Spirituality of religious orders in Catholic tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melchior_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not really. They are praise in stone–built to give glory to God. And the Church owns them, not me. 😃
In truth, we have always avoided them. Right now, there is a movement among all of the male orders to stay away from all parishes. Those friars who are in parishes are being reshuffled to poor parishes and away from middle class parishes and great cathedrals.

Even though the Church owns them and they are built in praise of God, the Dominican and Franciscan charism is simplicity in all things, even in buildings.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
 
I read today, that the Carthusian order is the only order to never have been reformed. Is this true? And if it is, what did St, Bruno know - or avoid - that the other orders were not able to comprehend? Was it the “rules” they lived by or just apathy in general?

Is their spirituality that far removed to not suffer from the same issues the other orders suffered from? 🤷
 
I read today, that the Carthusian order is the only order to never have been reformed. Is this true? And if it is, what did St, Bruno know - or avoid - that the other orders were not able to comprehend? Was it the “rules” they lived by or just apathy in general?

Is their spirituality that far removed to not suffer from the same issues the other orders suffered from? 🤷
That’s because the Carthusians are not a corporate order. Each house is autonomous. St. Bruno never wrote a rule for them. They have no rule to reform. Each house writes its own constitutions. They reform a house, not the entire network of Charter Houses. The way that they reform the house is by rewriting the constitutions.

St. Bruno gave them statutes that describe a way of life. The practical day to day stuff is for them to figure out. He did not spell it out for them. They usually look at his biography to figure out how he lived, since he did not give them much by way of laws, unlike Benedict, Augustine, Basil and Francis.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
 
In truth, we have always avoided them. Right now, there is a movement among all of the male orders to stay away from all parishes. Those friars who are in parishes are being reshuffled to poor parishes and away from middle class parishes and great cathedrals.

Even though the Church owns them and they are built in praise of God, the Dominican and Franciscan charism is simplicity in all things, even in buildings.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
Interesting. You are speaking about Franciscan male orders, correct? (Or all Franciscan orders? Or all orders in general?)

Do the orders in the Franciscan family seem also as though they are trying to renew their charisms from a sort of dilution (maybe not the best word) that they’ve undergone in the 20th century? (Odd question, I know, but I’m curious about this, seeing as how they’re pulling back from parishes, etc.)
 
Interesting. You are speaking about Franciscan male orders, correct? (Or all Franciscan orders? Or all orders in general?)

Do the orders in the Franciscan family seem also as though they are trying to renew their charisms from a sort of dilution (maybe not the best word) that they’ve undergone in the 20th century? (Odd question, I know, but I’m curious about this, seeing as how they’re pulling back from parishes, etc.)
The four Franciscan orders have always been in a rather strange position in regards to the hierarchy. While we are exempt, even the Secular Franciscans are an exempt order of Pontifical Right, We’re the only religious family that vows obedience to its founder. If you recall when you were professed, you promised to observe the Rule of St. Francis, however the wording was then.

This cornered us. We were never an order of priests, but always had priests, from day one. Since we were not an order of priests, we never took on the responsibility for parishes. The custom was to go out, build a few chapels and then hand them over to the first priest who showed up and move on to something else.

However, with the expansion of the Church to Asia, Africa and the Americas, the bishops needed priests. They didn’t have enough secular vocations. They asked the religious to help. Here is where that obedience thing comes into play.

Because we revere Francis as father and obey him as such, we also comply with his words in the Testament, where he promises obedience to the pope and the bishops and the rest of us promise obedience to him, even after his death. When a bishop asks for priests, the superiors felt that is was necessary to ordain and ordain and ordain.

This changed the complexion of the order. It went from being a brotherhood of equals that lived in obedience and poverty, free to roam the world preaching the Gospel among the poor to a very clerical organization like the Benedictines. Suddenly, the order was confined to parishes. The ordained friars became the Fathers. The non-ordained friars became the Lay Brothers (like the Benedictines). However, among the Benedictines, this was the vision of Benedict from day one. This was not what Francis had in mind.

In this new regime, the priests ruled and everyone else took care of their needs. They even divided the house with two refectories, two recreation rooms and two chapels. The Lay Brothers could not speak to a priest or to one who as studying to be a priest unless he was spoken to.

The priests took on parishes and the Lay Brothers took on the maintenance of the parishes. The priests were dispensed from community life in order to care for the parishes and the Lay Brothers kept the Divine Office, community meals, and community functions going so that the order could tell Rome that it was still an institute of consecrated life, not just a bunch of diocesan priests wearing habits.

The running of parishes demanded money and material goods. Suddenly, Father had a car for his personal use. The argument was that the community owned it or the parish owned it. Guess who drove it? No one else was allowed to touch it. Most laymen would settle for that arrangement. Let someone else pay for the car, pay the insurance, fill the tank and give me the keys.

