Priestly State of Life More Blessed?

[simple_soul]

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

*Dear Ellie Anne,

I am not sure what to say to this other than maybe you could let God use this as an opportunity for you to fulfill His Will for you and take comfort in the fact that it is what He wills. I believe you might also be able to use this as an opportunity to learn how to put your complete trust in Him and His Divinely Inspired Word.
Personally I do try to give God everything I have to fulfill His will for me in the vocation of Holy Matrimony.

I pray this might help, *

 

[diggerdomer]

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

Whether the Sacrament of Holy Orders is open to men is an open question.

I’m not talking about the priesthood here (though I think it’s equally relevant) but rather the diaconate. The Church agrees that there’s nothing in the Bible that prohibits women being ordained to the diaconate. The current restriction on ordination, i.e. only for males, applies to the priesthood (presbyters and bishops).

 

[diggerdomer]

Whether the Sacrament of Holy Orders is open to men is an open question.

I’m not talking about the priesthood here (though I think it’s equally relevant) but rather the diaconate. The Church agrees that there’s nothing in the Bible that prohibits women being ordained to the diaconate. The current restriction on ordination, i.e. only for males, applies to the priesthood (presbyters and bishops).

I meant…“only” to men.

 

[JReducation]

Whether the Sacrament of Holy Orders is open to men is an open question.

I’m not talking about the priesthood here (though I think it’s equally relevant) but rather the diaconate. The Church agrees that there’s nothing in the Bible that prohibits women being ordained to the diaconate. The current restriction on ordination, i.e. only for males, applies to the priesthood (presbyters and bishops).

Not everything has to come from the bible to have divine authority behind it. The Bible is not the final word on faith. The final word on faith belongs to the Church, which put together the Bible to reflect what she believes, not the other way around.

The Church does not come from the Bible. The Bible was writtent to reflect the faith of the Church. The Divine Authority is shared between the Church, biblical writers and Magisterium. If the Church says that women may not be ordained deacons, that has a divine force of law behind it, because the Christ speaks through the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Not everything has to come from the bible to have divine authority behind it. The Bible is not the final word on faith. The final word on faith belongs to the Church, which put together the Bible to reflect what she believes, not the other way around.

The Church does not come from the Bible. The Bible was writtent to reflect the faith of the Church. The Divine Authority is shared between the Church, biblical writers and Magisterium. If the Church says that women may not be ordained deacons, that has a divine force of law behind it, because the Christ speaks through the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The thing to remember is that there were never female deacons. They were deaconesses and had a totally different role (one that is not really present any longer) than a deacon.

 

[JReducation]

The thing to remember is that there were never female deacons. They were deaconesses and had a totally different role (one that is not really present any longer) than a deacon.

Brother is correct on this. I’m coming at this from a different angle. When people say the bible says or doesn’t say, I like to remind people that the Bible comes from the Church, not the other way around.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jimcav]

Not everything has to come from the bible to have divine authority behind it. The Bible is not the final word on faith. The final word on faith belongs to the Church, which put together the Bible to reflect what she believes, not the other way around.

The Church does not come from the Bible. The Bible was writtent to reflect the faith of the Church. The Divine Authority is shared between the Church, biblical writers and Magisterium. If the Church says that women may not be ordained deacons, that has a divine force of law behind it, because the Christ speaks through the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

What an incredible post!

If you don’t mind, I will commit this one to memory, because you describe simply and perfectly how the authority of the Church, the Bible and the Magisterium work together.

Didn’t mean to hijack the thread, but I just had to comment!

 

[VeroNihilVerius]

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

Br. JR,

I am just wondering what references you could point me to that might go through this in greater detail. Is this an official stance or an unofficial yet generally accepted hierarchy? I am interested in reading to learn more.

Thanks.

VHN

 

[diggerdomer]

Not everything has to come from the bible to have divine authority behind it. The Bible is not the final word on faith. The final word on faith belongs to the Church, which put together the Bible to reflect what she believes, not the other way around.

The Church does not come from the Bible. The Bible was writtent to reflect the faith of the Church. The Divine Authority is shared between the Church, biblical writers and Magisterium. If the Church says that women may not be ordained deacons, that has a divine force of law behind it, because the Christ speaks through the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Exactly.

 

[diggerdomer]

The thing to remember is that there were never female deacons. They were deaconesses and had a totally different role (one that is not really present any longer) than a deacon.

Which is not something attested to in the Bible, but rather later in Church tradition.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Which is not something attested to in the Bible, but rather later in Church tradition.

Yes and Church Tradition is as authoritative as Scripture. You must remember that the Church is not a product of the Bible but that the Bible is a product of the Church.

We Catholics are not a Bible only Church.

Today’s Gospel reading for the Feast of Saint Mary Magdalen of Pazzi, Virgin, (Carmelite calendar) is the story of Martha and Mary from Luke. This shows that those who chose a life closer to Christ have chosen the better part. Jesus says, “…Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her.”

