Spirituality of religious orders in Catholic tradition

[JReducation]

The answer to your question is that a monk and a friar is always Brother, even if he’s ordained. When we enter the monastery or the friary, we enter to be monks or to be friars. If we just wanted to be priests, we would have entered a seminary of a diocese or a religious congregation of simple vows. But we didn’t. We entered a religious order of solemn vows.

In a religious order of solemn vows, which all friars and monks belong to, the focus is on the religious life. That’s why our vows are solemn and the Salesians are simple vows. Their focus is on the young. That’s not our focus. We help the young, if they need our help. But we don’t become friars or monks for that purpose. The Redemptorists make simple vows. Their focus is on being priests to minister Christ’s redemptive grace. That’s not the focus of a friar or a monk either.

The friar and the monk focus on one thing only, achieving intimate brotherhood with Christ, the firstborn among many brothers. This is a lifelong process of prayer, penance, solitude, silence manual labor, charitable apostolic action, sacraments and whatever else it takes to get you to that level of intimacy with Christ your brother.

The ordained monk and friar is a brother seek his first-born brother. His apostolic action is the offering of the sacrifice of the mass, while the apostolic action of another brother may be writing theology books or feeding the hungry and lonely Christ in a soup kitchen.

Therefore, not only is it appropriate to call a monk and a friar Brother, but it’s not humbling to us at all. That is what we are.

The term Father came from the religious life, not from the priesthood. Look at the older saints who were secular priests. St. Vincent de Paul is never called Father Vincent. He was Monsieur Vincent. John Bosco was Don Bosco. The first American diocesan priest was Mr. Hobart.

Father is a translation from the monastic title, Abba for the abbot. Religious superiors in monasteries and friaries are always Father, even if they’re not priests. I’m called Father and I’m not a priest. I’m always called Father General. Brother is used with my name.

This idea of spiritual fatherhood was adopted along the way for all priests. But monks and friars do not see themselves as simply priests. We see ourselves as the younger brothers of Christ the firstborn.

No one will be offended, unless he’s got a chip on his shoulder about being in priest. Then I get really nasty and I make sure that I call him Broooooother every time I meet him.

Fraternally,

Fr. JR, FFV-Gen

 

[jwinch2]

The answer to your question is that a monk and a friar is always Brother, even if he’s ordained. When we enter the monastery or the friary, we enter to be monks or to be friars. If we just wanted to be priests, we would have entered a seminary of a diocese or a religious congregation of simple vows. But we didn’t. We entered a religious order of solemn vows.

In a religious order of solemn vows, which all friars and monks belong to, the focus is on the religious life. That’s why our vows are solemn and the Salesians are simple vows. Their focus is on the young. That’s not our focus. We help the young, if they need our help. But we don’t become friars or monks for that purpose. The Redemptorists make simple vows. Their focus is on being priests to minister Christ’s redemptive grace. That’s not the focus of a friar or a monk either.

The friar and the monk focus on one thing only, achieving intimate brotherhood with Christ, the firstborn among many brothers. This is a lifelong process of prayer, penance, solitude, silence manual labor, charitable apostolic action, sacraments and whatever else it takes to get you to that level of intimacy with Christ your brother.

The ordained monk and friar is a brother seek his first-born brother. His apostolic action is the offering of the sacrifice of the mass, while the apostolic action of another brother may be writing theology books or feeding the hungry and lonely Christ in a soup kitchen.

Therefore, not only is it appropriate to call a monk and a friar Brother, but it’s not humbling to us at all. That is what we are.

The term Father came from the religious life, not from the priesthood. Look at the older saints who were secular priests. St. Vincent de Paul is never called Father Vincent. He was Monsieur Vincent. John Bosco was Don Bosco. The first American diocesan priest was Mr. Hobart.

Father is a translation from the monastic title, Abba for the abbot. Religious superiors in monasteries and friaries are always Father, even if they’re not priests. I’m called Father and I’m not a priest. I’m always called Father General. Brother is used with my name.

This idea of spiritual fatherhood was adopted along the way for all priests. But monks and friars do not see themselves as simply priests. We see ourselves as the younger brothers of Christ the firstborn.

No one will be offended, unless he’s got a chip on his shoulder about being in priest. Then I get really nasty and I make sure that I call him Broooooother every time I meet him.