This way of life attracted many men and the number of vocations peeked between Vatican I and Vatican II. The General Chapters of the 70s presented the new drafts of the Constitutions, which were ad experimentum. They intended to harmonize the new situations that Francis did not foresee with those that Francis did foresee in the rule. This created an uproar.

Many men felt that they were being cheated. In a sense they were. They had joined during the 1940s and 50s. This new image was a community that had ceased to exist in the early 1800s. It was not what they signed up for. They were told hand over the car keys. The Lay Brother was no longer the Lay Brother. He was again the equal brother. Some of them became superiors in houses full of ordained friars. This caused a stir. You have to remember that in the community that had developed between Vatican I and Vatican II Francis of Assisi could have have governed. You had to be a priest. He was not an ordained brother. His vicar, Br. Elias was a priest, but Father Francis was a Lay Brother.

Many men became very disillusioned and left. Others remained, but they became so bitter that they made life impossible for others and they drove many young men away. The numbers began to drop. They never dropped lower than they were before this big change came along in the 1800s. We’re talking about dropping to the same numbers that they had been in the early 1800s or even later. Instead of 75,000 friars, you had 48,000. The truth was that the friars were never the largest of the Franciscan orders. The largest order was always the Secular Franciscans who numbered close to one million in 114 countries around the world. They are not mendicants. They are penitents.
 
The large Franciscan communities began to examine their apostolic commitments. They began to move out of parishes or if the bishop needed help, they took the poorer parishes, usually in the Black and Hispanic areas or the rural areas. However, by the year 1985, the Black and Latino community begins to move into the Middle Class. The friars begin to look for the poor. This is where the decision is made to allow a small group of six Capuchins to try a renewal. Welcome the new baby in the family, the CFR. They have proven very successful. They are being looked to as an example of Franciscan Renewal.

In Alabama, the Capuchins were at it again. Mother Angelica was trying to found an order of Franciscan Friars who would not be parish priests, but would be itinerant preachers. These friars would travel via TV and Radio. She teamed up with a Capuchin Friar who was the first superior and formation director of another renewal community, Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word.

In Boston, the Capuchins were at it. There, they gave birth to the Franciscans of the Primitive Observance. These friars would have no defined apostolate. They would live in a neighborhood. Their apostolate is to be visible. They walk the streets. They beg for their food. They sleep on the floor and they hitchhike between their mother house in Boston to their mission in Central America.

In Italy, the Conventual Franciscans were not far behind. They were recovering from the aftershock of Nazism and Communism. They too wanted to get back into the intinerant friar mode. They gave birth to the Franciscans of the Immaculate, inspired by Maximilian Kolbe. They would not take on parishes, but they would run centers of spirituality as did St. Max and the early friars at Paris and Oxford. Their lives would be one of poverty and fraternity as well.

As you see, everyone was looking back to the beginning in order to see which way to go into the future. Bl. John Paul and then Cardinal Ratzinger were very instrumental in helping. Not only did they help the Franciscan family, but they promoted the model and between 1980 and today, they approved over 50 new congregations of mendicants, some Franciscans and others who used the Franciscan model and the spirituality of St. Francis, but did not adopt his rule, such as the Missionaries of the Poor. They follow the Franciscan model, but they do not profess obedience to the Franciscan Rule. Mother Teresa also borrowed heavily from Francis and founded a society of mendicant men and women, but she does not have the Rule of St. Francis. They have statutes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
As you see, everyone was looking back to the beginning in order to see which way to go into the future. Bl. John Paul and then Cardinal Ratzinger were very instrumental in helping. Not only did they help the Franciscan family, but they promoted the model and between 1980 and today, they approved over 50 new congregations of mendicants, some Franciscans and others who used the Franciscan model and the spirituality of St. Francis, but did not adopt his rule, such as the Missionaries of the Poor. They follow the Franciscan model, but they do not profess obedience to the Franciscan Rule. Mother Teresa also borrowed heavily from Francis and founded a society of mendicant men and women, but she does not have the Rule of St. Francis. They have statutes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Brother, has this renewal of the orders effected the mendicant orders just as strongly as it has the monks? I ask because, I have noticed that I sometimes see Sister at our local Monastery in pink and also blue habits if they wear one at all. I know this is only a minor detail, but I have also seen monks whom have seemed to embrace the more secluded and contemplative route. I have read your post concerning this renewal, but you have not mentioned the monastic orders such as, the Carthusian’s, Bernardines (as my family called them in Ky.) and of course the Benedictines in much detail; has this renewal effected all the orders across the board equally? Have all the orders embraced it as the Friers have?
 