There is no argument that religious life is that better part.

 

[JReducation]

Hold on everyone. We’re getting very Protestant here, trying to prove everything using the bible as the most authoritative source. That’s never been the way that the Church has done business. In fact, the most authoritative source is always the Church, because it was the Church who decidede what books and texts went into the bible. It was the Church that decided that the bible must be organized to represent what she believed. It was the Church who approved the final canon of scripture and only the Church can authoritatively interpret scriputre. The Church acts against the background of Sacred Tradition. Therefore, the hierarchy of authority is Sacred Tradition, Magisterium and Scripture. Without the first two, we would have Protestantism, poor and simple.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Hold on everyone. We’re getting very Protestant here, trying to prove everything using the bible as the most authoritative source. That’s never been the way that the Church has done business. In fact, the most authoritative source is always the Church, because it was the Church who decidede what books and texts went into the bible. It was the Church that decided that the bible must be organized to represent what she believed. It was the Church who approved the final canon of scripture and only the Church can authoritatively interpret scriputre. The Church acts against the background of Sacred Tradition. Therefore, the hierarchy of authority is Sacred Tradition, Magisterium and Scripture. Without the first two, we would have Protestantism, poor and simple.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I look at it a bit differently.

Without the first two we would not have the third. With out Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to define the Scriptures we would not have them.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes and Church Tradition is as authoritative as Scripture. You must remember that the Church is not a product of the Bible but that the Bible is a product of the Church.

We Catholics are not a Bible only Church.

Yes, I know. My point was, to claim that “deaconesses” were totally different than “deacons”, is a part of Tradition but only verifiable to a point. We don’t know how such ministries were understood, carried out, etc., in the earliest history of the Church. Paul does not distinguish such when he names Phoebe as “deacon” for instance in Romans. Before the roles became “totally different” we just don’t know exactly what the Church practiced and believed in this regard.

 

[CaterinaTherese]

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.

I’m confused. Is this “grace of profession” something separate from the “more perfect” classification? Because there are married lay Dominicans, you know.

On a similar note, married lay Dominicans are also called to live prayerful and contemplative lives. Contemplation is a one-on-one activity with God. Married people wouldn’t be able to follow that part of the Dominican charism if it was true that they are shut out from having a one-on-one moment with God. I do not believe married people are called to relate to God EXCLUSIVELY through their spouse. I do believe that they ARE called to love God through their spouse, but not necessarily EXCLUSIVELY. It is possible to be married AND have a very close, intimate relationship with Jesus through contemplation. A married person’s time for contemplation is limited compared to a religious, their attention is divided, it’s true, so in this way, a religious has a more perfect union with Jesus, their one-on-one relationship with Jesus is MORE intimate, but that doesn’t mean the married person’s relationship with Jesus isn’t intimate AT ALL.

I am not arguing with the Church, I acknowledge that their state of life is “higher” just like by the fact that angels are purely spiritual beings, they are “higher” beings than we are. But Mary, technically a “lower” being than the angels, has been raised up as Queen of Heaven! So obviously just because you are in a “lower” state of life doesn’t mean you’re not destined to be a great saint! And it doesn’t mean that you can’t have a deep and meaningful prayer life!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, I know. My point was, to claim that “deaconesses” were totally different than “deacons”, is a part of Tradition but only verifiable to a point. We don’t know how such ministries were understood, carried out, etc., in the earliest history of the Church. Paul does not distinguish such when he names Phoebe as “deacon” for instance in Romans. Before the roles became “totally different” we just don’t know exactly what the Church practiced and believed in this regard.

I wonder what the original Greek word used is and if it is the same as when is speaks of male deacons.

This is a issue with any translation as there is an amount of interpretation that goes into any translation of the original language to another language.

 

[diggerdomer]

I wonder what the original Greek word used is and if it is the same as when is speaks of male deacons.

This is a issue with any translation as there is an amount of interpretation that goes into any translation of the original language to another language.

Same word in Greek

 

[Geremia]

See this excellent blog post.

Ultimately, I think this question comes down to why God does not love all things equally (, Ia q. 20 a. 3Summa Theologiæ) and why God would will things to be unequal, of various degrees of goodness (, q. 47 a. 2ibid.). Why would He will Holy Orders to be better than Matrimony, although both are good? In response to these questions, read the first few short chapters of Card. Silvio Antoniano’s beautiful book Dell’Educazione Cristiana e Politica de’ Figliuoli (On the Christian and Political Education of Children), the first ~23 chapters of which I have translated into English. (I am so surprised this book hasn’t been entirely translated into English; Pope Pius XI gave it much praise in his 1929 encyclical on education Divini illius magistri.)