Fraternally,

Fr. JR, FFV-Gen

Thanks!

The Abbot frequently refers to the monks when speaking of them collectively as “the brothers” and while I figured that was OK for me as well, but it never hurts to ask. I always refer to the Abbot and the Prior as “father” and there are a couple of other monks who I know to be priests that I call “father” as well.

Though I have only been to the abbey twice, they seem like a group of kindly men so I doubt anyone would have a chip on their shoulder. However, their commitment to the life they have chosen deserves my respect so I would rather err on the side of propriety.

Peace,

 

[Faithdancer]

Just because a person in the Franciscan Order is ordained doesn’t mean they are above or better then those that aren’t. They just have different aspect to their ministry then a brother that isn’t ordained.

One should be able to readily see this equality in all orders, and among secular workers in the Church as well…the pastor of a large suburban parish is no better than the groundskeeper, who is no higher or lower than the pope himself, the “servant of the servants of God.” This is at least the teaching of Christ, though it sometimes seems to get lost in the hierarchy and excessive clericalism of rank and authority within religious orders, or secular parish and diocesan structure.

Having attended retreats or monthly meetings of various secular/third orders and one personal prelature, I find the spirituality of Opus Dei to closely reflect the “primitive” egalitarianism of the early Church. It took me a period of time, of attending Evenings of Recollection and of study and reflection, to start to “get” what the Work is all about, but now that I think I am it is as far from “mundane” (as I’ve heard it described on these forums) as can be. At the same time, it is highly personal and liberating- at least that’s how I take it. And sorry if it’s a bit off topic- Opus Dei is after all a personal prelature, and not a religious order. It is also, imho, exquisitely traditional in many ways.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks!

However, their commitment to the life they have chosen deserves my respect so I would rather err on the side of propriety.

Peace,

Propriety for a monk or a friar, would be Brother.

One should be able to readily see this equality in all orders, and among secular workers in the Church as well…the pastor of a large suburban parish is no better than the groundskeeper, who is no higher or lower than the pope himself, the “servant of the servants of God.” This is at least the teaching of Christ, though it sometimes seems to get lost in the hierarchy and excessive clericalism of rank and authority within religious orders,

Hold on, let’s not get things all blended here. Religious orders take their hierarchical structure from the Apostles. The Apostles had a hierarchical structure. We see it very clearly at the Resurrection, in Acts and in Paul’s letters. Even the Sacrament of Holy Orders is hierarchical.

As religious life transitioned from Judaism to Christianity and flourished among the Desert Fathers, there was always an Abba. There was a hierarchy. When Benedict organizes monasticism, he writes about this hierarchy in his rule. His rule becomes the model for the other rules that followed.

In the religious congregations, the structure is different, because they’re not order; therefore, they don’t have a rule of life. In which case, they are not bound to follow Benedict’s hierarchy or that of the Desert Fathers.

Religious congregations of men have a clerical hierarchy, while religious orders of men have a patriarchy. This patriarchy is very Jewish. It was carried over into Christianity.

. And sorry if it’s a bit off topic- Opus Dei is after all a personal prelature, and not a religious order. It is also, imho, exquisitely traditional in many ways.

Opus Dei is very traditional. I love Holy Cross priests. They’re very orthodox, intelligent, and kind. I received my STD from Holy Cross in Rome.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[OraLabora]

This brings up a question for me personally. When I go to the monastery, I have no way of telling who is a priest and who is not. Obviously, I have come to know some of the monks and have seen them con-celebrating Mass, etc. However, for the most part, unless I do a study of their bios on the abbey website, I would not know who the priests are with the exception of those I know.

So, am I safe addressing a monk as “brother” without showing disrespect in cases when I don’t know if they are a priest or not? I’m sure that over time, I will come to know more of the monks and recognize who is who a bit easier, but in the meantime, it can be difficult.

Peace,

At least in our congregation, you can use “Dom”.

 

[jwinch2]

At least in our congregation, you can use “Dom”.

Very interesting. Solesmes correct?

Though St. Gregory’s Abbey is very French in its roots, I have not heard anyone spoken to, or of, in that manner.

