Spirituality of religious orders in Catholic tradition

[wasserfall]

As Brother JR said, they have to work to support themselves now. I don’t see what’s so difficult to understand about that.

They had to work to support themselves before the council and yet they were far more silent and withdrawn before the council than after.

Before the council they didn’t talk AT ALL unless absolutely necessary.
Before the council they never left their monastery and no one could go in except men on retreat.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Right, but he said that they would want to work less to recover their charism.
I don’t see how the council could possibly have helped them to work less.

Technology may be helping, as you note, but apart from technological assistance, the work situation didn’t change after the council. They still had to support themselves in some way.

Correct, they still do need to support themselves. I am suggesting that the instructions of the Council may have helped them reorder their priorities from focusing on work back to focusing on prayer.

I do not know any trappists (do you?) and so can’t say what any particular group was doing for work or prayer in say 1932 or 1952 as compared to today.

 

[wasserfall]

I do not know any trappists (do you?) and so can’t say what any particular group was doing for work or prayer in say 1932 or 1952 as compared to today.

It is not difficult to find accounts of trappist life from the first half of the 20th century.

 

[JReducation]

This is no doubt that they are lax in comparison to their preconciliar life.

I wouldn’t know. I’m not a Trappist. But I can say this. When I visit their houses, they are not lax. Even if they are more lax than they were before the Council, they certainly are not lax compared to what they left behind to enter their order.

So why are the trappists less silent today than before the council? Why are they less withdrawn today than before the council?

Where have you seen chatty Trappists?

Do they really do less work than before the council? Somehow I kind of doubt it. The council didn’t give them an endowment.

I said, that they do not, because the days of tenant farming are gone. They have to work to support themselves.

Let’ me also clarify something for you. The Cistercian and Franciscan families before Vatican II were so far removed from the original charism that the founders would never have recognized them. After Vatican I, clericalism became the norm, which was contrary to the minds of Bernard and Francis.

After Vatican I, physical penance became a norm, which was also contrary to the minds of Bernard and Francis.

After Vatican I, rules and rules were added to the original rule so that monks and friars became slaves to bells, external gestures and the free spirit and laughter that was common to them in the beginning was lost. For example:

1. You had to ask for permission to drink water.
2. You had to do physical penance if you dropped a glass and it broke or if you let a door slam.
3. You were never allowed to run.
4. Unless you spoke to your brothers about work, you were not allowed to engage with them in any kind of conversation as real brothers actually do.
5. The was a class system in our houses that the founders never established. Suddenly we had choir monks, fathers and lay brothers. Originally, everyone entered to be a brother, period. Some brothers were priests, but you would not know it. There was no class distinctions.
6. You could not leave the house even to see a doctor. The doctor came in. Unless you were going to the hospital, the chances of leaving the house were remote. Monks and friars of the Middle Ages always left the house for many things. St. Bernard spent most of his life as an ambassador for the Holy See. Francis was a wanderer.
7. You were not allowed to have friends in the community. It was considered a temptation against chastity. Men like Bernard and Francis fostered friendships and intimacy among their sons.

The pre-Vatican II communities of Cistercians,were not truly representative of the Cistercian tradition. We tend to be in love with something that was not the real thing. These communities may as well have adopted different names, because they were very far from the original design.

We can’t recover everything. Who wants to go back to houses without electricity? But these things that I have outlined above are certainly not desirable. They were never part of the vision. The Victorian culture and the Church’s panic around Modernism triggered a reaction that sent the old orders in directions that were different form the mind of the founders.

We keep saying, “Before Vatican II” Not everything in religious life before Vatican II belonged there. Much of it was imported and some of it did real harm to religious life. One of the greatest problems was the vocation explosion of the early 20th century. That should never have happened. That’s not the way that religious life functioned. Religious life was for a minority, not for every warm body that knocked on the door. Then we wonder how we got sex abusers and heterodoxy from 1950 forward. We opened the door to everyone who said that he wanted to join an order or enter a seminary. Numbers became so important that quality was overlooked.