Brother, has this renewal of the orders effected the mendicant orders just as strongly as it has the monks? I ask because, I have noticed that I sometimes see Sister at our local Monastery in pink and also blue habits if they wear one at all. I know this is only a minor detail, but I have also seen monks whom have seemed to embrace the more secluded and contemplative route. I have read your post concerning this renewal, but you have not mentioned the monastic orders such as, the Carthusian’s, Bernardines (as my family called them in Ky.) and of course the Benedictines in much detail; has this renewal effected all the orders across the board equally? Have all the orders embraced it as the Friers have?
You know, you have probably asked the most intelligent question in this thread so far, because it gives us a chance to explore another area of Catholic Tradition.

Let’s start off by answering your question and saying, “Yes.” The renewal through recovery, as I call it has certainly involved the cloistered communities, probably more so than the mendicants.

Before I give a few examples, it’s important to understand a few things. First of all, the Carthusians and Benedictines are organized very differently.

While mendicants are one order with a central government, Benedictines and Carthusians are not one order.

The Benedictine family is a family of monks. The Carthusians are a family of hermits. That’s their first big difference.

In both families each house is autonomous. Therefore, renewal takes place house by house. Each house looks at its fidelity to the founder’s vision and charism and then adjusts. You can have many things happening in different houses under the same name. While one Benedictine house is working on its liturgical life, another may be working on its community life or its government. In other words, they are all revisiting every aspect of Benedictine life, but not looking at the same aspects at the same time. The same is true of the Carthusians.

The Carthusians are to the contemplative life what the Jesuits are to the mendicants. The Carthusians live an enclosed life. They are an order, but they are an exception to every rule that governs enclosed orders.

First of all, they never had a rule of life. All enclosed orders follow a rule of life: Benedict, Basil, Carmel, Augustine, or Francis. The Carthusians do not. St. Bruno did not want them to have a rule, because if they had a rule, they would be stuck to it. By having statutes that they could change according to the needs of the times, they never had to do a major overhaul of their lives. As times change, they change one statute here and another there. They make these changes house by house. Not every house is following the same statutes. They build on the statutes of St. Bruno. They keep certain common elements between them, such as the physical structure of their houses and their infrastructure.

For example, the Carthusians have the Fathers and the Brothers. The Fathers are obviously priests. They are in total solitude 6/7 days a week. They come out of their hermitages on Sundays and holidays. The Brothers are not priests and they live in community, even though they never talk to each other unless it’s absolutely necessary. Their vocation is to run the place. They pray less, because they have to do the administration, manual labor and whatever else it takes to keep their house up and running. The Fathers never do any work other than chop wood for their stoves. Literally, they don’t even do their own laundry. The Brothers do it. There is no excuse for not praying. With them, you don’t see major changes, because they have been doing them all along.

The Benedictines come in several packages. There are the original Benedictines, the Cistercians, the Trappists, the Camaldolese and a few others that I can’t recall. They live in community as do the friars. However, unlike the friars, each house is autonomous. There is no Superior General. Houses group together to form congregations. They have cooperation between them. But at the end of the day, the Abbot is Christ. He is the only person who can reform anything. He is to be obeyed and never questioned.

The abbot reforms the liturgy. He creates the Breviary that they follow. Which always makes me chuckle on CAF. I see so many Traditionalists wishing to pray the Divine Office according to the traditional form. I always tell myself, “Do they know that there are as many Benedictine forms of the Divine Office as there are Benedictine congregations?” The Monastic Diurnal is only a reference or guide. The abbot decides how they use it, if they use it at all and how much they use. The abbot decides if they pray it in Latin, English or Chinese. No one has the power to question him. This is true of the entire family, including the offspring: Cistercians, Trappists, Camalolese, etc.

The biggest and most noticeable renewal among them has been declericalization. They too fell into the pattern of ordaining and ordaining. St. Benedict never had this in mind. They were to be a brotherhood with a few priests to celebrate mass for them and hear their confessions.

However, as they built new houses in areas where there was a shortage of priests, the bishops asked them cover. They ran parishes and would return to the abbey when not involved in the parish. This was not part of their tradition. They had often ran schools on their abbey grounds, but not parishes. The monks did not leave the abbey to take care of parishes. They left the abbey for many reasons, but parishes was not one of them.
 
In addition, the Church had made it very clear to them that the priesthood was accidental, not essential to the religious life. Those brothers who were priests were not to claim any special privileges or rights, because they were priests, other than the privilege of celebrating mass when their turn came up. That went out the window for about 100 years.

