J
jwinch2
Guest
Agreed. That was extremely interesting.
- Status
T
TimothyH
Guest
I agree with the previous two posters. It is nice to hear someone who has actual knowledge of the subject backed up by experience. Thank you.
-Tim-
I
iloveangels
Guest
I agree.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Jason,
Alongside each new wave of change in the Church, the older forms have always remained on the scene, although in more minor roles than when they first burst upon the scene. This is the situation that the more traditional monastics, the classic mendicants and the military orders are in right now. I’m getting the impression that this is what you’re looking for. [Me too, I ended up in the SFO.]
Have you looked at Clear Creek? They’re Benedictine and I hear that they’re fairly traditional and classic. Do they have Oblates? Do they have cells of Oblates that meet outside the monastery by region? I hear that some Oblates do that in some parts of the country. For instance, the ones from St. Meinrad in Indiana do that.
Alongside each new wave of change in the Church, the older forms have always remained on the scene, although in more minor roles than when they first burst upon the scene. This is the situation that the more traditional monastics, the classic mendicants and the military orders are in right now. I’m getting the impression that this is what you’re looking for. [Me too, I ended up in the SFO.]
Have you looked at Clear Creek? They’re Benedictine and I hear that they’re fairly traditional and classic. Do they have Oblates? Do they have cells of Oblates that meet outside the monastery by region? I hear that some Oblates do that in some parts of the country. For instance, the ones from St. Meinrad in Indiana do that.
J
jwinch2
Guest
I have, thanks. I am going on two retreats to different monasteries this summer to help in my discernment.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Excellent. I hope one of them turns out to be perfect for you.
G
guanophore
Guest
Thank you Jason. I did see it. I think we are just having a semantics problem, which is why I was asking you to define your terms.
jwinch:
I can’t argue with your experience, whatever it is. You apparently have had a personal “charismatic” experience that seems to you to be incompatible with the Benedictine life. I will respect your perception, even though I do not understand it. I don’t know what “activities” are being referenced here, so it is impossible for me to understand your experience.
jwinch:
You are right. For me, “charismatic” is living the Spirit filled life. One can do this within any religious order, community, or any traditional Catholic spirituality.
jwinch:
Certainly! But you are assuming that Early Benedictines did not live a “charismatic” life. How do you conclude that they did not experience the fullness of the Spiritual gifts in their lives?
jwinch:
Yes. I am still unclear on the “activities” you find incompatible.
jwinch:
You are right. I am still mystified. I do not see anything about living a Spirit filled life that is in any way incompatible with any religious orders. It is probably because the largest influence for me has been association with a charismatic Benedictine community for 30 some years. Since I have witnessed a complete compatibility, it is difficult for me to comprehend your position.
jwinch:
Especially since I am unclear about what is meant by the term “charismatic renewal” as you are using it.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m thinking about some of the wonderful things that have been said here, if I were to add something it would be a word of caution. Tradition is not always what it appears to be. Watch what I mean.
In a recent statement to a group of American bishops on their Ad Limina visit the Holy Father came a hair width short of calling them on the carpet for focusing so much on promoting the priesthood at the expense of male religious life. He expressed his concern that we definitely have a shortage of priests, especially in Europe, Australia and North America. However, balance is also important and necessary.
The Holy Father told the bishops that male religious life has a place of its own in the Church that should never be obscured by the priesthood or confused with the priesthood. It has a dignity, tradition and an essential function the life of the Church. He said that without it, the life of the Church is threatened. The male religious life has roots as Evangelical as does the priesthood, for it began with Christ himself who lived the evangelical counsels, the perfection of charity, and whose presence proclaimed the Kingdom of God. The religious life is not man-made. It flows from the life of Christ and like the life of Christ, it seeks communion with the Father through the grace and power of the Holy Spirit. It is very unique. It is not about sacraments and priestly ministry, nor about a particular form of service. It is all about the Incarnation. In the religious life we see God present in humanity.
Having reflected on the Holy Father’s words, I think that tradition is not about doing everything a certain way, because it was always that way before Vatican II. Tradition in the religious life goes much deeper than that. I believe that this is the battle that is being fought right now between the major orders of men on one side and the laity, diocesan clergy and religious sisters on the other side.
As it has been rightfully pointed out, the religious orders of men were not founded to do anything. We were never really founded to begin with. We evolved very naturally out of the early Christian Church. Men were drawn away from the masses into the desert to live more like Christ lived. They lived as hermits, not by choice as by necessity. Society was a very distracting place to live the Christian life. Gradually, they began to live in clusters that evolved into communities. Finally, they lived in monasteries that served as the centers of civilization and culture, not intentionally. They adapted to the world around them.
In the 13th century, the mendicant orders were born. They were very unique. They brought monasticism out of the cloister. They were consecrated religious who lived in the secular world. They migrated with the Christian community through Europe and eventually to other continents.
So where is the conflict? The conflict is that lay people, secular priests and sisters often look to male religious in one of two ways. a) They should be communities of priests whose primary mission in life is the salvation of souls and social action, more importantly, the souls of the laity and the service of the laity; or b) They should continue to live as they lived before Vatican II.