We have to be very careful not to go back to many of these pre-Vatican II practices. I live in a very small community of very faithful and joyful men. This is much more representative of the mendicants of the 13th century. They were very small communities. The environment was very informal. The relationship between the brethren was truly fraternal. The focus was on being, not on doing. What you did and how much you did was not too important. Being obedient, poor, prayerful, generous, kindhearted, faithful, joyful, disciplined, attentive to the needs of others and collegial was what made you a religious.

I hope that helps in everyone’s understanding of real religious tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

You misread Br JR’s post. Early trappists had tenant farmers (lay people) who worked the land and paid rent. Now, trappists don’t have that and so have to suport themselves.

I would presume that the tenant framers were gone long before Vatican II and that there was a period when they were doing so much physical work that they were neglecting their charism to study and pray the LOTH. Post VII reforms may indeed have helped them reorder their priorities toward study. I bet that the some agricultural and technological updates have helped them support themselves with less physical labor also.

This is actually true. They have also had to move away from being an agrarian community. As they took over their own farms, this took a great deal of time. The result was that they created a cast system. They started to recruit “less intelligent” men as lay brothers to do the manual labor so that the “more intelligent” could focus on the LOTH and study. Not a very egalitarian fraternity as that which Sts. Benedict and Bernard had in mind. It was truly a cast system. So much so, that these lay brothers had their own chapel, their own dining room, recreation room and even a different habit to set them apart.

This was all pre–Vatican II, but it was not very Benedictine. The Cistercians follow the Rule of St. Benedict. In the Rule of St. Benedict, there are no casts. There are duties that rotate. The monks are not locked away. They are attached to a monastery by the vow of stability, not physically attached. They worked outside of the monastery.

St. Bernard introduced the strict enclosure, but it was not as strict as what we had before Vatican II. Cistercians were a common sight in the Middle Ages. They did a lot of traveling. They worked a great deal with the other orders. They were centers of formation for many religious men. All of that disappeared in the 19th century. Today, it’s being recovered. In my own diocese, Cistercian brothers (not priests) run the diocesan priest’s retreats. That’s part of what Cistercians are supposed to do and that’s the absence of the pre-Vatican II cast system. We do see a return to the roots in a manner that fits today’s world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Mrs_Sally]

It is not difficult to find accounts of trappist life from the first half of the 20th century.

That’s not the part I was concerned with. However, Br JR’s posts have answered quite a bit about the differences.

I am not a trappist or any other kind of religious - even as a third order member. My time of vocation as a Francisican postulant is long over. I do not presume to say what a religious should or shouldn’t be doing with their time. That is for their superiors and vocations directors. If they are misusuing their time, they will answer for it here or in eternity.

I have anough to do with organizing my own time.

 

[wasserfall]

Thanks for the good information Brother JR.

I went searching on google books for some information and so far I have found a little booklet from 1838 that describes the trappist lifestyle of that time. It is quite interesting. I may translate and post a bit of it later on.

 

[iloveangels]

You misread Br JR’s post. Early trappists had tenant farmers (lay people) who worked the land and paid rent. Now, trappists don’t have that and so have to suport themselves.

I would presume that the tenant framers were gone long before Vatican II and that there was a period when they were doing so much physical work that they were neglecting their charism to study and pray the LOTH. Post VII reforms may indeed have helped them reorder their priorities toward study. I bet that the some agricultural and technological updates have helped them support themselves with less physical labor also.

What you have to understand to “get” monastic life is what European culture was like when the great monasteries were founded. Rome fell in 410 AD. Monasticism became the predominant type of vowed religious life around 400-500 AD at the rise of the feudal system, which replaced the Roman empire as the governmental structure in Europe.

The feudal system gets a bad rap. When it worked, it worked really well and it prevented the culture from falling into complete warring barbarism in the absence of the Roman laws and courts. Monasteries and dioceses were the primary religious components of society under the feudal system. The monastic system became powerful and quite wealthy, but monasteries also became centers of culture, religious practice and education. Unfortunately by the 10th-11th centuries, some of them had also became quite corrupt. European culture started to change and the first strivings away from the feudal system began to appear around the same time. As European culture changed, other forms of religious life began to emerge in the 11th-12th century.