 

[ParvaDei]

The answer to your question is that a monk and a friar is always Brother, even if he’s ordained. When we enter the monastery or the friary, we enter to be monks or to be friars. If we just wanted to be priests, we would have entered a seminary of a diocese or a religious congregation of simple vows. But we didn’t. We entered a religious order of solemn vows.

In a religious order of solemn vows, which all friars and monks belong to, the focus is on the religious life. That’s why our vows are solemn and the Salesians are simple vows. Their focus is on the young. That’s not our focus. We help the young, if they need our help. But we don’t become friars or monks for that purpose. The Redemptorists make simple vows. Their focus is on being priests to minister Christ’s redemptive grace. That’s not the focus of a friar or a monk either.

The friar and the monk focus on one thing only, achieving intimate brotherhood with Christ, the firstborn among many brothers. This is a lifelong process of prayer, penance, solitude, silence manual labor, charitable apostolic action, sacraments and whatever else it takes to get you to that level of intimacy with Christ your brother.

The ordained monk and friar is a brother seek his first-born brother. His apostolic action is the offering of the sacrifice of the mass, while the apostolic action of another brother may be writing theology books or feeding the hungry and lonely Christ in a soup kitchen.

Therefore, not only is it appropriate to call a monk and a friar Brother, but it’s not humbling to us at all. That is what we are.

The term Father came from the religious life, not from the priesthood. Look at the older saints who were secular priests. St. Vincent de Paul is never called Father Vincent. He was Monsieur Vincent. John Bosco was Don Bosco. The first American diocesan priest was Mr. Hobart.

Father is a translation from the monastic title, Abba for the abbot. Religious superiors in monasteries and friaries are always Father, even if they’re not priests. I’m called Father and I’m not a priest. I’m always called Father General. Brother is used with my name.

This idea of spiritual fatherhood was adopted along the way for all priests. But monks and friars do not see themselves as simply priests. We see ourselves as the younger brothers of Christ the firstborn.

No one will be offended, unless he’s got a chip on his shoulder about being in priest. Then I get really nasty and I make sure that I call him Broooooother every time I meet him.

Fraternally,

Fr. JR, FFV-Gen

I was just wondering – is this the same for Dominicans as well as Franciscans?

Maybe it’s just because I live in a college town and everybody has become used to the misuse of the terms “Father” and “Brother” (especially because of the constantly renewing supply of college students such as myself who don’t see their first major exposure to friars until college ), but usually when we address them (they’re all friar-priests at this parish, by the way), we say, “Hello, Father insert name here]”. (And they don’t seem to mind, but I just want to make sure I’m addressing them properly.)

Is this still acceptable? Or is the title “Father” only applicable to the superior of the priory?

 

[OraLabora]

Very interesting. Solesmes correct?

Though St. Gregory’s Abbey is very French in its roots, I have not heard anyone spoken to, or of, in that manner.

Correct, pretty much standard throughout the Solesmes congregation.

 

[jwinch2]

Correct, pretty much standard throughout the Solesmes congregation.

Yep, I have some books written by monks of the congregation, and they all use “Dom”.

Peace,

 

[jwinch2]

I was just wondering – is this the same for Dominicans as well as Franciscans?

Maybe it’s just because I live in a college town and everybody has become used to the misuse of the terms “Father” and “Brother” (especially because of the constantly renewing supply of college students such as myself who don’t see their first major exposure to friars until college ), but usually when we address them (they’re all friar-priests at this parish, by the way), we say, “Hello, Father insert name here]”. (And they don’t seem to mind, but I just want to make sure I’m addressing them properly.)

Is this still acceptable? Or is the title “Father” only applicable to the superior of the priory?

The charism of the OP is one where the priesthood is tied to the vocation of a friars of the order. They also have cooperator brothers, and there are of course student brothers, but most are likely to be priests.

Peace,

 

[JReducation]

I was just wondering – is this the same for Dominicans as well as Franciscans?

Maybe it’s just because I live in a college town and everybody has become used to the misuse of the terms “Father” and “Brother” (especially because of the constantly renewing supply of college students such as myself who don’t see their first major exposure to friars until college ), but usually when we address them (they’re all friar-priests at this parish, by the way), we say, “Hello, Father insert name here]”. (And they don’t seem to mind, but I just want to make sure I’m addressing them properly.)

Is this still acceptable? Or is the title “Father” only applicable to the superior of the priory?