Then the question comes down to theodicy: Why would God allow some “to be burnt,” for whom “it is better to marry” (1 Cor. 7:9), and others He wills able to resist these fires of temptation, for whom Holy Orders might be their vocation? Why does God distribute His grace unevenly, “according to the measure of the giving of Christ” (Eph. 4:7; cf. , Ia-IIae q. 112 a. 4Summa Theologiæ)? Why do people respond differently to the grace? Judging from God’s ultimate response to Job, these questions are not answerable in this life.
We must endeavour by all means in our power to preserve this unity, especially by avoiding jealousy, or being envious of the graces which have been given to our neighour; considering that they all proceed from the same God, who divides to each one as he pleaseth. (Haydock Commentary)

 

[JReducation]

See this excellent blog post.

Ultimately, I think this question comes down to why God does not love all things equally (Summa Theologiæ, Ia q. 20 a. 3) and why God would will things to be unequal, of various degrees of goodness (ibid., q. 47 a. 2). Why would He will Holy Orders to be better than Matrimony, although both are good? In response to these questions, read the first few short chapters of Card. Silvio Antoniano’s beautiful book Dell’Educazione Cristiana e Politica de’ Figliuoli (On the Christian and Political Education of Children), the first ~23 chapters of which I have translated into English. (I am so surprised this book hasn’t been entirely translated into English; Pope Pius XI gave it much praise in his 1929 encyclical on education Divini illius magistri.)

Then the question comes down to theodicy: Why would God allow some “to be burnt,” for whom “it is better to marry” (1 Cor. 7:9), and others He wills able to resist these fires of temptation, for whom Holy Orders might be their vocation? Why does God distribute His grace unevenly, “according to the measure of the giving of Christ” (Eph. 4:7; cf. Summa Theologiæ, Ia-IIae q. 112 a. 4)? Why do people respond differently to the grace? Judging from God’s ultimate response to Job, these questions are not answerable in this life.
We must endeavour by all means in our power to preserve this unity, especially by avoiding jealousy, or being envious of the graces which have been given to our neighour; considering that they all proceed from the same God, who divides to each one as he pleaseth. (Haydock Commentary)

It is well written. For fun, we can always throw another monkey wrench into the mix as I did in a conversation the bishop, which made him laught. There is celibacy and the vow of chastity. They’re not the same. In the hierarchy of states in life, the vow of chasity is higher than the promise of celibacy made by priests. The vow includes celibacy and more. The promise is limited to celibacy. The marriage vows are the flip side of the coin of the vow of chastity, not the promise of celibacy.

First, both marraige and religious life are vowed lifestyles. Second, both the marriage vows and the vow of chastity are solemn vows, whereas the promise of celibacy is not even a vow. Third, the vows are essential for the validity of marriage and the validity of the consecrated life. The promise of celibacy is not essential for the validity of Holy Orders. Otherwise you couldn’t ordain married men to the diaconate or to the priesthood.

Most diocesan priests and most lay people do not see the relationship between the consecrated life and marriage, because they are not formed or informed on the consecrated life. The study of the consecrated life and the spiritual life is not a requirement to be a priest, a woman religious or to be a lay Catholic. It’s only required of male religious. It’s optional for everyone else. It shouldn’t be. It would clarify many misundestandings of the different vocations and where they stand in the hierarchy of holiness. It would become clear that what is holy is the call, not the individual. The individual can be a brat. Each call to holiness has its place in the hierarchy. However, the saints do not quibble over their place. That’s why they’re saints. They accept who they are and where God puts them. They are faithful to that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rachael_maria]

See this excellent blog post.

Ultimately, I think this question comes down to why God does not love all things equally (Summa Theologiæ, Ia q. 20 a. 3) and why God would will things to be unequal, of various degrees of goodness (ibid., q. 47 a. 2). Why would He will Holy Orders to be better than Matrimony, although both are good? In response to these questions, read the first few short chapters of Card. Silvio Antoniano’s beautiful book Dell’Educazione Cristiana e Politica de’ Figliuoli (On the Christian and Political Education of Children), the first ~23 chapters of which I have translated into English. (I am so surprised this book hasn’t been entirely translated into English; Pope Pius XI gave it much praise in his 1929 encyclical on education Divini illius magistri.)

Then the question comes down to theodicy: Why would God allow some “to be burnt,” for whom “it is better to marry” (1 Cor. 7:9), and others He wills able to resist these fires of temptation, for whom Holy Orders might be their vocation? Why does God distribute His grace unevenly, “according to the measure of the giving of Christ” (Eph. 4:7; cf. Summa Theologiæ, Ia-IIae q. 112 a. 4)? Why do people respond differently to the grace? Judging from God’s ultimate response to Job, these questions are not answerable in this life.
We must endeavour by all means in our power to preserve this unity, especially by avoiding jealousy, or being envious of the graces which have been given to our neighour; considering that they all proceed from the same God, who divides to each one as he pleaseth. (Haydock Commentary)

Hmmm…I guess, not being Thomas Aquinas, that I do see how it would even be possible for God to not love us all with the same love. (Being infinite and all…) It isn’t as if He says, “You I will love infinitely” to one person and “You I will love less” to another. I think it is silly to try to quantify the love of God…