During the 5th-11th centuries, as part of the established way of doing things, monasteries did have a role in the feudal system, and they were supported locally by the people for much of this time period. Many monasteries became large landowners, and yes, there were serfs who worked the land for them. It was considered appropriate and necessary in those days.

When the feudal system fell, the monastic form of life became only one of many forms of life, and only one of many ways of being vowed to the Church. The mendicant and military orders were founded around that same time. The crusades took place and became an important way for people to serve the public good as it was understood in those times. The Church had a number of ecumenical councils and the culture was in a state of rapid change. There was a huge increase in travel from one place to another–because of the crusades but also because of trade. This was about the 13th century. The monastic system still existed but took on a much smaller role as time went on and change occurred. Many monasteries were closed and their lands re-appropriated to other enterprises.

To this day, the monastic system exists, but they can’t have serfs support them as we no longer have feudalism in Europe or here. They had to find other ways of supporting themselves. They have done so with self-farming by the monks, teaching, making farm products like wines, jellies and cheeses, retreat work and so on, always attempting to keep their work compatible with their original charism. [A charism is a characteristic way of life.]

 

[iloveangels]

There are characteristic forms of prayer that belong to the monastic charism, for instance the Benedictine charism. Most of them are very, very old but in contemporary times, some modifications have been made as time has gone by. But the general style and tone has generally remained the same. Monastic prayer tends to be liturgical and stable. The liturgy of the hours has always been, and still is, the centerpiece of monastic prayer.

I think what people are wondering is how something as recently founded as the Charismatic Renewal could have inserted itself into the very, very old forms of spirituality usually practiced by monastics such as the Benedictines. It is a radical idea.

NB: When we say Charismatic Renewal, we don’t mean, for instance, one person’s enthusiasm for praying the Liturgy of the Hours, or praying ecstatically in a field with a hoe in one’s hand. We mean organized and recognizable structures of the Charismatic Renewal Movement, aka nsc-chariscenter.org/ or similar being used preferentially to the older more monastic forms of prayer on official occasions within the monastery. This is would be out of place in a monastic setting because of the monastic charism.

I would expect that it’d be more likely that if monasteries were to pick things up from other groups, they’d pick up some of the features of Eastern Christian (Orthodox) Monasticism such as the Jesus Prayer tradition in preference to something trendy and contemporary like Charismatic Renewal. The possibilities for popularizing things from the middle ages are enormous right now, and Eastern prayer methods are under-utilized in the Western Church. So I honestly have no idea what Charismatic renewal might do for them, honestly, on the foundational level, aka as monasteries looking to teach and survive.

Now, one of the things that’s been happening just lately is that categories of religious life are blurring. This has happened in just the last century or so, and it’s increasing rapidly now. Admittedly there are negative reasons for this (ignorance), as well as positive reasons (adaptation to new forms of culture). Perhaps a new experimental way of life within some monasteries is starting to emerge. Who knows?

 

[iloveangels]

The last wave of religious innovation on a large scale was the teaching congregations of the 18th-19th centuries. It’s hard telling when the next wave of innovation will occur, but we may be working on the first stages of it now and that’s what we’re seeing when we look at all these new foundations like Opus Dei and such, and also what we’re seeing when we look at all the experimental groups in the Church right now like some of the fledgling integrated groups (aka The Brothers and Sisters of Charity, which is currently a Public Association of the Faithful of Diocesan Right).

Recalling what Br JR has taught us: The Religious Orders proper belong to the 4th-13th centuries. They are more about “being” than “doing,” meaning that in these old orders there is a unity of faith and service with no boundary between the two. This is because in those days the boundary didn’t really exist in peoples’ minds in the exact way it does now–that came later. For instance, Benedictines teach because they believe, not because that is their “apostolate,” so to speak, in the modern sense. Franciscans love the poor because of Christ, not because they’re out to rid the world of poverty, because they’re not. They’re not social workers, and they know they can’t make us all sovereign, rich and perfect. [Yikes!] Whereas, later congregations and other groups are oriented toward faith AND apostolates, with the latest ones, the teaching congregations placing the apostolates really and truly in the forefront of their concern. That’s really what they were about.

