Spirituality of religious orders in Catholic tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melchior_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
By putting the term secular at the beginning, many people lean on that. “We’re seculars, we’re not bound to do this or that.” Love is not a matter of what we’re bound to do. Love exceeds what is expected.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
Do you mean that they say things like “they were only promises,” or “I don’t have to learn how to pray the LOH” and things like that?

Or do you mean that they say, “We can handle this like no one can. We should just march in there and change laws and make that our business, like yesterday, because that’s what really works, etc?”
 
Br. JR,

You are 100% right on the “secular” word. Many SFOs don’t know what it means, and there are several popular interpretations around, and not only locally. Some of them frankly don’t like it because they conflate it with secularism in a bad way. Some of them take it to mean only pertaining to laypeople in an almost militant way, which is really odd. But for the first time in a long time, I can see the light at the other end of the tunnel. If we give this time, this will come out alright. Continuity and obedience are the keys.

I can also say that I’ve learned a whole lot in the past month, much of it from you. Thank you very much. Some of the things I never learned that I needed I have now found. And one of the most important of those is the excellent description of the lived charism that I’ve read here in your generous contributions.

I’ve also been reading. I have here Ivan Gobry’s “St. Francis” & Raffaele Pazzelli’s “St. Francis and the Third Order.” I also found a wonderful old copy of a book about the SFO in the US in 1935, called “Survey of a Decade,” which helps me to understand the recent past (last 100 years or so) a bit better. And I rustled up my old copy of the Ritual, LOL. And I read a couple of old copies of the Rule, so I could see what happened over time.

PS. It’s really hard to find numbers of Franciscans. LOL. It’s almost as bad as trying to find out how many kinds of Franciscans there are. 😃
The three things that even God does not know.
  1. What is hell?
  2. What is a Jesuit thinking?
  3. How many kinds of Franciscans are there?
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
 
Do you mean that they say things like “they were only promises,” or “I don’t have to learn how to pray the LOH” and things like that?

Or do you mean that they say, “We can handle this like no one can. We should just march in there and change laws and make that our business, like yesterday, because that’s what really works, etc?”
The former.

People are not very attentive. The term secular means one who is not a consecrated religious. Seventy percent of our deacons, priests and bishops are secular. Every married person is secular. Anyone who is not a consecrated religious is secular.

It’s like the term lay. Lay means anyone who is not ordained. This can include religious and laity.

However, laity is a whole other category. The laity is made up of those who not ordained and are not consecrated religious.

You can be lay and be religious.

You can be secular and not be lay.

Or you can be lay and secular, which makes you part of the laity.

The term secular means “of the world”. Do you guys remember your Latin? “Per omnia saecula saeculorum” It refers to the world, but does not mean the same as secularism. The term secular, when speaking about certain religious orders means that they are orders of men and women who live in the world, not men and women who are worldly. That’s the difference.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
 
The three things that even God does not know.
  1. What is hell?
  2. What is a Jesuit thinking?
  3. How many kinds of Franciscans are there?
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
LOL

I’m busy thinking about what you said a minute ago: “By putting the term secular at the beginning, many people lean on that. “We’re seculars, we’re not bound to do this or that.” Love is not a matter of what we’re bound to do. Love exceeds what is expected.”

There’s a lot to this, more than meets the eye initially.
 
The former.

People are not very attentive. The term secular means one who is not a consecrated religious. Seventy percent of our deacons, priests and bishops are secular. Every married person is secular. Anyone who is not a consecrated religious is secular.

It’s like the term lay. Lay means anyone who is not ordained. This can include religious and laity.

However, laity is a whole other category. The laity is made up of those who not ordained and are not consecrated religious.

You can be lay and be religious.

You can be secular and not be lay.

Or you can be lay and secular, which makes you part of the laity.

