Spirituality of religious orders in Catholic tradition

[JReducation]

Not adding much to the conversation here but wanted to mention that the Homily at Midnight Mass on Christmas was about how the economy has been forcing people to cut back on expensive gifts and through it, God was presenting us an opportunity to focus on the real meaning of Christmas.

Father used the example of St. Francis generously in his homily, and even that tied it to a modern Christain Rock song which I was not familiar with.

-Tim-

It seems that St. Francis made it to many Midnight masses around the world.

Merry Christmas

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[jwinch2]

It seems that St. Francis made it to many Midnight masses around the world.

Merry Christmas

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

We got St. Benedict along with commentary on Pope Benedict’s Christmas wishes. Of course the pastor where we are visiting is a Benedictine, so that probably explains that.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The founder retains control over the community, even from the grave, is Franciscan. Francis never surrendered his control over his sons and daughters, nor did he hand it on. He remains the only superior to be called Father. Among the Missionaries of Charity, Mother Teresa is the only superior to be called Mother. The question of the day is, “What would Mother do?” That’s also the Franciscans daily question. Christ is heard through the voice of the founder.

I had two thoughts reading this. First, I read a biography of Mother Teresa years ago that said she was called “Mother” because all the nuns in the order she came from were. I don’t recall more than that. I don’t know how that matters, anyway, as when she walked out of there, she was no longer part of that order, iirc. But I take your point about hearing Christ through the voice of the founder.

My second thought was how interesting that she takes from Francis and Dominic, Francis certainly being a mystic and I thought Dominic was, yet, Mother Teresa is almost entirely absent that sort of experience even though she engaged in such dedicated prayer practice. Which seems to me to go back to what you said here:

Their effectiveness rests on the fact that through them Christ has entered human history at a time and in a manner that was necessary to influence history. Their continued existence continues to influence human history and points us in the direction to which the charism points, even when we are unaware. God’s grace does not depend on our awareness.

Francis was aware, he seemed to be in direct contact with Jesus on a fairly regular basis. It makes it easier to accept his teaching because it seems to come directly from Jesus. And of course, gave him the confidence to continue and know his path. Mother Teresa, without that kind of direct contact, still just went striding in perfect faith along her path and it’s hard to have any doubt whatsoever that this is Christ will in the world for us: to love one another. That takes us back to Francis weeping in the cave because “people do not love love.”

Which makes me think of the contrast between them as Mother Teresa went all over the world getting money. I recall someone criticizing her for taking money from some dictator who’s wealth came from drug trade, the critic saying it was money from the Devil and she responding some thing like, the Devil’s had it long enough, now it’s God’s money. Which is interesting because I don’t recall Jesus ever feeding anyone by converting money into bread.

Which, oddly, brought me to Benedict’s Christmas homily about material goods and our attachment to them. So Francis/Christ brings us eschewing personal wealth which brings us to holiness and closer to Jesus and Teresa shows us coverting those goods into love.

I lost Dominic!

wait…

Pope?

 

[JReducation]

Wait wait . . . we’re confusing a few things here. Let’s sort them out.

I had two thoughts reading this. First, I read a biography of Mother Teresa years ago that said she was called “Mother” because all the nuns in the order she came from were. I don’t recall more than that.

Up until the time that she becomes a Missionary of Charity, she is Sister Teresa. Even during her first two years living outside of the convent of Loretto, she was still Sister Teresa. Remember, Teresa of Calcutta was a nun. She was exclaustrated to live among the poor, but remained a nun until 1946. This may be what you were thinking about when you mentioned her community, the Society of Our Lady of Loretto. This is a society of nuns. In 1946, permission is granted for the erection of the Congregation of the Missionaries of Charity. Sister Teresa, who had been living outside of the Loretto community, received a dispensation from the Holy See. She ceases to be a nun. On that same day, she makes profession of vows as a religious sister instead. She becomes Mother Maria Teresa of the Missionaries of Charity, known to us as Mother Teresa. She became Mother, because she was the founder and the superior general.

But I take your point about hearing Christ through the voice of the founder.