The truth is that both of those have been part of our way of life at one time or another, but neither are our tradition. We did not come into existence to save everyone else’s soul. The early desert fathers were trying to safe their souls. They made themselves available to anyone else who wanted to save his soul. They served as spiritual masters and teachers. They never set out with a mission to save souls as was the case with the Apostles. They were not part of the hierarchy. They were different. They imitated the daily life of Christ, not his priestly ministry. They were not communities of priests. Many priests left the cities to join them. Later, they ordained many of their monks and friars, but not because it was essential to the religious life, but because it was essential to the personal salvation of the individual. In other words, individuals asked for Holy Orders for the salvation of their own souls. Those who did not need to be priests to save their souls, never requested Holy Orders. Today, the expectation is that male religious be ordained and that they engage in priestly ministry. That presents a conflict for the orders.
On the other side is the group that expects male religious to live as they lived before Vatican II. That too presents a conflict for male religious. By the time that the 20th century rolled around, male religious life was so distant from what it was meant to be that the early fathers would not recognized their sons. In most cases, those same early fathers would not be admitted to their orders if they had applied in 1950. They would not have fit into the work or the way of life. That’s how far away male religious life had deviated. While it was not horrible, it was not good either. Too much has been added on so that the orders were unrecognizable. Now, we have a younger generation of “traditionalists” who claim to know what the religious life was all about, because they read some books about religious life before Vatican II. These same folks are casting aspersions and making demands on male religious orders that are triggering a counterproductive response. Orders of male religious are telling bishops that they cannot remain in some places, because there is a lack of cooperation and a lack of effort to understand their charism. Things fall apart when we don’t know what the tradition of a religious institute really is.
In a recent statement to a group of American bishops on their Ad Limina visit the Holy Father came a hair width short of calling them on the carpet for focusing so much on promoting the priesthood at the expense of male religious life. He expressed his concern that we definitely have a shortage of priests, especially in Europe, Australia and North America. However, balance is also important and necessary.
The Holy Father told the bishops that male religious life has a place of its own in the Church that should never be obscured by the priesthood or confused with the priesthood. It has a dignity, tradition and an essential function the life of the Church. He said that without it, the life of the Church is threatened. The male religious life has roots as Evangelical as does the priesthood, for it began with Christ himself who lived the evangelical counsels, the perfection of charity, and whose presence proclaimed the Kingdom of God. The religious life is not man-made. It flows from the life of Christ and like the life of Christ, it seeks communion with the Father through the grace and power of the Holy Spirit. It is very unique. It is not about sacraments and priestly ministry, nor about a particular form of service. It is all about the Incarnation. In the religious life we see God present in humanity.
Having reflected on the Holy Father’s words, I think that tradition is not about doing everything a certain way, because it was always that way before Vatican II. Tradition in the religious life goes much deeper than that. I believe that this is the battle that is being fought right now between the major orders of men on one side and the laity, diocesan clergy and religious sisters on the other side.
As it has been rightfully pointed out, the religious orders of men were not founded to do anything. We were never really founded to begin with. We evolved very naturally out of the early Christian Church. Men were drawn away from the masses into the desert to live more like Christ lived. They lived as hermits, not by choice as by necessity. Society was a very distracting place to live the Christian life. Gradually, they began to live in clusters that evolved into communities. Finally, they lived in monasteries that served as the centers of civilization and culture, not intentionally. They adapted to the world around them.
In the 13th century, the mendicant orders were born. They were very unique. They brought monasticism out of the cloister. They were consecrated religious who lived in the secular world. They migrated with the Christian community through Europe and eventually to other continents.
So where is the conflict? The conflict is that lay people, secular priests and sisters often look to male religious in one of two ways. a) They should be communities of priests whose primary mission in life is the salvation of souls and social action, more importantly, the souls of the laity and the service of the laity; or b) They should continue to live as they lived before Vatican II.
The truth is that both of those have been part of our way of life at one time or another, but neither are our tradition. We did not come into existence to save everyone else’s soul. The early desert fathers were trying to safe their souls. They made themselves available to anyone else who wanted to save his soul. They served as spiritual masters and teachers. They never set out with a mission to save souls as was the case with the Apostles. They were not part of the hierarchy. They were different. They imitated the daily life of Christ, not his priestly ministry. They were not communities of priests. Many priests left the cities to join them. Later, they ordained many of their monks and friars, but not because it was essential to the religious life, but because it was essential to the personal salvation of the individual. In other words, individuals asked for Holy Orders for the salvation of their own souls. Those who did not need to be priests to save their souls, never requested Holy Orders. Today, the expectation is that male religious be ordained and that they engage in priestly ministry. That presents a conflict for the orders.
