Protestant Franciscans, Augustinians, and Benedictines. Are these guys in denial?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lak611 said:
There is nothing wrong with Protestant religious orders. They are not made up of ex-Catholics. There is no “sheep-stealing” involved. The members of these orders are people who were born into Protestant churches, not reformers who started a new church. Should we ban Protestants from celebrating All Saints’ Day? It was a feast started by Catholics. Since the Catholic Church originally had the Bible, should we ban Protestants from owning one? What about Sunday worship? Should Protestants be forbidden to worship on Sunday since Catholics started the practice? I could go on and on with this. To any Protestants who have been hurt by the lack of charity on this thread, please do not think that all of us Catholics are like that. :hug1:
Click to expand...
Thank you Laura. That was very gracious.

I wonder if Catholic priests should stop wearing clerical collars. They were invented by a Protestant… 😃
 
As Christians of any kind, we should be cautious about claiming any part of our heritage as “ours alone.” Remember the Bible was given to us by our predecessors in faith. The First (Old) Testament was given to us by our Jewish predecessors; written in Hebrew and Aramaic, it constitutes the Jewish sacred writings. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, not Latin. Before there was a Church at Rome, there were Greek and Hebrew Churches (which dare I say, became Orthodox). The desert fathers – the first monastics, could hardly be called ‘Catholic’ in the modern sense being used in this thread. They considered themselves “christians.” Remember also that the word catholic originally meant and for many still means “universal” or “ecumenical” as you will.
 
Remember that the Third Order Franciscans (Catholic) include lay members and married persons.
 
knklwht said:
Remember that the Third Order Franciscans (Catholic) include lay members and married persons.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that’s why they are Third Order.

A Protestant Franciscan, Augustinian, and Benedictine makes about as much sense as a Catholic priest leading a Lutheran worship service. It’s a contradiction of terms.

Authentic Franciscans, Augustinians, and Benedictines all have their constitutions approved by the Catholic Church and make their vows to a Catholic bishop and superior. The psuedo-orders do not – in fact, they reject the Catholic Church.

What is so difficult to understand about this?
 
knklwht said:
As Christians of any kind, we should be cautious about claiming any part of our heritage as “ours alone.” Remember the Bible was given to us by our predecessors in faith. The First (Old) Testament was given to us by our Jewish predecessors; written in Hebrew and Aramaic, it constitutes the Jewish sacred writings. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, not Latin. Before there was a Church at Rome, there were Greek and Hebrew Churches (which dare I say, became Orthodox). The desert fathers – the first monastics, could hardly be called ‘Catholic’ in the modern sense being used in this thread. They considered themselves “christians.” Remember also that the word catholic originally meant and for many still means “universal” or “ecumenical” as you will.
Click to expand...
There always was a Church in Rome because thats where Peter died and his Successors began(Linus, Clement of Rome).
 
I don’t see the wearing of clerical collars as a valid comparison. We’re talking about clothing vs. orders founded by Catholic clergy and approved by Popes. Their missions included the advancement of the Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church, not the advancement of heresies.
 
Lepanto said:
Yes, and that’s why they are Third Order.

A Protestant Franciscan, Augustinian, and Benedictine makes about as much sense as a Catholic priest leading a Lutheran worship service. It’s a contradiction of terms.

Authentic Franciscans, Augustinians, and Benedictines all have their constitutions approved by the Catholic Church and make their vows to a Catholic bishop and superior. The psuedo-orders do not – in fact, they reject the Catholic Church.

What is so difficult to understand about this?
Click to expand...
Amen, I agree with you completely on this. Everyone wants to have all the Catholic-ness that comes with being Catholic, but don’t want to do the work and actually humble themselves to do so. In my opinion, that’s the clincher.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
 
Contarini said:
I’m confident that any Protestant who cared to join such an order would be working toward reunification. I can’t imagine any Protestant bothering to be part of a religious order and not caring about reunification. However, our idea of reunification may not be yours–shucks, I strongly suspect that the Pope’s idea is quite different from yours.

The Methodists have an “Order of St. Luke” to which my wife belongs. Is that OK? After all, you surely believe St. Luke is Catholic too, so I guess you think we shouldn’t claim him either.

It is no more ridiculous for us to claim St. Augustine and St. Francis than it is for us to claim Jesus and St. Paul. You think that we are bogus through and through. Fine, but why object in particular to our claiming certain relatively late parts of our common heritage. Since you clearly object to Protestantism as a whole, how is this different? You surely know that we don’t think that our heritage began with the Reformation. The fact that we use the Bible should have tipped you off on that score!

Edwin
Click to expand...
Its kinda superfluous to claim you have hertiage before the refomation when you reject the authority that made that heritage in the first place.
 
Lepanto said:
Yes, and that’s why they are Third Order.

A Protestant Franciscan, Augustinian, and Benedictine makes about as much sense as a Catholic priest leading a Lutheran worship service. It’s a contradiction of terms.
Click to expand...

**There’s no contradiction - one does not to have a member of a pre-Reformation order that exists in the Roman Church, in order to be a member of the same pre-Reformation order in the Anglican Church. The Church’s history before 1517 is common to all Western Churches, so the Protestant ones don’t need permission or approval from Rome to be Benedictines or Franciscans or whatever it may be, thank you very much. **​

Authentic Franciscans, Augustinians, and Benedictines all have their constitutions approved by the Catholic Church and make their vows to a Catholic bishop and superior. The psuedo-orders do not – in fact, they reject the Catholic Church.