The Missionaries of Charity, like the Franciscans, have a prohibition. No one may replace the founder. The new superiors are successors, but they do not have the authority to overrule the founders. This is only known in these two religious families. In every other religious family, the major superior trumps the founder. For that reason Benedictines have abbots and Dominicans and Carmelites have Priors and other communities have Rev. Mothers and Rev Fathers. The Franciscans and Missionaries of Charity have none of these. The only parents they have are Francis and Teresa. Every superior must govern according to the mind of the founder. The Missionaries of Charity borrow this from the Franciscans. The Franciscan family is known for its strong attachment to its founder, which is unique. Only now, do we see a similar relationship between fonder and successors rising out of the Missionaries of Charity. They even keep a place for Mother Teresa at table. Her place in chapel may never be used by anyone. It’s incredible the degree of their love. It’s like Francis, there are certain things that are still in place as if Francis were still here.

My second thought was how interesting that she takes from Francis and Dominic,

She takes from Francis and Benedict, not Dominic. That’s why her sisters and brothers do not engage in the ministry of the spoken word. They preach through their presence, not words.

Francis certainly being a mystic and I thought Dominic was, yet, Mother Teresa is almost entirely absent that sort of experience even though she engaged in such dedicated prayer practice.

Actually, she was a mystic and she had several visions. That’s how she received the command to found the Missionaries of Charity. Her Dark Night is the experience of a mystic.

Francis was aware, he seemed to be in direct contact with Jesus on a fairly regular basis. It makes it easier to accept his teaching because it seems to come directly from Jesus. And of course, gave him the confidence to continue and know his path. Mother Teresa, without that kind of direct contact,

But Mother did have direct contact with Christ 24/7. Read Come Be My Light. Mother is so united to Christ that she enters into his darkest moment with him, when he must face sin in order to redeem mankind. She lives that moment with him when he cries out, “Why have you abandoned me?”. Just as Christ’s moment of darkness extends beyond that single moment in Jerusalem, to embrace and redeem every soul from the beginning of time to the end of time, Mother’s participation in Christ’s darkness is not limited to a few hours on Good Friday. Rather, like Christ, her passion extends for 40 years. It’s rather interesting that it’s 40.

still just went striding in perfect faith along her path and it’s hard to have any doubt whatsoever that this is Christ will in the world for us: to love one another. That takes us back to Francis weeping in the cave because “people do not love love.”

She goes with perfect faith. This is true. Christ’s will for us in the world is beyond loving one another. It calls for us to lay down our lives for each other. “Take up your cross and follow me.” or “A man can do no greater thing than to lay down his life for his brother.” These are not metaphors. The writers of the Scripture are telling what we need to do to be disciples. We keep analyzing these statements. People like Francis and Mother Teresa never analyzed. They did as the Scripture said. They took up their cross and they laid down their lives.

 

[JReducation]

Which makes me think of the contrast between them as Mother Teresa went all over the world getting money.

That never happened. Mother never begged for money, nor did she ever try to raise funds. In fact, her constitution prohibit fundraising of any kind. People sent her money when she spoke to them about the poor. All she ever did was to invite people to open their hearts to the poor.

I recall someone criticizing her for taking money from some dictator who’s wealth came from drug trade, the critic saying it was money from the Devil and she responding some thing like, the Devil’s had it long enough, now it’s God’s money. Which is interesting because I don’t recall Jesus ever feeding anyone by converting money into bread.

It’s not a matter of money. It’s a matter of charity. Jesus never turned down a gift either. The repentant woman uses expensive oils to anoint him and he accepts the gift. The young boy on the hill surrenders his fish and loaves and Jesus accepts the gift. Jesus is fed from the table of harlots and tax collectors, but he does not refuse to eat.

Which, oddly, brought me to Benedict’s Christmas homily about material goods and our attachment to them. So Francis/Christ brings us eschewing personal wealth which brings us to holiness and closer to Jesus and Teresa shows us coverting those goods into love.

This is correct.

I lost Dominic!

I’m not sure how you got Dominic in here in the first place.

Merry Christmas

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[iloveangels]

That never happened. Mother never begged for money, nor did she ever try to raise funds. In fact, her constitution prohibit fundraising of any kind. People sent her money when she spoke to them about the poor. All she ever did was to invite people to open their hearts to the poor.