The term secular means “of the world”. Do you guys remember your Latin? “Per omnia saecula saeculorum” It refers to the world, but does not mean the same as secularism. The term secular, when speaking about certain religious orders means that they are orders of men and women who live in the world, not men and women who are worldly. That’s the difference.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
Yes, I understand this part about the meaning of the word “secular.” {Secular also can mean not regular, right? Although this isn’t quite what I’m hearing here. So…Maybe I don’t. :o }

Lay & religious = the non-ordained CFR brothers or Mother Teresa’s sisters in Calcutta

Secular but not lay = a diocesan secular priest ordained by my bishop

Laity = secular + lay = me, I think

So I’m not sure I understand what you mean to say.
 
Yes, I understand this part about the meaning of the word “secular.” {Secular also can mean not regular, right? Although this isn’t quite what I’m hearing here. So…Maybe I don’t. :o }

Lay & religious = the non-ordained CFR brothers or Mother Teresa’s sisters in Calcutta

Secular but not lay = a diocesan secular priest ordained by my bishop

Laity = secular + lay = me, I think

So I’m not sure I understand what you mean to say.
Oh . . . OK

I was trying to say that “secular” does not mean that one reject everything that is common to religious life. There are always going to be overlaps.

Some people will argue that “we don’t have to think that way or do that because we’re not religious.”

I had someone “shout” at me on the forum that he or she did not have to take the example of religious, because he was a secular man. It left me scratching my head, because I was always taught in novitiate and through my years in formation that we (religious) are signs and witnesses.

Heck, if the laity does not want to look in your direction for example, then for whom are we a sign and to whom do we witness?

This is what happens when people do not understand how the Church uses the term secular.

You got the formulas correct up there. 👍

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
 
Oh . . . OK

I was trying to say that “secular” does not mean that one reject everything that is common to religious life. There are always going to be overlaps.

Some people will argue that “we don’t have to think that way or do that because we’re not religious.”

I had someone “shout” at me on the forum that he or she did not have to take the example of religious, because he was a secular man. It left me scratching my head, because I was always taught in novitiate and through my years in formation that we (religious) are signs and witnesses.

Heck, if the laity does not want to look in your direction for example, then you are you a sign for and to whom do you witness?

This is what happens when people do not understand how the Church uses the term secular.

You got the formulas correct up there. 👍

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
AH Okay,

I think I understand now.

Also, when I typed this (that I took down):
Do you mean that they say things like “they were only promises,” or “I don’t have to learn how to pray the LOH” and things like that?
Or do you mean that they say, “We can handle this like no one can. We should just march in there and change laws and make that our business, like yesterday, because that’s what really works, etc?”"​

I stopped and thought, and realized that maybe both are part of the same thing. The first instance is an example maybe of poor formation–ie. not understanding what’s been undertaken and not understanding the nature of the SFO. I certainly have been there, and I understand that.

The second instance is no less than that though, since it focuses on doing rather than being, which is a big misunderstanding. We should be helping to fix things that need fixing, please don’t get me wrong. BUT…We are Franciscans first and then we do things; we don’t just do things. We have a charism of brotherhood, among other things. That’s supposed to speak to the world–to your point.

The SFO is an “odd duck” and many SFOs don’t know the history and appreciate what it is. I certainly didn’t. Part of that is maybe some of the recent history of it. I think it needs a lot of work, but I see they’re working on it at CIOFS, trying to understand how to get us to self-identify as Ordo Franciscanus Saecularis. Maybe they’ll realize what’s happening and decide that American and British SFOs should use that name instead of Secular Franciscan Order! In other parts of the world they do use that name.
 
AH Okay,

I think I understand now.

Also, when I typed this (that I took down):
Do you mean that they say things like “they were only promises,” or “I don’t have to learn how to pray the LOH” and things like that?
Or do you mean that they say, “We can handle this like no one can. We should just march in there and change laws and make that our business, like yesterday, because that’s what really works, etc?”"​

I stopped and thought, and realized that maybe both are part of the same thing. The first instance is an example maybe of poor formation–ie. not understanding what’s been undertaken and not understanding the nature of the SFO. I certainly have been there, and I understand that.