We’ve gone from one extreme to the other, it seems. So maybe we’re working toward some sort of a “recap” with modifications as society changes, a recapitulation of sorts? I’m thinking of the Missionaries of Charity, Mother Teresa’s group, which borrowed hugely from earlier orders in the Church almost in a hybrid manner, and recreated something much more like “being” rather than “doing.” [And has been massively misunderstood as a result.] This is a definitive “throw-back” to a much earlier set of mental categories about religious life. And it’s probably no mistake that it was founded in a country that’s not primarily Christian. It probably could not have been founded in Europe or the USA.

Make no mistake, this ferment within communities of religious specialists to discover something new has gone on throughout the history of the Church, and still goes on. It’s one of the features of religious life and faith. It’s fine. One of the interesting things about it is that in one lifetime, unless you study history, you don’t see more than innovative wave, unfortunately, unless you’re really lucky like we are, and have a high enough tolerance for anxiety to really look around and enjoy what you see.

Those of us who are old have seen the turn–so we’ve seen the end of one and the start of another in person.

[Kind of puts the LCWR thing in perspective, no?]

Br. JR, please jump in here and comment. I’m interested in what you might think of the waves of innovation that go on in religious life.

 

[jwinch2]

I agree with what you have written above and will continue to read the thread for further insights.

My reason for sharing what I did was to let others reading the thread have a bit more (name removed by moderator)ut.

Peace to you as well,

Dorothy

Thanks Dorothy,

Take care,

Jason

 

[jwinch2]

I can see how this might be an interesting theoretical question, but if you aren’t a member of a Benedictine monastray or a third order that practices these charismatic actions, what difference does it make?

If the local monks wish to play guitars during their 3am prayers or raise their hands up during vespers, is that such a big deal?

Its not theoretical since it is actively happening. There are certain things which do and do not fall into the tradition of specific religious orders.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Its not theoretical since it is actively happening. There are certain things which do and do not fall into the tradition of specific religious orders.

I understand that. My point is how does that relate to us who are lay people, and what authority do we have to propose any changes? I think that we have enough to do with making sure we are completeling our own obligations and worshiping God to the best of our ability.

 

[iloveangels]

I understand that. My point is how does that relate to us who are lay people, and what authority do we have to propose any changes? I think that we have enough to do with making sure we are completeling our own obligations and worshiping God to the best of our ability.

Mrs Sally,

Probably nothing in particular individual instances, as long as you’re not an oblate. You’re probably right about that, Mrs Sally.

But religious groups like the Benedictines don’t exist for their own edification and amusement, nor are they there just to save the souls of people within the walls of the monastery. I’m pretty sure that the Benedictines would agree with that statement, as would members of most other religious groups. From a sociological point of view, religious orders serve a purpose in the church, and this is why they should be very careful about what they do.

Consider, as an example, the current problem with the American teaching orders leaving the apostolates they were founded to perform. How did that change the church in the USA, even though many people in the Church don’t come into contact with these sisters on a day-to-day basis? See what I mean?

 

[jwinch2]

I understand that. My point is how does that relate to us who are lay people, and what authority do we have to propose any changes? I think that we have enough to do with making sure we are completeling our own obligations and worshiping God to the best of our ability.

Perfectly fair questions.

It relates to me as I am actively looking into Monasteries for the possibility of becoming a Benedictine Oblate. Unfortunately, I have to say that you might be surprised at the difficulty in finding monastery which has not embraced modernist trends and practices. Often times, it seems to be a hold over from the 1960-1970’s that is slowly fading away. One of the closest monasteries to me has completely embraced the Charismatic Renewal and has also had problems with issues related to supporting women’s ordination and even supposed nuns who the Vatican later decided were not really nuns because they refused to go through proper formation.

Frankly, I feel that a Benedictine monastery of monks and nuns should look and behave like a Benedictine monastery of monks and nuns. This discussion would not have even come up at all but for another forum member who discussed the adoption of the Charismatic Renewal at the monastery he is affiliated with as an Oblate and that the fact made him uncomfortable. So, yes it does affect real people and it can be a problem.