It’s not a matter of money. It’s a matter of charity. Jesus never turned down a gift either. The repentant woman uses expensive oils to anoint him and he accepts the gift. The young boy on the hill surrenders his fish and loaves and Jesus accepts the gift. Jesus is fed from the table of harlots and tax collectors, but he does not refuse to eat.

This is correct.

I’m not sure how you got Dominic in here in the first place.

Merry Christmas

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

Actually, Mother Teresa used to turn down money if there were strings attached. And she refused to have money in investment houses and such things. They lived (and still do as far as I know) off of immediate contributions that people give them for the work that they engage in.

They have a house right near the Vatican where they take care of the poor in Rome. They’re awesome.

 

[JReducation]

Actually, Mother Teresa used to turn down money if there were strings attached. And she refused to have money in investment houses and such things. They lived (and still do as far as I know) off of immediate contributions that people give them for the work that they engage in.

They have a house right near the Vatican where they take care of the poor in Rome. They’re awesome.

That’s right. They do no begging or fundraising of any kind and they have a limit on how much they accept in donations. I know, because I work in the same diocese with them.

They have a house near the Vatican and they have one in the Vatican too. It’s adjacent to the Papal Palace. It used to be part of the pope’s residence.

The actual story is that Mother told Pope John Paul II that the Jesus wanted the Church to open her doors to the poor. Pope John Paul responded that he would help in any way he could. She said that the Lord wanted a house “here”. Pope John Paul said that he would speak to the diocesan administrator for the Diocese of Rome to find more housing for her sisters and the poor.

Mother responded, “Jesus doesn’t want another house in Rome. He wants it in Vatican City.” Pope John Paul responded that he did not have the power to grant that, because he has no authority over how the resources in Vatican City are used. Mother simply promised to pray for him.

Every time she came to Rome she would tell him that she was praying for him that he would find a way of giving Jesus the house in Vatican City. After several of these visits, Pope John Paul was beginning to squirm. He heard that Mother was coming back to Rome. He commanded his staff to find out if there was a spot in Vatican City that the pope could rent for Mother’s use. There was none.

Then he asked about the wing of the Papal Palace that he could see from his window. He was told that it was no longer used, but it is part of the pope’s palace, not St. Peter’s. He ordered that it be rehabilitated into a shelter and a soup kitchen, “Quickly, before Mother gets here.”

When she arrived, he sent for her and gave her the place. She would not accept it as her own, but only as a loan. The pope agreed and he promised to help care for the poor. Every holiday, he would go down to the soup kitchen and serve meals. I believe that Pope Benedict also goes there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[iloveangels]

I don’t know if the Missionaries of Charity will or will not enter this group. Let’s look at what this particular pope has done with Francis of Assisi, since he became pope. This is not his first reference to St. Francis in a very outstanding way.

…

At a time where the role of the laity and the clergy in the Church is being emphasized, often at the expense of the role of the consecrated life, this reminder by Pope Benedict is timely. It takes nothing away from the laity or the priesthood. It simply reminds us today of the essential role of the consecrated life in history, just as Vatican II reminded us of the essential role of the laity in history. There is a human tendency to emphasize one thing and forget the other. We tend to focus on the secular (layman and priest) or the consecrated (man and woman religious), when in fact, they are equally necessary for the life of the Church. The Church deems them to be essential, not accidental.

It’s almost as if we can’t live with day and night. As if we can only focus on one or the other, when in fact a day has both, light and darkness and both are good and necessary.

The goodness of religious traditions is not measured by their numbers or their visible effectiveness. Their effectiveness rests on the fact that through them Christ has entered human history at a time and in a manner that was necessary to influence history. Their continued existence continues to influence human history and points us in the direction to which the charism points, even when we are unaware. God’s grace does not depend on our awareness.

Merry Christmas

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

Each of these orders that you list, tell the story of God’s presence and love in a slightly different way, using slightly different tools, but the entire story wouldn’t be complete without each of them and all of them together. Yes?