The second instance is no less than that though, since it focuses on doing rather than being, which is a big misunderstanding. We should be helping to fix things that need fixing, please don’t get me wrong. BUT…We are Franciscans first and then we do things; we don’t just do things. We have a charism of brotherhood, among other things. That’s supposed to speak to the world–to your point.

The SFO is an “odd duck” and many SFOs don’t know the history and appreciate what it is. I certainly didn’t. Part of that is maybe some of the recent history of it. I think it needs a lot of work, but I see they’re working on it at CIOFS, trying to understand how to get us to self-identify as Ordo Franciscanus Saecularis. Maybe they’ll realize what’s happening and decide that American and British SFOs should use that name instead of Secular Franciscan Order! In other parts of the world they do use that name.
I would like to see the secular orders get back to their glory. They were once a force to be reckoned with in the Church. They had the brightest minds, most gifted artists, some of the greatest theologians, and many gave their lives on missions to Asia and the Americas.

Louis Pasteur, SFO
Pius X, SFO
Franciscan Martyrs of GA
St. Paul Miki’s companions (SFOs among the companions)
Christopher Columbus, SFO
Rafael, SFO
Dante, SFO
Elizabeth of Hungary, SFO
Catherine of Siena, OP
Martin de Porres, OP
Francis de Sales, SFO
Rose of Lima, OP
Thomas More, SFO
Leo XIII, SFO
Pius XII, SFO
Pier Giorgio Frasatti, OP
Giana Molla, SFO
John XXIII, SFO
Paul VI, OP
John Paul II, OCDS

Collectively and individually, they have certainly made their mark on the Church and preserved the Church in times of great crisis. The contributed much to the Church’s social mission. Many of the Church’s social ministries began as apostolates run by secular orders. Vatican II’s decree on the Apostolate of the Laity was inspired by the secular orders. Members of the SFO and OPs sat on the commission that redacted that document. SFOs and OPs also sat on the commission that redacted the document on ecumenism. Many people don’t know that members of the secular orders have been participants at councils. Although only bishops have a vote, these seculars had a voice.

The also inspired other secular movements such as Opus Dei, which is not a secular order, but borrowed the spirituality of the Secular Franciscans. Today’s movement of lay apologists and evangelists has much in common with the Lay Dominicans.

They have a place of honor in Catholic tradition. They need to continue to build on that. The Church needs them to continue.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
dominicanablog.com/2011/12/22/795-years-of-preaching-there-still-is-work-to-be-done/

Br. Clement Dickie:
We are just 3 days from Christmas. This may seem ordinary, since every year we celebrate the holiday and talk about the birth of Christ casually, but the Incarnation is a radical belief. God became man. The almighty Lord of Lords took flesh, and lay as a helpless baby in a manger.

As normal as it may be to speak of Jesus’ birth, throughout the ages groups have arisen that find it too hard to accept. In the twelfth century one such group rose to prominence in Southern France: the Cathars. The Cathars were believed to have originated from Gnostic practices brought to France and Italy from Eastern Europe. Tradition associates them with Bulgaria in particular.

The Cathars held that matter was evil and the spirit good. Our bodies were therefore material traps for our souls. The most advanced Cathars thus lived with great disregard for self. They kept poverty—don’t need more worthless matter—and abstained altogether from sex—lest they produce more souls trapped in matter.

Our Christian belief in the Incarnation of Christ and in the one God who created “all things visible and invisible” stands in direct opposition to what the Cathars were teaching. However, the Church was not well positioned to correct their error. An unfortunate number of the clergy were late-born sons of nobility, who without much education were forced into the celibate life to preserve family fortunes. The lifestyles they were accustomed to since childhood proved scandalous when compared to the Cathars’.