The Dominicans are different from the other mendicants and monks in this regard. St. Dominic founded an order of priests. They have non-ordained friars who are called cooperator brothers or coadjutor brothers. They are two different vocations.

In the Franciscan, Carmelite, Servite, Trinitarian, Cistercian and Benedictine traditions, these communities were not founded for priests. They always had priests, because priests were always welcome to join them. Later they would start training priests. But they were founded as brotherhoods.

A Dominican is usually addressed as either Father or Friar, rarely Brother. When in doubt, just use Friar.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Marauder]

One should be able to readily see this equality in all orders, and among secular workers in the Church as well…the pastor of a large suburban parish is no better than the groundskeeper, who is no higher or lower than the pope himself, the “servant of the servants of God.” This is at least the teaching of Christ, though it sometimes seems to get lost in the hierarchy and excessive clericalism of rank and authority within religious orders, or secular parish and diocesan structure.

You need to be careful here. A pastor is in charge of his parish. Pastoral assistants, parish councils,etc. have advisory roles, but the pastor is ultimately “above” the groundskeeper in regards to administrative areas. He can delegate things to others within his parish, but he is still ultimately in charge, answering directly to his Bishop. If we are talking importance of roles within Mass and things like that, roles are equal but a pastor is responsible for both the administrative aspects of his parish and the spiritual aspects.

 

[JReducation]

In speaking about religious orders, one must remember that religious orders have always been hierarchical. They are the oldest democratic institutions in the world, but they are also patriarchal or matriarchal. There is equality in vocation, but not equality in rights and duties. There never has been and never can be.

Why can’t there be? Very simple, we go back to Israel. Religious orders did not come out of the New Testament. They came out of the Old Testament. They are modeled on the patriarchal system of Israel, where there was a spiritual master and his students. This is carried over, not abolished, into the New Testament. We first encounter John and his disciples, then Jesus and his disciples, finally Apostles and the Christian community. There was always a hierarchy with greater authority, to which all deferred.

The best example of this deference is the argument between St. Paul and St. Peter. While St. Paul’s proposal for a change in discipline is totally correct, he did not go out and institute it on his own ignoring what Peter had to say about it. He went to Peter. He made his case. Yet, during the entire argument, he never calls him by his given name, Simon. He always refers to him as Cephas, which was a title of honor. St. Paul wants more than just to move Peter. He also wants Peter’s approval. We can see the patriarchy dynamically played out. And yet, there is a democracy there. Paul has the freedom to speak his mind, but not the freedom to make law for the Church.

The same has always been true in religious order. The chapter is the place where the religious can make their case for or against something. It is at the chapter where we vote for a plan, a change to the constitution, or the election of a new superior. However, the conclusions of the chapter cannot take effect until they are approved by the Holy See for institutes of pontifical right or by the bishop for institutes of diocesan right. There is a hierarchy, very similar to that relationship between Peter and Paul.

Actually, one of the things that has demolished many religious congregations, especially those of women has been the use of democracy without hierarchy. Many communities continue to have the democratic component. They discuss and vote. But they no longer have a superior and council at the top. The local house is not governed by a superior and a vicar. In essence, you no longer have a family. What you have is a sorority.

When God created man, he created him to live in families, then kingdoms and finally a church. One fits inside the other only where there is a recognition of the differences in rights and duties. This is a hierarchical system. It’s really a pyramid with Christ at the top.

Religious orders that preserve this hierarchy more faithfully represent the Church in a visible way and more faithfully represent the Kingdom of Heaven, in where their is a definite hierarchy as St. John tells us in the Book of Revelation. Even the angels are not equal.

Equality is about justice, not about sameness. When everyone is treated with respect for his or her dignity and when the expectations and demands placed on a person are reasonable, even if they are different, then there is equality, because everyone is being treated with the reverence that is appropriate to his place in the body and everyone is being asked to do what is possible for him to accomplish. We do not ask the hand to do what the heart does, nor the heart to do the job of the brain. But if I have to sacrifice one of the three, I’ll give up my hand. There is a hierarchy and yet, there is also equality.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Ohana]

EXCELLENT QUESTION – ATTENTION EVERYONE

Franciscans of any kind are not allowed to single themselves out. Therefore, the priest, the cook, the theologian, the doctor, the social worker and the gardener are equal in rank, dignity, rights, duties and moral obligations. What makes us different from one another is our ministry.

