood, not the married life. God does not call you to the married life and allow a bishop to approve you for ordination or a suerior to approve you for religious vows. It does not work that way in the law of the Church.

The Church decides what is your vocation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Geremia]

St. Thomas Aquinas said that all religious life is higher than married life (although the married state is holy indeed). He also said that the state of a religious friar/monk is higher than a priest.

Are there any non-religious who say this?

 

[diggerdomer]

Is the priestly and/or virginal state of life more blessed than married life? ].

No

 

[diggerdomer]

the Church’s Magisterium do teach that consecration is a “more perfect” **state **than the married state.

Where, today, does the Magisterium teach this?

 

[diggerdomer]

In the case that you mentioned, if a mans has been allowed to be ordained, then he has a vocation to the diaconate or priesthood, not the married life. God does not call you to the married life and allow a bishop to approve you for ordination or a suerior to approve you for religious vows. It does not work that way in the law of the Church.

I don’t understand.

There are and always have been married Catholic priests and deacons. Even the Roman Rite routinely ordains married men to the diaconate, and in some cases to the priesthood.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t understand.

There are and always have been married Catholic priests and deacons. Even the Roman Rite routinely ordains married men to the diaconate, and in some cases to the priesthood.

The priesthood is not a consecrated life. The priesthood is part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Consecrated religious are brothers, friars, monks, nuns, sisters, hermits and some Secular Orders who are in perpetual vows.

The dogma of the Church is that the consecrated life (by the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience) are the highest and most blessed way of life in the Church. This does not include marriage or priesthood.

Marriage, diaconate, priesthood and espicapate are not ways of life. They are states in life. There is a doctrinal and biblical difference between a way of life and a state in life.

The biblical difference comes from the Gospels and from St. Paul. The doctrinal referrence comes from magisterial teaching.

Ex 17, 29; Mt. 19: 9-12; Mt. 22, 30; Mk 12, 25; Lk 20: 34-35; 1Cor 7: 8-9; 1Cor 7, 27; 1Cor 7:32-34

From these passages the early Church established the consecrated life as a calling to a higher form of living, because the early Church saw the consecrated life of the religious as being the same life as that of the angels in heaven whose sole life is dedicated to pleasing and adoring God.

Therefore, the Church reached these conclusions through the centuries.

**926 Religious life derives from the mystery of the Church. It is a gift she has received from her Lord, a gift she offers as a stable way of life to the faithful called by God to profess the counsels. Thus, the Church can both show forth Christ and acknowledge herself to be the Savior’s bride. Religious life in its various forms is called to signify the very charity of God in the language of our time. ** (CCC)

The religious life is a sign of God’s charity and is rooted in the mysery of the Church. Marriage is a sign of God union with the Church, but is not a sign of God’s charity. There is the difference. Marriage is a sign of God’s love for the Church. Religious life is a sign of God’s charity for all creation from the beginning to the end of time. It is eschatalogical. The way that religious live is the way that we shall all live in heaven, where there is no marriage, not Church and no families, only an intimate union of love and adoration with God. The religious begins to live on eart what will be continued in heaven.

This is the doctrine on religious life.

14. As a response to the gift of God, the vows are a triple expression of a single “yes” to the one relationship of total consecration. They are the act by which the religious “makes himself or herself over to God in a new and special way” (LG 44). By them, the religious gladly dedicates the whole of life to God’s service, regarding the following of Christ “as the one thing that is necessary, and seeking God before all else and only him” (PC 5). Two reasons prompt this dedication: first, a desire to be free from hindrances that could prevent the person from loving God ardently and worshipping him perfectly (cf. ET 7); and second, a desire to be consecrated in a more total way to the service of God (cf. LG 44).

The Church recognizes in the vowed life of a religious a more total consecration to God, free from the hinderances of other states: i.e. priesthood and marriage.

**945 Already destined for him through Baptism, the person who surrenders himself to the God he loves above all else thereby consecrates himself more intimately to God’s service and to the good of the whole Church. **

Thus the Church believes that this is a more intimate union to God. In older papal decrees and conciliar decrees this was declare a doctrine of the Church and those who would consider the religious life to be subordinate or equal to marriage or priesthood are said to be anathema. This has never been revoked by the Church.

This is one reason why there are very few nuns and religious brothers. This is a very specail calling, reserved for a very small group of people. Through history, religious communities began to allow priests who wantend to live a consecrated life to joine religious orders. Later, during the bith of religious congregations, many men felt called to be priests and to be consecrated religious as well. Therefore, congregations of clerics were founded such as the Salesians, Oblates of Mary, Redemptorists and others.

I hope this clarifies the quesation a little better.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I don’t understand.

There are and always have been married Catholic priests and deacons. Even the Roman Rite routinely ordains married men to the diaconate, and in some cases to the priesthood.

If I understood you correctly, I believe that you said in your post that a man can be ordained or married and that it could be a mistake, meaning that this is not his vocation. That’s what I understood you to say. In other words, someone can miss their vocation and become something else.