Today, they are back to the fraternal structure. In some houses no one is ever called Father. Everyone is called Brother. You have no idea who is and who is not a priest. In addition, they rarely serve in parishes anymore. They may go out to help on a Sunday at a parish that needs a priest. Even there, the stricter expressions of monasticism won’t do it. You can have a parish needing a priest. Their priestly ministry is strictly for their brothers as St. Benedict dictated. They may come out and give you a hand, but don’t depend on it being a regular thing. It’s not going to happen. They are going back to their old ways.

The in and out of the house is not good for the monk. It is not part of their tradition. And it creates a distinction among them. Obviously, only the ordained are going to get out of the house.

Those monasteries that have gone back to the strict observances are getting many vocations. Men are looking for this space of silence, solitude and penance.

The old Benedictines are still in the business of education. They have colleges and high schools affiliated with their monasteries. Some of them teach. Again, they no longer do the clerical thing where only the ordained monks teach. They’re back to the old ways. Anyone who can teach, may be asked to teach. At the same time, we’re seeing that they keep their involvement with the school or college regulated. You can miss a class and you may not be asked any questions. But if you miss the Divine Office, you had better have a good reason. There is a recovery of the Divine Office as the center of their lives. You may even live away from the abbey on a special assignment, but you are part of the abbey. You report to the abbot on a regular basis. Again, we see the vow of stability being enforced.

Another big move among the monastic communities is the return to liturgical freedom. Unlike the rest of the Church, the monks did not get tied down to the one missal. They always had many missals. This abbey used the green one and that abbey used the red one. When the reform of the liturgy came out, they were allowed to keep their customs, but everyone had to use the same missal. What came out was what I call a hybrid missal. It was a Roman Missal, with collects, propers and sequences for the liturgical calendar of the religious order. There was a Roman-Benedictine Missal, a Roman-Franciscan Missal, etc. You get the idea.

Today, they have a lot more diversity. They can use the mass of Paul VI or they can use the EF. They can use English or Latin. What they cannot change is their calendar. The abbot decides what mass and what language they use. Obedience to the abbot is back again. That trumps the form of the mass that they use. Meaning, that they use whatever the abbot allows. It sounds harder than what it is. Every house has a chapter. At the chapter people get to share their opinions and their preferences. Ultimately, the abbot decides, unless the constitutions say otherwise. They are recovering obedience without questions. This is a very Benedictine tradition, right up there with the Divine Office.

Many other religious communities and lay organizations too have borrowed heavily from the monastic tradition.

The Carthusians never had the liturgical issue. They have their own rite. They did modify their rite some years ago. I can’t remember when. This they do together. The superiors and their liturgists cooperated on this.

The enclosed communities of women are different. Their renewal has taken a different shape, because they were not setup the same way as the men. As you can see, Mother Angelica was on TV. The Poor Clares go to WYD. They do interviews on TV. They are still enclosed, but they are returning to the enclosure the way that it was practiced in the early days. In the early days, it was fluid. The Discalced Carmelite nuns had the most distance from the world. They’re returning to that. The Vistandines, Benedictines, and Poor Clares are returning to the fluid cloister. No one comes in, but they can go out to the world, but not too much either.

At the end of the day, thanks to the Communion of Saints, every grace that these men and women earn, helps all of us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF
 
They may come out and give you a hand, but don’t depend on it being a regular thing. It’s not going to happen.
In England, the main grouping is the English Benedictine Congregation (EBC). They are a missionary Benedictine congregation. If that sounds like a paradox, it’s probably because it is! Historically, during penal times, they were itinerant priests and private chaplains. Their mother house and Abbot was located in France, where they were tolerated. They still drink coffee and hot chocolate from a bowl, not a mug, like Frenchmen. They number many martyrs among their ranks, who are celebrated in their calendar, such as St Ambrose Barlow. When the Catholic hierachy was re-established in England they became parish priests. They would spend a few years out in a parish (mission) with a few other monks and then return to monastic life at the abbey. They have also always run schools. One such school has recently come under censure for a lack of boundaries between the governance of the school and that of the abbey, which allowed the abuse of children to go on unchecked for many years. Within this congregation, some of the more radical houses, offshots of the ‘Usque Movement’ of the 1930s, have retreated from parish work largely. Some have engaged in missionary work creatively through the media, without leaving their monastery. How could Benedictine mission work in 2011? In my opinion, it would focus on families, helping ‘oblate families’ to make their home more like a monastery, with one or two monks living with a family for a year or two and then returning to their monastery for major feasts. This mission would also help the monks to make their monastic communities more like families; it would be a two-way learning process.
 