The friars who are priests are never to set themselves apart from the friars who are priests. Even when dressing in a suit, everyone wears a black suit and Roman collar, even novices.

You can’t tell, unless you ask. In some communities, the friars are not allowed to tell you if they are priests, unless you ask to go to confession. This has been happening more and more, because superiors are getting angry at the laity. Many laymen will not go to spiritual direction with anyone who is not a priest, not accept a theology professor who is not a priest, or bypass a superior of a house, if he’s not a priest. After a while, this gets very frustrating and creates difficulties in assigning friars.

For example, we have one priest who is our maintenance man. He helps at a parish on Saturdays and Sundays. Mondays through Friadays, he’s a maintenance man and a darn good one too. He can fix anything, even if it’s not broken. Then you have a friar like me, who is a theologian, spiritual director, administrator, seminary professor, but not a priest. One of the courses I teach is the history of the EF and how to celebrate it. It’s a very short course, six weeks and it’s over.

However, I received an ugly letter from a poster on CAF demanding to know why I was teaching priests about the EF, if I am not a priest. “This should only be taught by a priest,” he said. Do you see why we don’t parade who is and who is not a priest? People don’t appreciate the every Franciscan is first a Son of St. Francis.

If you were a Dominican, that’s different. The Dominicans have to parallel vocations, the priests and the coadjutor brothers. Their formation is different and their way of life is different. Yet, at some point in the 20th century, they changed the habit so that all Dominicans dress the same. They too are stressing their fraternity over their different ministries.

This takes nothing away from the sacredness of Holy Orders. Holy Orders and the priest are highly respected and loved.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thank you Brother! This is worth repeating, so I copied it. Been away a few days to visit my sister, so just catching up. Are you sure your Brother maintenance man did not used to be a diocesan priest? Reminds me of a joke. which I cannot retell because I am awful at it and cannot remember punch lines well.

Also saw your discussion of hierarchy in orders. One point I would make with women’s orders and lack of hierarchy is that a lot of women’s groups are cooperative. The best of them stay together if the group develops in a healthy manner. I worked with women most of my life and found that in a couple of organizations the cooperation was of a very high level. If it is a group that tends to hissy fits, well, that is another matter.

 

[JReducation]

In the vocations sub-forum, there is a question about statistics. I told the OP that the best statistics are those that count people as they see themselves, not as we wish to see them. I think this applies to the religious life as well.

We have two visions of priesthood and religious life, that of the individuals involved and that of the layman. For example, in discussing monks and some communities of friars, we have said many times that they see themselves as religious brothers. This goes beyond seeing themselves in a brotherly relationship as one would say about the Knights of Columbus. These men have actually made vows as religious brothers and those vows remain in effect until death. Even if the man is ordained a deacon, priest or bishop, he is still a religious brother and is entitled to call himself that and to demand that others do as well.

In addition, there is the corporate vision. The founder and the entire order sees itself as a fraternal order, not a clerical order.

For some reason that I have never understood, we want to sort through religious communities, ignoring their traditions, which go back more than 1,000 years and label this one Father and that one Brother. But that’s not their tradition. Therefore, it’s not traditional to do so.

We do the same thing with the term “religious”. I have some very good friends who are diocesan priests who cringe when someone includes them among religious. One diocesan priest whom I know has made people cry over this. He’s determined that he will not be called a religious. He tells people that they need to pick up their CCC and look up “religious” and “religious life” before they open their mouths again. This is a little over the top, in my opinion. However, I can see and understand the frustration.

When you put someone in a category where he does not belong, the expectations that go with that category are often placed on that person. For example, my bishop rides a Harley. When he first came, someone said to me, “Brother, how can a religious afford a Harley?” This bishop is a diocesan priest. He’s paid a salary. Any money that he gets as a gift is his to keep. His inheritance from his family’s estate is also his to keep. He’s not a religious bound to poverty. In this person’s mind, everyone in a Roman collar is a religious. He was placing expectations on someone that were not applicable.