And the things that the church has in its cultural patrimony that come out of each of these orders is very important even if we never see a member of one of these orders…That is what you’re saying here, yes?

I’m still thinking about the SFO, and this post is interesting in that light. SFOs are laity with the Franciscan charism, but in a particular way of their own since they are an order, not an association or a derivative branch of the OFMs, etc. They’re a piece of the puzzle too. Another piece of the Franciscan puzzle, another piece of the “orders” puzzle, and another piece of the total Catholic puzzle.

[Also you say something about the increased part the laity has to play. I think this is true. For so long there has been an emphasis and compartmentalization of the different ways of life, to the point where laypeople “left holiness to the experts.” That’s not right at all. But it’s also not either/or. The different parts of the church have got to work together and be what they really are together without the imbalance and the strange objectification of some parts of the church.]

 

[iloveangels]

That’s right. They do no begging or fundraising of any kind and they have a limit on how much they accept in donations. I know, because I work in the same diocese with them.

They have a house near the Vatican and they have one in the Vatican too. It’s adjacent to the Papal Palace. It used to be part of the pope’s residence.

The actual story is that Mother told Pope John Paul II that the Jesus wanted the Church to open her doors to the poor. Pope John Paul responded that he would help in any way he could. She said that the Lord wanted a house “here”. Pope John Paul said that he would speak to the diocesan administrator for the Diocese of Rome to find more housing for her sisters and the poor.

Mother responded, “Jesus doesn’t want another house in Rome. He wants it in Vatican City.” Pope John Paul responded that he did not have the power to grant that, because he has no authority over how the resources in Vatican City are used. Mother simply promised to pray for him.

Every time she came to Rome she would tell him that she was praying for him that he would find a way of giving Jesus the house in Vatican City. After several of these visits, Pope John Paul was beginning to squirm. He heard that Mother was coming back to Rome. He commanded his staff to find out if there was a spot in Vatican City that the pope could rent for Mother’s use. There was none.

Then he asked about the wing of the Papal Palace that he could see from his window. He was told that it was no longer used, but it is part of the pope’s palace, not St. Peter’s. He ordered that it be rehabilitated into a shelter and a soup kitchen, “Quickly, before Mother gets here.”

When she arrived, he sent for her and gave her the place. She would not accept it as her own, but only as a loan. The pope agreed and he promised to help care for the poor. Every holiday, he would go down to the soup kitchen and serve meals. I believe that Pope Benedict also goes there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

I’ve seen it, LOL, right where you least expect it. It’s good that we have it there. The standard of living in Rome is lower than many Americans think, and I imagine it’s even lower now that the economy there has taken a dive, and generally with that comes more homeless people.

 

[jwinch2]

The actual story is that Mother told Pope John Paul II that the Jesus wanted the Church to open her doors to the poor. Pope John Paul responded that he would help in any way he could. She said that the Lord wanted a house “here”. Pope John Paul said that he would speak to the diocesan administrator for the Diocese of Rome to find more housing for her sisters and the poor.

Mother responded, “Jesus doesn’t want another house in Rome. He wants it in Vatican City.” Pope John Paul responded that he did not have the power to grant that, because he has no authority over how the resources in Vatican City are used. Mother simply promised to pray for him.

Every time she came to Rome she would tell him that she was praying for him that he would find a way of giving Jesus the house in Vatican City. After several of these visits, Pope John Paul was beginning to squirm. He heard that Mother was coming back to Rome. He commanded his staff to find out if there was a spot in Vatican City that the pope could rent for Mother’s use. There was none.

Then he asked about the wing of the Papal Palace that he could see from his window. He was told that it was no longer used, but it is part of the pope’s palace, not St. Peter’s. He ordered that it be rehabilitated into a shelter and a soup kitchen, “Quickly, before Mother gets here.”