In England, the main grouping is the English Benedictine Congregation (EBC). They are a missionary Benedictine congregation. If that sounds like a paradox, it’s probably because it is! Historically, during penal times, they were itinerant priests and private chaplains. Their mother house and Abbot was located in France, where they were tolerated. They still drink coffee and hot chocolate from a bowl, not a mug, like Frenchmen. They number many martyrs among their ranks, who are celebrated in their calendar, such as St Ambrose Barlow. When the Catholic hierachy was re-established in England they became parish priests. They would spend a few years out in a parish (mission) with a few other monks and then return to monastic life at the abbey. They have also always run schools. One such school has recently come under censure for a lack of boundaries between the governance of the school and that of the abbey, which allowed the abuse of children to go on unchecked for many years.
This is unfortunate. I hope they have dealt with it.
Within this congregation, some of the more radical houses, offshots of the ‘Usque Movement’ of the 1930s, have retreated from parish work largely. Some have engaged in missionary work creatively through the media, without leaving their monastery.
These are the OSB Benedictines, right? They do move fluidly from the abbey out into the secular world and back. Though the trend right now is to spend more time in the abbey than away from it.
How could Benedictine mission work in 2011? In my opinion, it would focus on families, helping ‘oblate families’ to make their home more like a monastery, with one or two monks living with a family for a year or two and then returning to their monastery for major feasts. This mission would also help the monks to make their monastic communities more like families; it would be a two-way learning process.
This is an interesting suggestion, but I don’t think St. Benedict would go for it on several counts.

A monk living with an Oblate family places him in a secular environment 24/7.

Bringing to the monastery “family practices” is not was not in Benedict’s vision. The monks were to be a brotherhood, but a very submissive brotherhood, with the abbot as the voice of Christ. In today’s family, the model is more democratic and appropriately so. That’s the world that the young are going to enter. They need to learn to participate in the internal affairs of the family in order to graduate to the affairs of the larger world. Where as monks go in the opposite direction. They surrender as much as possible to the abbot so as to be free of decision making, problem solving and other responsibilities.

There were a few monks from St. Bernard’s Abbey who were interviewed on EWTN. They were talking about their return to their roots. The one point that the abbot made very clear was the the monk is to be free with as much free time as possible in order to pray and rest.

He explained that “Ora et labora” did not mean that a monk’s day is filled with prayer and work as is the life of a friar. Friars have a full horarium from rising the retiring. Monks have a schedule around the liturgy and some work time in there. However, the abbot also said, that the monks were to have free time to go fishing, go for walks, play tennis, read, swim, take a nap, etc.

He also addressed the issue of community. He explained that fraternity to them was a form of collegiality, meaning that all monks are equal. However, they do not encourage the same degree of intimacy as is found in a family or among friars, because they don’t need that for their daily lives. It was rather interesting to listen to him. The other monks who were also interviewed chimed in on how much they appreciate their independence and autonomy from each other.

It was funny, the interviewer was a Franciscan and the younger monk look straight at him and said, “I don’t know how you guys handle so much togetherness. It would drive me nuts if I couldn’t go anywhere by myself.” The truth is that Franciscans do travel alone once in a while. But it’s not very common that they engage in the apostolate alone. There is a lot of togetherness there. The mendicant’s life is much closer to that of the average family, than the life of the monk.

I wouldn’t want to see them try to make their lives more “family like”, because it’s not what the Lord revealed to Anthony, Benedict, Bernard or Robert the great fathers of Western monasticism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The four Franciscan orders have always been in a rather strange position in regards to the hierarchy. While we are exempt, even the Secular Franciscans are an exempt order of Pontifical Right, We’re the only religious family that vows obedience to its founder. If you recall when you were professed, you promised to observe the Rule of St. Francis, however the wording was then.

This cornered us. We were never an order of priests, but always had priests, from day one. Since we were not an order of priests, we never took on the responsibility for parishes. The custom was to go out, build a few chapels and then hand them over to the first priest who showed up and move on to something else.

However, with the expansion of the Church to Asia, Africa and the Americas, the bishops needed priests. They didn’t have enough secular vocations. They asked the religious to help. Here is where that obedience thing comes into play.

Because we revere Francis as father and obey him as such, we also comply with his words in the Testament, where he promises obedience to the pope and the bishops and the rest of us promise obedience to him, even after his death. When a bishop asks for priests, the superiors felt that is was necessary to ordain and ordain and ordain.

This changed the complexion of the order. It went from being a brotherhood of equals that lived in obedience and poverty, free to roam the world preaching the Gospel among the poor to a very clerical organization like the Benedictines. Suddenly, the order was confined to parishes. The ordained friars became the Fathers. The non-ordained friars became the Lay Brothers (like the Benedictines). However, among the Benedictines, this was the vision of Benedict from day one. This was not what Francis had in mind.

In this new regime, the priests ruled and everyone else took care of their needs. They even divided the house with two refectories, two recreation rooms and two chapels. The Lay Brothers could not speak to a priest or to one who as studying to be a priest unless he was spoken to.