The same thing happens in reverse. There was a gripe because the Franciscans in a certain province had forced the bishop to close parishes. They would no longer staff them, because they were middle class. The bishops could not find anyone to take them over. Therefore, the parishes were closed. People were upset, because the friars were not sensitive to the needs of the parishioners. However, people were not sensitive to the tradition of the friars. The friar had originally taken these parishes when these were rural communities. Today, they are thriving suburbs, not rural poor. The friars’ vocation is to live among the poor.

Another order took a lot of heat, because they abandoned parishes in order to enhance community life. They had several parish houses with one or two men. That’s not a community. A community has at least three people. To create communities, you have to consolidate even if it means pulling out of some ministries. For some religious orders and congregations community is essential to their life. To others, it’s not. Community is a support system to accomplish a pastoral mission. Depending on your religious institute, you make decisions as to how you live community life.

To make things easier on everyone, we cannot ascribe to someone attributes that do not apply. That is unfair to the person and it’s a frustrating task for you. The best way to approach religious orders is to approach them with inquisitiveness rather than expectations. To learn more about them, read about their founders. This will tell you who they’re supposed to be. They should reflect his mind and his vision, even if it’s in a different context.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[GraceSofia]

Actually, one of the things that has demolished many religious congregations, especially those of women has been the use of democracy without hierarchy. Many communities continue to have the democratic component. They discuss and vote. But they no longer have a superior and council at the top. The local house is not governed by a superior and a vicar. In essence, you no longer have a family. What you have is a sorority.

Wow. You hit the nail on the head. I think this goes a long way in explaining how some of them lost the plot.

Equality is about justice, not about sameness. When everyone is treated with respect for his or her dignity and when the expectations and demands placed on a person are reasonable, even if they are different, then there is equality, because everyone is being treated with the reverence that is appropriate to his place in the body and everyone is being asked to do what is possible for him to accomplish. We do not ask the hand to do what the heart does, nor the heart to do the job of the brain. But if I have to sacrifice one of the three, I’ll give up my hand. There is a hierarchy and yet, there is also equality.

This is so applicable to other aspects of life. (I’m thinking about the demand for homosexual marriage, for example, where some people are misusing the connotations of equality).

 

[JReducation]

Wow. You hit the nail on the head. I think this goes a long way in explaining how some of them lost the plot.

In fairness, I have to say that there is a new crop of religious, male and female, that sees the value of a family structure where there is respect for the person, not oppression as was the case prior to 1962, but at the same time there is authority. Observe that the new religious communities all have a superior at the general level and one at the local level. In our own little community, we have a superior general. Because we recently became autonomous, we’re still small enough that we can sit around a conference table and talk through things. But the brothers immediately looked at the Archbishop, with pound puppy eyes, begging for a superior.

Maybe it’s the security of knowing that there is someone to bite the bullet or just the freedom that comes from obedience.

This is so applicable to other aspects of life. (I’m thinking about the demand for homosexual marriage, for example, where some people are misusing the connotations of equality).

Living in a community where some brothers are priests, this is easier for me to understand that it is to many people. Our brothers who are priests are still equal to those brothers who are not priests. They are still brothers. They live by the same rule and constitutions, with the same duties and rights. However, their place in the community is different by virtue of their sacramental ministry.

I’m not ordained. At mass, I’m not the presider. The ordained brother presides. He calls the shots during his mass. As soon as that mass is over, he looks at me and says, “Now what should I do?” I become the presider over his daily life. This is equality without sameness.

He leads in worship and I lead them on the journey to heaven. Who is to say that one is higher than the other? Worship without obedience will not get you to heaven. Obedience without worship won’t get you there either.

We would like a church that will get us to heaven on our terms. This is unlikely. No matter how noble our terms may be, if there is no obedience, no submission of the will and the ego, then the sacrifice of the mass becomes locked in time and space. It begins at 7:00 AM and ends at 8:00 AM. It’ s not lived throughout the day. Christ obeyed and sacrificed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[jwinch2]

Worship without obedience will not get you to heaven. Obedience without worship won’t get you there either.

We would like a church that will get us to heaven on our terms. This is unlikely. No matter how noble our terms may be, if there is no obedience, no submission of the will and the ego, then the sacrifice of the mass becomes locked in time and space. It begins at 7:00 AM and ends at 8:00 AM. It’ s not lived throughout the day. Christ obeyed and sacrificed.

I’m totally stealing this. Just an FYI.