When she arrived, he sent for her and gave her the place. She would not accept it as her own, but only as a loan. The pope agreed and he promised to help care for the poor. Every holiday, he would go down to the soup kitchen and serve meals. I believe that Pope Benedict also goes there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

Awesome story. That took some… umm… panache.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Up until the time that she becomes a Missionary of Charity, she is Sister Teresa. Even during her first two years living outside of the convent of Loretto, she was still Sister Teresa. Remember, Teresa of Calcutta was a nun. She was exclaustrated to live among the poor, but remained a nun until 1946. This may be what you were thinking about when you mentioned her community, the Society of Our Lady of Loretto. This is a society of nuns. In 1946, permission is granted for the erection of the Congregation of the Missionaries of Charity. Sister Teresa, who had been living outside of the Loretto community, received a dispensation from the Holy See. She ceases to be a nun. On that same day, she makes profession of vows as a religious sister instead. She becomes Mother Maria Teresa of the Missionaries of Charity, known to us as Mother Teresa. She became Mother, because she was the founder and the superior general.

I will find the book and see what it says. The nuns of the Sisters of Loretto were all called “Mother.” Perhaps it was a local designation by the people of India or something in the Order. Also, when Mother Teresa walked out of her convent or cloister or whatever, she ceased being a Sister of Loretto and was on her own without support from them. I also understand that regardless of who she was before, she would have been called “Mother” as the head of the order she founded. But she was not called “Sister” before that. Again, I have to go get a reference.

Actually, she was a mystic and she had several visions.

Having a few visions does not make you a mystic, in my experience. Another nun in her convent had the idea before her and backed off when the Vatican said she’d be cut off from the convent. So God seems to have been determined to find someone.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I’m not sure how you got Dominic in here in the first place.

Senior moment?

 

[Julia_Mae]

That never happened. Mother never begged for money, nor did she ever try to raise funds. In fact, her constitution prohibit fundraising of any kind. People sent her money when she spoke to them about the poor. All she ever did was to invite people to open their hearts to the poor.

I did not say she begged for money.

Which makes me think of the contrast between them as Mother Teresa went all over the world getting money.

She wasn’t preaching charity all over just to do it. She was helping the dregs of society just to do it. She was preaching charity all over the world because people gave her money. Now, while this may have been Jesus’ idea and not her own is quite possible. Jesus sometimes finds ways to get us money.

 

[iloveangels]

I did not say she begged for money.

She wasn’t preaching charity all over just to do it. She was helping the dregs of society just to do it. She was preaching charity all over the world because people gave her money. Now, while this may have been Jesus’ idea and not her own is quite possible. Jesus sometimes finds ways to get us money.

I’m not really sure that what she was doing had much to do with money at all, one way or the other.

 

[Alfonsus]

Having a few visions does not make you a mystic, in my experience. Another nun in her convent had the idea before her and backed off when the Vatican said she’d be cut off from the convent. So God seems to have been determined to find someone.

I’m wondering your definition of “mystic.”
Based on Fr. Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, mysticism is defined as:

The supernatural state of soul in which God is known in a way that no human effort or exertion could ever succeed in producing. There is an immediate, personal experience of God that is truly extraordinary, not only in intensity and degree, but in kind. It is always the result of a special, totally unmerited grace of God. christian mysticism differs essentially from the non-Christian mysticism of the Oriental world. It always recognizes that the reality to which it penetrates simply transcends the soul and the cosmos; there is no confusion between I and thou, but always a profound humility before the infinite Majesty of God. And in Christian mysticism all union between the soul and God is a moral union of love, in doing his will even at great sacrifice to self; there is no hint of losing one’s being in God or absorption of one’s personality into the divine.

Thus a mystic, is someone who experience all these. From Catholic spirituality perspective, what Mother Teresa experienced, especially the union of abandonment with Jesus on the cross, is rightfully called mystical experience thus render her a mystic.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I’m wondering your definition of “mystic.”
Based on Fr. Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, mysticism is defined as:

Thus a mystic, is someone who experience all these. From Catholic spirituality perspective, what Mother Teresa experienced, especially the union of abandonment with Jesus on the cross, is rightfully called mystical experience thus render her a mystic.

Well, I think there is such a thing as “Catholic Vernacular.” A “mystic” is in that case someone who’s life is first characterized by mystical experience. Saint Faustina, Saint John of the Cross, for instance.