As for what authority we have to affect change, not much obviously. However, that does not mean we cannot discuss it and call a spade a spade. If it is a problem worthy, information can be passed on to those in authority and they can decide what to do with it. Make no mistake though, we do have a roll to play. It was Fulton Sheen who said that it is up to the laity to make sure that religious act like religious. If good men and women do nothing, how do things get better?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Jason, Iam very sorry for your situation and that of the other forum poster. In your cases this is indeed a real problem that you are justified in trying to find an answer to.

I do see though, that on these forums, we often start talking about hypotheticals and get ourselves wound around the axle about something that we don’t even know is really true and that we have no way to influence even if it is.

I’m talking to myself as much as anyone else when I counsel that we need to focus a bit more on our own house before we begin to complain about the neighbors. I don’t think Archbishop Sheen meant for us accuse with no remedy in sight.

 

[iloveangels]

Jason, Iam very sorry for your situation and that of the other forum poster. In your cases this is indeed a real problem that you are justified in trying to find an answer to.

I do see though, that on these forums, we often start talking about hypotheticals and get ourselves wound around the axle about something that we don’t even know is really true and that we have no way to influence even if it is.

I’m talking to myself as much as anyone else when I counsel that we need to focus a bit more on our own house before we begin to complain about the neighbors. I don’t think Archbishop Sheen meant for us accuse with no remedy in sight.

Sure, and this is a valid point of view. Mrs Sally, there are a lot of different ways of belonging to the Church and still being completely faithful to her. The vocation as an oblate or third order member is one of them, just as primary membership to a parish is. In fact, primary family membership at the parish level is the oldest and most common kind of vocation. It’s venerable and a perfectly good path to holiness. But there is still a segment of the Catholic lay population that chooses something else, another path, a sort of dual membership, equally faithful and equally productive, but different. It’s another kind of vocation.

This issue of religious orders/congregations etc wandering a little bit affects everybody from a group perspective, a sociological perspective, even though it doesn’t seem personal to you, or a lot people, for that matter. But it’s very urgent to a prospective oblate of a monastery or a prospective member of any other kind of congregation or order because it affects them and their sense of vocation personally.

Just to make myself clear, Mrs Sally, we’re not talking about the internecine left & right battles in the Church here as much as we’re talking about something else. This is not like all the “he said the wrong thing at mass,” or “he doesn’t have a maniple” or “so-and-so hates the SSPX” threads or something like that. This line of conversation has a lot more to do with clarity and recognition when talking about a vocation to service with an established religious community.

That’s why, in these threads about religious orders and spiritualities, when someone comes bombing in with ultratrad or ultraliberal condemnations in great big red bouncing letters and all the rest of it, they get ignored pretty fast. This conversation isn’t really about that.

 

[OraLabora]

Perfectly fair questions.

It relates to me as I am actively looking into Monasteries for the possibility of becoming a Benedictine Oblate. Unfortunately, I have to say that you might be surprised at the difficulty in finding monastery which has not embraced modernist trends and practices. Often times, it seems to be a hold over from the 1960-1970’s that is slowly fading away. One of the closest monasteries to me has completely embraced the Charismatic Renewal and has also had problems with issues related to supporting women’s ordination and even supposed nuns who the Vatican later decided were not really nuns because they refused to go through proper formation.

Frankly, I feel that a Benedictine monastery of monks and nuns should look and behave like a Benedictine monastery of monks and nuns. This discussion would not have even come up at all but for another forum member who discussed the adoption of the Charismatic Renewal at the monastery he is affiliated with as an Oblate and that the fact made him uncomfortable. So, yes it does affect real people and it can be a problem.

As for what authority we have to affect change, not much obviously. However, that does not mean we cannot discuss it and call a spade a spade. If it is a problem worthy, information can be passed on to those in authority and they can decide what to do with it. Make no mistake though, we do have a roll to play. It was Fulton Sheen who said that it is up to the laity to make sure that religious act like religious. If good men and women do nothing, how do things get better?