By 1203, when St. Dominic de Guzmán and his bishop Diego passed through what is now Southern France on the way to broker a marriage in Scandinavia, whole towns had been converted to the heresy.

The official solution to this problem was to send papal legates with impressive retinues to bring lost souls back into the fold. But those persuaded by simplicity could not be wowed by ostentation.

In 1206 Bishop Diego and Dominic were granted permission to begin a preaching mission, while living voluntary poverty. That same year, Dominic founded a convent of nuns who had converted from the Cathari heresy. The women, who prayed for the preacher as he continued his mission, would become the Dominican Nuns.

Ten years later, when Dominic had gathered around him a community of men committed to preaching the Gospel, a new Order received the pope’s blessing. On December 22, 1216, Pope Honorius III granted the Order of Preachers its bull of approbation. It seems fitting, given the importance of the Incarnation in challenging the Cathars, that the Order received its recognition so close to Christmas.

Today as we celebrate the 795th anniversary of the Order of Preachers, the problems that spurred Dominic to found his order are just as relevant as they were in the beginning of the thirteenth century. The sons of St. Dominic must preach to a world that shares the Cathars’ tendency to pit body against soul.

On the one end of the spectrum there are people who feel like they are men trapped in women’s bodies (or vice versa). This vision of the human being, like that of the Cathars, separates the soul from the body. You cannot actually have the soul of a man and the body of a woman, because the soul is the form of the body, not some foreign invader dwelling in a fleshly house. You not just a soul trapped in matter. You are body and soul.

On the other end, there are figures for whom there is nothing more than the material world we have been given here. Such a viewpoint rejects all talk of immaterial being in favor of a hard-nosed “realism” about the visible world. To such people, talking about the soul at all is literal non-sense; I am just my body, which is just a collection of atoms behaving in more or less random ways. All the basic components of our experience—free will, love, desire for eternity, and all the rest—are sacrificed on the altar of materialism, transformed into mere “illusions” created by the firing of neurons in the brain.

Neither the spiritual component of our lives on this earth nor the material component of our lives can exist on its own; each will collapse unless integrated with the other. This is why the God who is pure spirit took on flesh in Jesus Christ, to bring the whole person, body and soul, back to God. It is the legacy of St. Dominic to preach the Gospel in this world of extremes in an integrated way, avoiding false dichotomies and showing the light of truth.
 
I would like to see the secular orders get back to their glory. They were once a force to be reckoned with in the Church. They had the brightest minds, most gifted artists, some of the greatest theologians, and many gave their lives on missions to Asia and the Americas.

Louis Pasteur, SFO
Pius X, SFO
Franciscan Martyrs of GA
St. Paul Miki’s companions (SFOs among the companions)
Christopher Columbus, SFO
Rafael, SFO
Dante, SFO
Elizabeth of Hungary, SFO
Catherine of Siena, OP
Martin de Porres, OP
Francis de Sales, SFO
Rose of Lima, OP
Thomas More, SFO
Leo XIII, SFO
Pius XII, SFO
Pier Giorgio Frasatti, OP
Giana Molla, SFO
John XXIII, SFO
Paul VI, OP
John Paul II, OCDS

Collectively and individually, they have certainly made their mark on the Church and preserved the Church in times of great crisis. The contributed much to the Church’s social mission. Many of the Church’s social ministries began as apostolates run by secular orders. Vatican II’s decree on the Apostolate of the Laity was inspired by the secular orders. Members of the SFO and OPs sat on the commission that redacted that document. SFOs and OPs also sat on the commission that redacted the document on ecumenism. Many people don’t know that members of the secular orders have been participants at councils. Although only bishops have a vote, these seculars had a voice.

The also inspired other secular movements such as Opus Dei, which is not a secular order, but borrowed the spirituality of the Secular Franciscans. Today’s movement of lay apologists and evangelists has much in common with the Lay Dominicans.