The priests took on parishes and the Lay Brothers took on the maintenance of the parishes. The priests were dispensed from community life in order to care for the parishes and the Lay Brothers kept the Divine Office, community meals, and community functions going so that the order could tell Rome that it was still an institute of consecrated life, not just a bunch of diocesan priests wearing habits.

The running of parishes demanded money and material goods. Suddenly, Father had a car for his personal use. The argument was that the community owned it or the parish owned it. Guess who drove it? No one else was allowed to touch it. Most laymen would settle for that arrangement. Let someone else pay for the car, pay the insurance, fill the tank and give me the keys.

This way of life attracted many men and the number of vocations peeked between Vatican I and Vatican II. The General Chapters of the 70s presented the new drafts of the Constitutions, which were ad experimentum. They intended to harmonize the new situations that Francis did not foresee with those that Francis did foresee in the rule. This created an uproar.

Many men felt that they were being cheated. In a sense they were. They had joined during the 1940s and 50s. This new image was a community that had ceased to exist in the early 1800s. It was not what they signed up for. They were told hand over the car keys. The Lay Brother was no longer the Lay Brother. He was again the equal brother. Some of them became superiors in houses full of ordained friars. This caused a stir. You have to remember that in the community that had developed between Vatican I and Vatican II Francis of Assisi could have have governed. You had to be a priest. He was not an ordained brother. His vicar, Br. Elias was a priest, but Father Francis was a Lay Brother.

Many men became very disillusioned and left. Others remained, but they became so bitter that they made life impossible for others and they drove many young men away. The numbers began to drop. They never dropped lower than they were before this big change came along in the 1800s. We’re talking about dropping to the same numbers that they had been in the early 1800s or even later. Instead of 75,000 friars, you had 48,000. The truth was that the friars were never the largest of the Franciscan orders. The largest order was always the Secular Franciscans who numbered close to one million in 114 countries around the world. They are not mendicants. They are penitents.
It sounds like the “dilution of the charism” happened much earlier than I thought–the 1800s in the US. The activity of groups like the CFR either looks very modern or very old to someone who didn’t see any of that for most of my life. Speaking of male religious, I’ve only see ordained ones, and a few retreat-house religious*, and most of them are also ordained. And laypeople always call them Fr, never Br, and this generally extends to the SFO as well.

Thanks, Br JR. You’re helping me to understand the Franciscan family a lot better.

*with the exception of Fr. Benedict Groeschel. I got to meet and talk to him for a few minutes once a couple of years ago.
 
This is unfortunate. I hope they have dealt with it.

These are the OSB Benedictines, right? They do move fluidly from the abbey out into the secular world and back. Though the trend right now is to spend more time in the abbey than away from it.


I wouldn’t want to see them try to make their lives more “family like”, because it’s not what the Lord revealed to Anthony, Benedict, Bernard or Robert the great fathers of Western monasticism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
I think you said above that the 1st order are mendicants, but the 3rd order are pentients. Is that right? How would you characterize that difference? And what describes the 2nd order (which is the Poor Clares, right?)

EDIT: I’m talking about the Franciscans.
 
In addition, the Church had made it very clear to them that the priesthood was accidental, not essential to the religious life. Those brothers who were priests were not to claim any special privileges or rights, because they were priests, other than the privilege of celebrating mass when their turn came up. That went out the window for about 100 years.
I would put the beginning of the problem earlier than that.

The monastic communities were dealt a huge blow with the wholesale theft of their estates all over the world.

There were hundreds of thousands of men and women - families, attached to these monasteries who shared their vocation to various extents.

It’s not an option today, and there are few alive who can even recall how these communities operated. Maybe a few very old people from Austria-Hungary, or in isolated areas of the Andes.

A monastery was more than just a cloister. The cloister was the heart within a body.

For over a 1000 years, the monks filled the space in between the mendicants and the secular clergy. It is significant that Robin Hood’s clerical interactions are with a monk from Fountains Abbey.

Not without reason have the enemies of the Church begun their attacks by shutting the monasteries.
 
The Benedictines come in several packages. There are the original Benedictines, the Cistercians, the Trappists, the Camaldolese and a few others that I can’t recall. They live in community as do the friars. However, unlike the friars, each house is autonomous. There is no Superior General. Houses group together to form congregations. They have cooperation between them. But at the end of the day, the Abbot is Christ. He is the only person who can reform anything. He is to be obeyed and never questioned.