I can’t speak of the situation in the US. I have some experience of Benedictine and Cistercian monasteries in Canada and Europe. None of them are particularly “modernist” in outlook though some of them have adopted liturgies that are not the traditional Benedictine Office. None of them, and I mean none, have anything to do with the charismatic movement. In fact the monastery of my oblation, Saint-Benoît-du-Lac in Quebec, recently gave a monk who was engaging in charismatic activities (including having charismatic prayer groups) an ultimatum: either return to Benedictine spirituality (which IMHO is vastly different from the modern charismatic movement), or leave. He left. The abbot preferred to lose one of the best voices in the schola, and a youngish and technically able monk (he had been an electrical contractor prior to becoming a monk and was very useful at keeping things humming in the abbey), than having the monastery take a wrong turn.

We have to keep in mind that the monastery is primarily for the monastic community, and their own particular search for God. The Benedictines are a fairly loose order, and to an extent they have the same degree of freedom of conscience that we all do. That means, essentially, that they’re human, they have their foibles, and they have their strengths and weaknesses and occasionally do take wrong turns. It’s life, and life is messy.

 

[OraLabora]

(cont’d)

That said here’s a brief summary of the monasteries I’ve been to and what I observed, at least on the surface:

My own abbey: post-Vatican II liturgy; OF Mass, a post V-II Divine Office (monastic B) but that does the entire psalter in 1 week, Gregorian chant (for Mass propers an ordinary, all hymns, all responsories, and for Lauds and Vespers in entirety, and for marian antiphon after Compline); conservative theologically (won’t admit non-Catholic oblates like in the US), the abbot recently decided (with reason) that monks were finding too many excuses to leave the cloister so he clamped down on it. The liturgies are beautiful. A few relatively young monks, but vocations are a worry. Ageing community, they have to make allowances for that.

St. Wandrille in France, the abbey that founded my abbey: very young community; post-Vatican II liturgies, but still use the traditional Benedictine psalter. Gregorian chant and Latin for all liturgies except for Sunday Mass where French is used for readings, EP, etc., due to many locals attending on Sunday.

Ste. Marie in Paris: a satellite of St. Wandrille, used for young monks in Paris for studies (from monasteries all over the world). Very small community, 8 monks. All liturgies chanted in French. Fairly strict discipline from what I saw, but given the nature monks come and go.

Montserrat in Catalonia: a very famous monastery, tourist attraction, the monks are almost like in an aquarium, but having visited the cloister, they do manage to lead a life of peace and contemplations. All liturgies in the local language, 4-week LOTH.

Ste-Marie-des-Deux-Montagnes near Montreal: women’s monastery; these women are fully cloistered, living behind the papal grille. Post-Vatican II liturgies but very traditional: OF Mass in Latin, Divine Off in Latin using the original Benedictine psalter. Westfield in Vermont is a daughter abbey.

Monte Cassino in Italy: the monastery is a famous tourist attraction; about a dozen monks have to care for it. Not easy being a monk in those circumstances. Liturgies in Latin, but OF.

Douai Abbey in England: I was there just last week. Hybrid liturgy (Latin/Vernacular), very welcoming community, small community. Extensive external work (they used to run a college, now about a third of the community are serving local parishes)

Subiaco in Italy: very small community in charge of a historic monument. They have a lay choir to help them with the chant.

S. Anselmo in Italy: the seat of the abbot primate, also the Benedictine theological college, so many monks from all over the world and thus not a “stable” community in the strictest sense.

Rougemont: Cistercians of the Common Observance near Montreal. Very small community; they do a very nice liturgy in French plainchant on Gregorian modes. They use a small African string instrument at Compline (a kora I think). It is very quiet and tasteful. They still chant the Salve Regina in Latin after compline.

None of these communities are anything close to heterodox. Some have peculiar quirks that are all theirs.

The thing to keep in mind that not all the differences one observes are due to deviation from Benedictine spirituality. Benedictine spirituality has always accommodated a significant degree of autonomy and thus differences from one community to the next. For example, at my abbey, monks sit through the psalmody but rise and bow at the “glory be”, at Douai, monks sit on their misericords and bow but without rising. Many monasteries have external apostolates, many are strictly contemplative.

It’s therefore difficult to say how a Benedictine monastery “should” look and behave.

 

[Dorothy]

Thank you for that interesting (name removed by moderator)ut about those monasteries!