They have a place of honor in Catholic tradition. They need to continue to build on that. The Church needs them to continue.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Looking at what I saw, that was part of what I couldn’t reconcile before. I think I’m just starting to understand now.

The charism in the US, and I can only think about the US because that’s all I’ve ever seen with respect to the SFO, has at times been accidentally mis-represented and supplanted by something much more generally and generically catholic in nature, like a sodality or ladies’ group or something like that. This has come up in these threads before several times. But as a consequence, higher learning and creativity haven’t really been on the map for some time. Some of the reasons for this are historical, and some cultural, I think.

Anyway, the CIOFS and the regions are trying to re-invigorate the SFO now. That puts what I’m seeing in a far more interesting and productive light.

EDIT: Thank you Jason. Yes, that is definitely part of the problem. Franciscanism is whole, a charism, as are the charisms of the other orders. They are not just something we do exterior to our beings, as if we were operating some kind of switch to get a result.
 
Jason, who’s pictured in that painting? Is that St. Dominic on the left? With a pope on the right?
 
Jason, who’s pictured in that painting? Is that St. Dominic on the left? With a pope on the right?
I believe that is Bishop Diego. As the story goes, Dominic and the Bishop set out on a journey to preach and combat heresy, but the Bishop had his retinue with him and was dressed in all of his finery, as was the custom of the time. Our Holy Father Dominic encouraged him to leave all of that behind so that they might live the Gospel in more apparent sincerity, which would serve as an aid in converting those they were going to preach to. To his credit, the Bishop recognized the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as well as the truth of Dominic’s words, and embraced the idea.

Following that, Bishop Diego was one of the first to grant Dominic his protection and support.
 
I believe that is Bishop Diego. As the story goes, Dominic and the Bishop set out on a journey to preach and combat heresy, but the Bishop had his retinue with him and was dressed in all of his finery, as was the custom of the time. Our Holy Father Dominic encouraged him to leave all of that behind so that they might live the Gospel in more apparent sincerity, which would serve as an aid in converting those they were going to preach to. To his credit, the Bishop recognized the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as well as the truth of Dominic’s words, and embraced the idea.

Following that, Bishop Diego was one of the first to grant Dominic his protection and support.
Excellent. Oh, yes, now I see the bishop’s staff in his hand. I have to put a good biography of St. Dominic on my reading list. I’ve only read short ones and I’d like to know more. Do you have any recommendations on which one to read, Jason?
 
What is living as a Secular Franciscan like? What is the charism? In other words, what is expected of them, what do they do that makes them unique? I really only know a little about the poverty aspects of it, and the whole idea of social justice.

Because, as a young person, I want to know if I should gear my schooling or choice of work to be in line with this. I’m bad with people (being mildly autistic I would burn right out in a social work career). I just really want to follow the Lord’s leading here, but it seems so odd that He’d request this of me. I mean, from what I know there’s a certain appeal but I’m honestly a bit clueless on the details. I mean, I seriously saw myself in a vision in heaven with the gray robe of a member of the Friars Minor before I even knew much about Catholicism, nonetheless the Franciscans! And then I actually wound up becoming Catholic! And then I stumbled into a contemplative groove… and, to put it frankly, I’m a bit scared of what’s expected of me here. Although I love the little twist where SFO members actually can be buried in the habit… makes up for the little indescrepency there.
 
What is living as a Secular Franciscan like? What is the charism? In other words, what is expected of them, what do they do that makes them unique? I really only know a little about the poverty aspects of it, and the whole idea of social justice.