The abbot reforms the liturgy. He creates the Breviary that they follow. Which always makes me chuckle on CAF. I see so many Traditionalists wishing to pray the Divine Office according to the traditional form. I always tell myself, “Do they know that there are as many Benedictine forms of the Divine Office as there are Benedictine congregations?”
I have just finished reading “The Cistercian Way” by Andre Louf. His description of obedience to the abbot reminds me of the sacrament of marriage when he describes it as a “Total gift of self”. The abbot is Christ, and the monk gives himself to Christ as a gift. And this is not just obedience to the abbot alone, but to the brethren as well. Every monk makes a total gift of self to the community. Obedience is not just obeying arbitrary commands, but a state of being, a state of emptying oneself and becoming a slave. The more a monk empties himself, the more room he makes for God to fill him.

When he delivers himself into the hands of another man and undertakes to live with his brothers, the monk in fact abandon’s himself to God.

The monks at the monastery near me have a two week cycle of all 150 psalms. They combine the small hours into one midday prayer. Interestingly, the break Vigils into two parts, 15 minutes each, with a half hour of meditation between. They just do half of it and then it just stops. The lights go out, and all the monks to to the pews to meditate. As quick as it stopped, it starts again. The lights go on, the monks get up, go to the choir stalls, and all start singning again.
Today, they are back to the fraternal structure. In some houses no one is ever called Father. Everyone is called Brother. You have no idea who is and who is not a priest. In addition, they rarely serve in parishes anymore. They may go out to help on a Sunday at a parish that needs a priest. Even there, the stricter expressions of monasticism won’t do it. You can have a parish needing a priest. Their priestly ministry is strictly for their brothers as St. Benedict dictated. They may come out and give you a hand, but don’t depend on it being a regular thing. It’s not going to happen. They are going back to their old ways.

The in and out of the house is not good for the monk. It is not part of their tradition. And it creates a distinction among them. Obviously, only the ordained are going to get out of the house.

Those monasteries that have gone back to the strict observances are getting many vocations. Men are looking for this space of silence, solitude and penance.
The brothers with whom I am familiar leave the monastery for doctor, dentist, and one week each year to visit family. I joked with the vocation director, asking him if he ever thought to raise money by having a charity football game with the Dominicans and charging admission or something like that. He said, “Well, they would have to come here because we don’t leave.”

To brother’s point about not knowiing who the priests are, the monks concelebrated a Saturday morning Mass. One of the priests concelebrating took my dishes from me that day at lunch and scraped my plate off into a garbage can. I’ll never forget approaching the monk and recognizing him as one of the priests, and looking at his hands - the hands of a priest - who reached out to wash the dishes of a man he had never met. A priest washed my dirty lunch dishes. I’m still blown away by that.
He also addressed the issue of community. He explained that fraternity to them was a form of collegiality, meaning that all monks are equal. However, they do not encourage the same degree of intimacy as is found in a family or among friars, because they don’t need that for their daily lives. It was rather interesting to listen to him. The other monks who were also interviewed chimed in on how much they appreciate their independence and autonomy from each other.
It is a community, but lived in silence. They live in community, but in an interior silence. It is not the same for each monk. For some, heir heart is in the community, obedience and service to the brethren. For others, it’s the silence. The term “Spiritual hermits” is used to discribe spiritual stillness and silence in the midst of a community of brothers who live and work and pray together 24x7.

I recommend this book, The Cistercian Way, to anyone interested. There is even a chapter about the history of cenobitic monasticism and the reforms of Citeaux in the eleventh century and a subchapter titled, “From Citeaux to Today” covering more recent changes. Much to the point of all this…

***In this way the Order found itself well prepared to undertak the double task which the second Vatican Council imposed on all religious; to bring about renewal by returning more faithfully to the spirit of the founders, and to adapt the expressions of this spirit to the demands of our time. … Nowadays there is less tendancy to impose a uniform life style, worked out in advance, on everyone. The aim is rather to stir up tand nourish an interior liberty by which the Holy Spirit anticipates the work of man. This process is by no means ended yet. ***

-Tim-
 
I have just finished reading “The Cistercian Way” by Andre Louf. His description of obedience to the abbot reminds me of the sacrament of marriage when he describes it as a “Total gift of self”. The abbot is Christ, and the monk gives himself to Christ as a gift. And this is not just obedience to the abbot alone, but to the brethren as well. Every monk makes a total gift of self to the community. Obedience is not just obeying arbitrary commands, but a state of being, a state of emptying oneself and becoming a slave. The more a monk empties himself, the more room he makes for God to fill him.

When he delivers himself into the hands of another man and undertakes to live with his brothers, the monk in fact abandon’s himself to God.

The monks at the monastery near me have a two week cycle of all 150 psalms. They combine the small hours into one midday prayer. Interestingly, the break Vigils into two parts, 15 minutes each, with a half hour of meditation between. They just do half of it and then it just stops. The lights go out, and all the monks to to the pews to meditate. As quick as it stopped, it starts again. The lights go on, the monks get up, go to the choir stalls, and all start singning again.