The experiences described in your quote actually not uncommon and are had by many people, but while we can say someone had a mystical experience, we don’t call them “mystics.” I haven’t read the book Br JR recommended, though, so possibly there was something going on but her dryness was so well-remarked, I doubt it.

 

[iloveangels]

Well, I think there is such a thing as “Catholic Vernacular.” A “mystic” is in that case someone who’s life is first characterized by mystical experience. Saint Faustina, Saint John of the Cross, for instance.

The experiences described in your quote actually not uncommon and are had by many people, but while we can say someone had a mystical experience, we don’t call them “mystics.” I haven’t read the book Br JR recommended, though, so possibly there was something going on but her dryness was so well-remarked, I doubt it.

Not exactly. Phenomena are somewhat common and they can have a lot of origins. Phenomena (like visions and consolations and the like) are always to be subject to the Church. Mystical can also include experiences that don’t exactly come down as perceivable phenomena which is hard to explain–things like identification with the beloved in the way that Mother Teresa has described.

Phenomena are not necessary for sanctity, nor are they always a sign of sanctity. In fact, often they are not.

LOL. There are several “Catholic vernaculars,” not all of them interchangeable. LOL

 

[Julia_Mae]

Not exactly. Phenomena are somewhat common and they can have a lot of origins. Phenomena (like visions and consolations and the like) are always to be subject to the Church. Mystical can also include experiences that don’t exactly come down as perceivable phenomena which is hard to explain–things like identification with the beloved in the way that Mother Teresa has described.

Phenomena are not necessary for sanctity, nor are they always a sign of sanctity. In fact, often they are not.

LOL. There are several “Catholic vernaculars,” not all of them interchangeable. LOL

I agree. The thing about “subject to the Church” is that the Church as we encounter Her, generally has no interest in these experiences as had by the common faithful. So they are left to flounder around on their own or post on forums.

In the case of Mother Teresa, to my mind, she was not a mystic. But as I said, I haven’t read this book that was suggested.

 

[iloveangels]

I agree. The thing about “subject to the Church” is that the Church as we encounter Her, generally has no interest in these experiences as had by the common faithful. So they are left to flounder around on their own or post on forums.

In the case of Mother Teresa, to my mind, she was not a mystic. But as I said, I haven’t read this book that was suggested.

Well, the Church has an interest, but it’s well-known that these things are pretty common and most of them turn out not to have been very important in the whole scheme of things, to be perfectly honest. They may or may not function as consolations for some people, and they are what they are.

The Church does have an interest in whether a person exhibits genuine sanctity and it may not matter whether a phenomena was part of the inspiration for that sanctity or not. Depends. However, always: Sanctity, ie holiness, is the real “proof of the pudding.”

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well, the Church has an interest, but it’s well-known that these things are pretty common and most of them turn out not to have been very important in the whole scheme of things, to be perfectly honest. They may or may not function as consolations for some people, and they are what they are.

The Church does have an interest in whether a person exhibits genuine sanctity and it may not matter whether a phenomena was part of the inspiration for that sanctity or not. Depends. However, always: Sanctity, ie holiness, is the real “proof of the pudding.”

I’m sorry, but where do you see such a thing? 1st, if Mother Teresa is a mystic based on some experiences, than all those other folks having experiences are mystics, too. WHY is the Church not interested? Because maybe, possibly, it might not be anything? Or because priests hate the idea of parishioners with extraordinary experiences and haven’t a clue what to do with that, how to advise them, even if they deign to acknowledge that what happened might have actually happened?

There’s no structure, place, office or resource for folks to contact who just want to know what’s happening to them. You may believe the Church cares, it does not. I know a woman who had Jesus appear to her during Mass and heal her. She had before and after xrays. Her priest commented, “God doesn’t work that way,” and walked off. If the Church cared, soccer moms wouldn’t be wandering into New Age book stores because their Pastor doesn’t want to hear about their transcendental experience and the only thing they can find that even tries to explain what they experienced is outside the Church.

It isn’t like you can call up the “Office of Spiritual Direction” and make an appointment.

And here’s a question:* why can’t we?*

So, unless you have some sort of evidence of caring, seriously, I think it’s nice you have this faith, but I’m not seeing it anywhere.