Because, as a young person, I want to know if I should gear my schooling or choice of work to be in line with this. I’m bad with people (being mildly autistic I would burn right out in a social work career). I just really want to follow the Lord’s leading here, but it seems so odd that He’d request this of me. I mean, from what I know there’s a certain appeal but I’m honestly a bit clueless on the details. I mean, I seriously saw myself in a vision in heaven with the gray robe of a member of the Friars Minor before I even knew much about Catholicism, nonetheless the Franciscans! And then I actually wound up becoming Catholic! And then I stumbled into a contemplative groove… and, to put it frankly, I’m a bit scared of what’s expected of me here. Although I love the little twist where SFO members actually can be buried in the habit… makes up for the little indescrepency there.
WoundedIcon,

Go back and read the posts of Br. JR and that will help a lot. The SFO has a charism that is very similar to the other Franciscan orders, only we’re not ordained, we’re laypeople with a few diocesan clergy here and there. SFOs seek to live with a Franciscan spirit, which means living the Gospel in brotherhood, in the midst of their families, friends and work commitments. We don’t live in communities with other SFOs, by and large, but rather with our families in our own homes.

You can be SFO and work at pretty much any line of work, as long as it’s moral and legal (I mean like not abortionist or drug dealer!). I’ve worked in engineering and before that, my former line of work was high school teaching. Franciscans are NOT social workers–a terrible misconception–unless that’s already their regular line of work, of course. I wouldn’t worry about that.

Being buried in the habit is something that some secular Franciscans talk about. I believe we still have that privilege, contingent on regional and fraternal approval. It’s not a big deal at all, not a big part of the charism or what we do. We wear only a Tau cross as a habit. Note that if you show up at a Secular Franicscan meeting in a habit, you will be asked why you are wearing your burial shroud. :eek:

EDIT: Hi TrueLight. See above.
 
WoundedIcon,

Go back and read the posts of Br. JR and that will help a lot. The SFO has a charism that is very similar to the other Franciscan orders, only we’re not ordained, we’re laypeople with a few diocesan clergy here and there. SFOs seek to live with a Franciscan spirit, which means living the Gospel in brotherhood, in the midst of their families, friends and work commitments. We don’t live in communities with other SFOs, by and large, but rather with our families in our own homes.

You can be SFO and work at pretty much any line of work, as long as it’s moral and legal (I mean like not abortionist or drug dealer!). I’ve worked in engineering and before that, my former line of work was high school teaching. Franciscans are NOT social workers–a terrible misconception–unless that’s already their regular line of work, of course. I wouldn’t worry about that.

Being buried in the habit is something that some secular Franciscans talk about. I believe we still have that privilege, contingent on regional and fraternal approval. It’s not a big deal at all, not a big part of the charism or what we do. We wear only a Tau cross as a habit. Note that if you show up at a Secular Franicscan meeting in a habit, you will be asked why you are wearing your burial shroud. :eek:

EDIT: Hi TrueLight. See above.
Hi iloveangels,

What role does contemplation play in the meetings?
 
Hi iloveangels,

What role does contemplation play in the meetings?
I’m not sure what you mean. Meetings vary from fraternity to fraternity but they always involve some kind of prayers, although they’re generally not mostly praying. There is always time for fellowship among the members; it’s a big part of the charism.

In my experience SFOs are usually people of prayer. We pray often, and the morning & evening prayers of the LOH (aka Christian Prayer) or a traditional substitute is expected of each of us wherever we are at the time.
 
I’m not sure what you mean. Meetings vary from fraternity to fraternity but they always involve some kind of prayers, although they’re generally not mostly praying. There is always time for fellowship among the members; it’s a big part of the charism.
I visited a Carmelite meeting and there was a 1/2 hour silent meditation. I was just curious as to if there is a set time for contemplative prayer at any of the meetings. Is contemplation a part of the charism as well?
 
Excellent. Oh, yes, now I see the bishop’s staff in his hand. I have to put a good biography of St. Dominic on my reading list. I’ve only read short ones and I’d like to know more. Do you have any recommendations on which one to read, Jason?
This one by Augusta T. Drane (aka. Mother Francis Raphael, OP) is as good as any of them in my opinion and came highly recommended to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top