The brothers with whom I am familiar leave the monastery for doctor, dentist, and one week each year to visit family. I joked with the vocation director, asking him if he ever thought to raise money by having a charity football game with the Dominicans and charging admission or something like that. He said, “Well, they would have to come here because we don’t leave.”

To brother’s point about not knowiing who the priests are, the monks concelebrated a Saturday morning Mass. One of the priests concelebrating took my dishes from me that day at lunch and scraped my plate off into a garbage can. I’ll never forget approaching the monk and recognizing him as one of the priests, and looking at his hands - the hands of a priest - who reached out to wash the dishes of a man he had never met. A priest washed my dirty lunch dishes. I’m still blown away by that.

It is a community, but lived in silence. They live in community, but in an interior silence. It is not the same for each monk. For some, heir heart is in the community, obedience and service to the brethren. For others, it’s the silence. The term “Spiritual hermits” is used to discribe spiritual stillness and silence in the midst of a community of brothers who live and work and pray together 24x7.

I recommend this book, The Cistercian Way, to anyone interested. There is even a chapter about the history of cenobitic monasticism and the reforms of Citeaux in the eleventh century and a subchapter titled, “From Citeaux to Today” covering more recent changes. Much to the point of all this…

***In this way the Order found itself well prepared to undertak the double task which the second Vatican Council imposed on all religious; to bring about renewal by returning more faithfully to the spirit of the founders, and to adapt the expressions of this spirit to the demands of our time. … Nowadays there is less tendancy to impose a uniform life style, worked out in advance, on everyone. The aim is rather to stir up tand nourish an interior liberty by which the Holy Spirit anticipates the work of man. This process is by no means ended yet. ***

-Tim-
Awesome post. The same hands that scraped your plates clean also handed you the body of our Blessed Lord. That is pretty awesome.

Thanks for sharing that information…

Out of curiosity, are you involved with the Cistercians in anyway other than living close to them? For example, do they have lay orders, associates, etc.? I am not too familiar with them at all.

Peace!
 
Out of curiosity, are you involved with the Cistercians in anyway other than living close to them? For example, do they have lay orders, associates, etc.? I am not too familiar with them at all.

Peace!
I went to the Cistercian Monastery of the Holy Spirit on a vocations retreat. They call themselves Trappist, but the vocations director told me that the Abbot wants to use “Cistercian” instead. I really don’t know the difference.

Anyway, I went there on a vocations retreat, thinking that I wanted to be a priest or a deacon. What I saw blew me away. I was very dogmatic, very much into systematic theology, apologetics, very process oriented. I tell this story occasionally, that I tried to engage one of the brothers in a discussion of some doctrine or dogma of the faith or something. He looked at me like I was crazy, like “Why are you talking to me about this?” Dogma and doctrine are a given. It was as if I was trying to have a conversation about the effectiveness of gravity, or as if I was trying to debate the need to breathe. It took me a while to figure it out, that it wasn’t what they were about.

God brought me to that monastery to break me of some things, and to show me other things, and to teach me about another side of our faith. The peace, the stillness, the humility of the men… every single one of them were meekness and humility incarnate. And every single one of the men are hard as nails. They make men like me look like a girly-man.

I wrote this blog post when I got back.

Anyway, to answer your question, I am not affiliated with them at all, other than the fact that a piece of my heart is in the abbey Church. Not a day goes by that I don’t wish I was there. The vocations director and I had a conversation about the priesthood and monastic life. I told him my personal situation and he looked at me with a chuckle and said, “It aint gonna happen.”

But I’m seriously considering a lay association. One associates with an individual community, not with the worldwide Cistercians, but with a local community to whom you link yourself spiritually and physically. You go there once a month. Cistercians don’t vow poverty and chastity - those are implied in the vow of obedience. Obedience, ongoing conversion, and stability are the three vows a Cistercian makes. I asked about stability, and the monk simply said, “This is where I will die.” Obedience, stability, and ongoing conversion are what a lay associate lives within his state. Obedience to people whom god places in a position of authority over him and obedience to his fellow man, who is really Christ. And stability - not always restless, always looking over the fence where the grass appears to be greener. Stability in family life, in job, in parish, in community. There is a serenity and calmness in that which attracts me greatly. And prayer. A lot of prayer. The vocations director told me, “You gotta like to pray. Forget about this devotion, and forget about that devotion. I still pray my rosary every day but Cistercians like to pray.”

Anyway, watch this video. trappist.net/TheCall.

And read “The Cistercian Way” if you get a chance.

-Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top