However, the teaching of the Church is that it is the Church who decides what is your vocation. Therefore, if you entera seminary and are ordained and you then say, “I made a mistake.” The Church says, “No you didn’t. If you had not been called to Holy Orders (deacon or priest) you would never have been ordained.” The Church never makes a mistake when it comes to a person’s vocation. If the Church approved your ordination, it is because this is the will of God. You have the responsibility to conform your mind to that of the Church. The only time that the Church will dispense you from the promise of celibacy and obedience to the bishop, is if she feels that you may lose your sould, because you cannot respond to your calling. But as far as the Church is concerned, there was no mistake. This is your calling and she is doing you a favor by dispensing you from the two promises so that you can live as if you were a lay person, even marry, in order to save your sould. But in fact, you have a call to Holy Orders, because the Church said so.

The same applies to religious vows. If a brother or a sister, makes perpetual vows, that person has a call to the religious life. There is no doubt in the mind of the Church, because the Church believes that she never makes a mistake in these cases. If the religious superior gives you permission to make final vows, then you DO have a calling to live this intimate life with Christ in community and in vows. There is no mistake. The only mistake is you thinking that you made a mistake. In other words, your thinking is faulty. The Church may release you from the obligations of the vows, either for a period of time or permanently, but she does this as a favor to you, not because there is any mistak. You were called by Christ and the religious superior confirmed it. You now have a problem responding to the call, the Church and the religious community are going to do an act of charity for you and release you from your obligations so that you do not keep sinning against the vows. But neither the religious community nor the Church has any obligationt to release you from the vows. They can allow you to remain in vows and struggle with sin, at the peril of your soul. It has been done.

Religious vows and the promise of celibacy made by clerics are tough to get out of. Even if you get a dispensation, you get it at your own risk. The Church does not promise that you will be saved. She is only trying to help you, but ultimately it is up to God to forgive you for leaving. In addition, if the circumstances change and you are able to fulfill the vows, you must do so, no matter where you are. In other words, if your spouse died, there is no reason why you can’t be celibate again. If you have no children, there is no reason why you can’t live chasity, poverty and obedience again. A word that has been given, must be fulfilled as soon as it is possible to do so.

It is just like marriage. If the marriage can be reconciled, you have a moral obligation to do so.

I hope this helps.

Br. JR, OSF

 

[albertziggy]

The priesthood is not a consecrated life. The priesthood is part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Consecrated religious are brothers, friars, monks, nuns, sisters, hermits and some Secular Orders who are in perpetual vows.

The dogma of the Church is that the consecrated life (by the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience) are the highest and most blessed way of life in the Church. This does not include marriage or priesthood.

Br. JR, OSF

Hi Br JR.

Just want something clarified. Members of Secular Orders only fall under this category of a** more blessed life **if they are single and are in perpetual vows. As long as they just make solemn promises, and/or are married then they are not in the same standing as those with vows, even if they commit themselves to live the Gospel way of life according to the Rule they follow.

Am I getting this right? Is there any saving grace for members of the Secular Orders not in perpetual vows?

Thanks for your response.

albertziggy

 

[Mrs_Sally]

This is in conflict with the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church. The dogma is that the call to religious life, as lived out by those who are members of religious orders and make vows to live the evengelical counsels: chastity, poverty and obedience, have responded to the most sacred and highest call of all. The priesthood and married life do not involve require the public profession of the evangleical counsels in a stable religiious family.

In addtion, the Church believes and teaches that those with legitimate authority in the Church have the final word on whether you have a vocation or not. If a bishop reject you for the priesthood. then you do not have a vocation. If the religious superior rejects you for vows, then you do not have a vocation to that way of life. The same would apply to marriage. If you are turned down, then you do not have a vocation.

In the case that you mentioned, if a mans has been allowed to be ordained, then he has a vocation to the diaconate or priesthood, not the married life. God does not call you to the married life and allow a bishop to approve you for ordination or a suerior to approve you for religious vows. It does not work that way in the law of the Church.

The Church decides what is your vocation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you Brother JR. However, in defense of my priest what I believe he was getting at was actually the opposite–people feeling sorry for priests and religious because they have given up so much and must have a lonely life. What he was saying is that each of us are called to the correct vocation and we can each become holy within that vocation.

I do also want to point out that our sinfulness can sometimes foil the law of the church in individual cases–there are certainly men who have been ordained who should not have been. Or perhaps I should more correctly say, there are men who have not taken full advantage of their state to grow in holiness. Throughout the history of the church there have been lazy, corrupt priests and even whole orders which have corrupted their founding charism. This is off-topic from the OPs question, but I did want to say that certainly people have become religious who shouldn’t have an vice versa. In this fallen world, we do not always follow God’s Perfect Will in our lives.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you Brother JR. However, in defense of my priest what I believe he was getting at was actually the opposite–people feeling sorry for priests and religious because they have given up so much and must have a lonely life. What he was saying is that each of us are called to the correct vocation and we can each become holy within that vocation.