What is so difficult to understand about this?
Click to expand...
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

**There’s no contradiction - one does not to have a member of a pre-Reformation order that exists in the Roman Church, in order to be a member of the same pre-Reformation order in the Anglican Church. The Church’s history before 1517 is common to all Western Churches, so the Protestant ones don’t need permission or approval from Rome to be Benedictines or Franciscans or whatever it may be, thank you very much. **​

Click to expand...
You know, sometimes I am truly amazed at how people cannot see (or don’t want to see) the obvious. It’s as if we can just close our eyes and pretend that the Reformation and Counter-Reformation never happened.

By your logic, then, we can also say that a dog is really just a different type of cat. They both have four legs, a tail, and are furry after all!

Franciscans, Augustinians, and Benedictines who claim fealty to a non-Catholic ecclesial community are, quite frankly, being grossly dishonest and cheapen the good standing of legitimate Catholic friars and monks.
 
Eden said:
Do they take vows of celibacy?
Click to expand...
Non-Catholic Religious communities established according to Catholic models have all the features of a Catholic Religious community, including promises of celibacy.

I fail to understand the pique this has raised among Catholics, as if non-Catholics were “stealing” something from us.

There is actually much good rapport between Catholic and non-Catholic monastics, who often feel they have more in common with one another than they have with lay people of their own religious tradition.
 
mercygate said:
There is actually much good rapport between Catholic and non-Catholic monastics, who often feel they have more in common with one another than they have with lay people of their own religious tradition.
Click to expand...
Then why not have the integrity to discontinue their phantom religious “orders” and convert to the Church which gave birth to Ss. Francis, Augustine, and Benedict?

Back in the “old” days, people under such circumstances converted. Today, we try to justify our pride and implacability with ego-stroking sophistry.
 
Lepanto said:
Then why not have the integrity to discontinue their phantom religious “orders” and convert to the Church which gave birth to Ss. Francis, Augustine, and Benedict?

Back in the “old” days, people under such circumstances converted. Today, we try to justify our pride and implacability with ego-stroking sophistry.
Click to expand...
What were you baptized in? Pickle juice?
 
Lepanto said:
You know, sometimes I am truly amazed at how people cannot see (or don’t want to see) the obvious. It’s as if we can just close our eyes and pretend that the Reformation and Counter-Reformation never happened.

By your logic, then, we can also say that a dog is really just a different type of cat. They both have four legs, a tail, and are furry after all!

Franciscans, Augustinians, and Benedictines who claim fealty to a non-Catholic ecclesial community are, quite frankly, being grossly dishonest and cheapen the good standing of legitimate Catholic friars and monks.
Click to expand...

Reformation Anglicanism (so to call it - the A-word is a 19th-century coinage, I believe; the Church of 1559 was not AFAIK called “Anglican”) is in continuity with the Church of 13th-century England in many ways. And nothing in the character Anglicanism positively forbade it to reach back to that part of its history (which it shares with the Church of Rome, among others) & to revive some of the forms of religion of that era.​

How does that harm those Christians who are in communion with Rome ? How are RC Franciscans hurt by the existence of Anglican Franciscans ? How is it evil or wrong for Anglicans (& Old Catholics) to be inspired by the example of St. Francis ? Or to give corporate expression to this inspiration ?

There is no dishonesty, because no attempt is being made to claim to be in communion with Rome after 1559, so there is no claim to be in communion with any RC religious personnel at that date & after. I went into some of this in my first post on this thread.

The C of E did not come out of thin air; it is a reformed version of the English Church that was in union with Rome. That is why Anglicanism is in continuity with pre-Reformation English Christianity. Rome is not the author of grace - God is. So if God gives grace to Anglicans to revive pre-Reformation modes of Christian life, no Papal permission is needed.

The Pope is not needed for the Coptic Church to have monks & such - they have their own Pope, so he of Rome is not required; & the same is true of the post-Reformation Church of England; Roman intervention is not needed. If Anglicans can’t be friars, because there are RC friars, what else can they not do because RCism does it ?
 
Lepanto said:
Then why not have the integrity to discontinue their phantom religious “orders” and convert to the Church which gave birth to Ss. Francis, Augustine, and Benedict?

Back in the “old” days, people under such circumstances converted. Today, we try to justify our pride and implacability with ego-stroking sophistry.
Click to expand...

For one thing, they are already in it, from some POVs.​

For another, those Saints might not regard the RCC today as being as legitimate as we do; as an OP has pointed out, we believe things they did not. It’s impossible to say whether St. Benedict would regard the RCC of the 13th century as legitimate - 700 years separate the Church of his time from the Church as it was in the days of St. Francis.

For a third, I think you are greatly underestimating the sheer complexity of what goes into a decision to convert. And overlooking the not unimportant fact that the grace of conversion is exactly that - a grace. This is one of the greatest weaknesses in Catholicism as manifested on this site: it has almost no appreciation of grace. 😦

For another, conversion is a life-long process, even if one is a “cradle Catholic” - changing from one Church to another is comparatively unimportant.
 
PetersKeys said:
There always was a Church in Rome because thats where Peter died and his Successors began(Linus, Clement of Rome).
Click to expand...
You need to read your New Testament (The Book of Acts). The first church was the church in Jerusalem, not Rome; But this is besides the point. I was just trying to point out that, if being around longer gives a particular Church ecclesiastic priority; according to the Bible, Churches in Asia Minor existed before those of Europe (including Rome). When Saint Paul heard the call to “go over to Macedonia,” it was to plant Christianity in Europe for the first time.

In this conversation, it seems that those who are shouting the most seem to be the least thoughtful. No one has yet addressed the Monastic Orders in the Orthodox Churches that predate those of the RCC.

The Orthodox Prelates were contemporaries of the Popes in Rome and never accepted Papal Authority. The fourteenth century is rather late in Church history to read back into the historical account the supremacy of the Prelate of Rome over those in Asia Minor and Greece.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top