I do also want to point out that our sinfulness can sometimes foil the law of the church in individual cases–there are certainly men who have been ordained who should not have been. Or perhaps I should more correctly say, there are men who have not taken full advantage of their state to grow in holiness. Throughout the history of the church there have been lazy, corrupt priests and even whole orders which have corrupted their founding charism. This is off-topic from the OPs question, but I did want to say that certainly people have become religious who shouldn’t have an vice versa. In this fallen world, we do not always follow God’s Perfect Will in our lives.

When the Church speaks of the sanctity of a way of life, whatever that may be, she does not mean that the person who has been called to that way of life is a saint. Your assessment is correct. There are people who do not take advantage of the gifts that they have received. This does not take away from the gift. The gift is what it is. Unfortunately, the receiver is not using it. That’s always sad.

I can understand what you say in your comment that people beleive that priests or religious are lonely or live a harder life than other Christians. This can be true, but it’s not due to the calling. Again, it follows from what you said. If people do not take advantage of their calling, they will be lonely and life will be harder. Every form of life has its demands. There are good days and bad days. But generally, those of us who try to be faithful to the gifts that we have received are very happy, not lonely and have little to complain about, at least no more than the average person.

The Catholic laity has two tendencies and both are very extremist. On the one hand they believe that the priesthood and the religious life so difficult that they live in awe or even pity for us. Or there is the other extreme. They believe that we have been given graces to live super human lives and should be able to respond to every sacrifice, every challenge, every demand and every difficulty. This is not true either. We do not cease to be human.

I just had this conversation with an aunt of min over the habit. We have two habits. One is long to the floor, with chord, hood and a scapular. The other is a short tunic reaching below the hips, with a hood and made of a light weight material. We went to FL and I wore the shorter tunic with grey slacks. I immediately got the comment about sacrifice and putting up with the heat and so forth. I tried to explain that religious life is not about making yourself sick or uncomfortable to the heck of it; but you sacrifice and live with discomfort for a purpose when there is a purpose. She was not open to listening. I finally shut up. You can’t get through to most lay people when speaking about the religious life.

My experience is that many lay people understand the priesthood better than they understand the religious life. The religious life is a mystery to them, especially male religious life. They can’t separate it from the priesthood. In reality, it has nothing to do with the priesthood of Christ and everything to do with the mystery of Christ’s way of life. But I really believe this is either a difficult concept for many lay people or one that they are not interested in because it does not benefit them directly, as is the case with the priest who hears their confessions and celebrates their mass.

Just want something clarified. Members of Secular Orders only fall under this category of a more blessed life if they are single and are in perpetual vows. As long as they just make solemn promises, and/or are married then they are not in the same standing as those with vows, even if they commit themselves to live the Gospel way of life according to the Rule they follow.

Am I getting this right? Is there any saving grace for members of the Secular Orders not in perpetual vows?

Thanks for your response.

albertziggy

Members of the Secular Orders make a profession that is theologically, liturgically and canonically equivalent to that of religious. Therefore, they share the same place in the mind of the Church as do their counterparts in the conventual life. They are true Franciscans, Carmelites, or Dominicans… For example: Martin de Porres, Rita of Lima, Catherine of Siena, Angela of Foligno, Louis King of France, Elizabeth of Hungary, Pius X, Thomas More and hundreds of others. At the time of death they enjoy the same indulgences that the regular membes of the order enjoy.

The fact that they have made a solemn promise to live according to the Rule of St. Francis, St. Augustine or Carmel, makes that promise binding and grants them the same privileges of their brothers and sisters in the enclosure of the friary or convent. They are set apart from the rest of the lay faithful by the grace of profession.

The sanctity accorded religious life is not about the celibacy. It is about living the rule, in fraternity and according to the mind of the founder and the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

The dogma of the Church is that the consecrated life (by the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience) are the highest and most blessed way of life in the Church.

Where and how is this dogma taught? I’ve never heard that before. Thank you.

(Also I am well aware of the distinctions between laity, ordained, and religious/consecrated lives. The OP asked about priesthood and the religious/consecrated life, not just one)

 

[diggerdomer]

If I understood you correctly, I believe that you said in your post that a man can be ordained or married and that it could be a mistake, meaning that this is not his vocation.

Nope. Sorry if I mis-stated something.

The Church never makes a mistake when it comes to a person’s vocation. If the Church approved your ordination, it is because this is the will of God.

So the Church did not make a mistake in the numerous instances I know of where a person was ordained and then later removed from the priesthood due to actions obviously requiring removal? Some of which, at least, were clearly concerns prior to ordination and happened within the first year of being ordained?

Religious vows and the promise of celibacy made by clerics are tough to get out of.

Good. They should be. Unfortunately, as we’ve learned over the past few years, the Church been somewhat complicit in one scandalous way to easily get out of them. Sadly.