On the other side is the group that expects male religious to live as they lived before Vatican II. That too presents a conflict for male religious. By the time that the 20th century rolled around, male religious life was so distant from what it was meant to be that the early fathers would not recognized their sons. In most cases, those same early fathers would not be admitted to their orders if they had applied in 1950. They would not have fit into the work or the way of life. That’s how far away male religious life had deviated. While it was not horrible, it was not good either. Too much has been added on so that the orders were unrecognizable. Now, we have a younger generation of “traditionalists” who claim to know what the religious life was all about, because they read some books about religious life before Vatican II. These same folks are casting aspersions and making demands on male religious orders that are triggering a counterproductive response. Orders of male religious are telling bishops that they cannot remain in some places, because there is a lack of cooperation and a lack of effort to understand their charism. Things fall apart when we don’t know what the tradition of a religious institute really is.
J
JReducation
Guest
People have some very interesting notions of what a Benedictine house should look like, how it should pray and how it should interact with the secular world, because “This is how it was done before Vatican II.”
The problem is that what was done before Vatican II is not Benedictine tradition. Benedictine tradition is quite fluid. First, there is no such institution as a Benedictine Order. The OSB behind the names of a Benedictine do not mean that he belongs to an order with a central government and unifying structure like that of the Dominicans or Jesuits. The term “order” in their name refers to the rule. They follow the order (rule) of St. Benedict. This allows for each abbot to govern his house differently. The rule makes provisions for the discretion of the abbot. THAT is Benedictine tradition. Benedictine tradition is patriarchal. Abbot comes from the Hebrew word, Abba, Father. The abbot is the father of the house. His word is final. He decides how the house will pray, work, dress, interact with the world and what it studies, teaches and how it supports itself. He has the power to govern unilaterally. He is one hairline from infallible. His governance and commands are not to be questioned, even if they are as foolish as picking your nose while standing on your head.
One house praying in Latin and the other in Swahili, one wearing the black habit and another wearing a white cassock are equally Benedictine, if that is the will of the abbot. The essential feature of the Benedictine community is obedience to the abbot, stability and conversion of manners. Everything else is up for grabs. If the abbot says “Go left,” and everyone in that house goes left, while every other house is going right, that house is just as Benedictine and as traditional as the next… It’s following the abbot. The abbot can command anything that is not contrary to the rule and can change anything in the rule that Benedict allows to be changed.
When people balk at these changes as not being traditional, they usually don’t know what the Benedictine tradition really is. If a Benedictine tells me that he tap dances on the way to chapel, because the abbot commanded it, I applaud him for being a traditional Benedictine. He is submitting himself to the voice of the abbot. If a Benedictine tells me that he lives in an apartment in NYC, two blocks from a Benedictine monastery, because he belongs to St. Elsewhere’s Monastery in Some City, USA, I applaud him for his fidelity to stability. Stability means that he belongs to the house in which he entered and to no other, even if he is sent on mission around the other side of the globe. I was actually taught by Benedictines who were thousands of miles away from their abbeys. The lived in faculty quarters at the university, not as a community, because they were not from the same abbey. The rule does not allow for mixing and matching as do Dominicans from different provinces.
When the local clergy, laity and sisters get upset because these monks are not doing whatever it is they would like them to do, they are often not understanding what the tradition is all about. I remember a situation where three Trappists were students at the same university where I was. We were all studying theology. On weekends, the other religious would go to different places to help out. Some of us taught CCD, others visited the hospital. If they were priests, they would help the local parish with confessions and mass.
These three Trappists were priests. On weekends, they stayed on campus. They played tennis, read, slept, worked on term papers and did whatever other students did. Of course they were very faithful to their liturgical life. There was a local parish that did not like them, because they desperately needed another priest for confessions and Sunday mass. They asked one of the Trappists. He said, “No. I don’t do that.” Their chagrin came from a mistaken belief that because the man was a priest, he should be eager to celebrate mass and hear confessions. They did not appreciate the fact that the man was a monk. Monks who are priests love celebrating mass in their monastery. They only hear confessions of people who come to the guesthouse on retreat. They don’t make it a habit of sitting in a confessional. They may hear the confessions of their confreres, but that’s about it. Staying put on a weekend and doing things together or alone is very much a part of Trappist tradition, even if they’re at university.
Tradition is not always what we think it is. We’d be surprised at what some traditions actually entail.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
The problem is that what was done before Vatican II is not Benedictine tradition. Benedictine tradition is quite fluid. First, there is no such institution as a Benedictine Order. The OSB behind the names of a Benedictine do not mean that he belongs to an order with a central government and unifying structure like that of the Dominicans or Jesuits. The term “order” in their name refers to the rule. They follow the order (rule) of St. Benedict. This allows for each abbot to govern his house differently. The rule makes provisions for the discretion of the abbot. THAT is Benedictine tradition. Benedictine tradition is patriarchal. Abbot comes from the Hebrew word, Abba, Father. The abbot is the father of the house. His word is final. He decides how the house will pray, work, dress, interact with the world and what it studies, teaches and how it supports itself. He has the power to govern unilaterally. He is one hairline from infallible. His governance and commands are not to be questioned, even if they are as foolish as picking your nose while standing on your head.
One house praying in Latin and the other in Swahili, one wearing the black habit and another wearing a white cassock are equally Benedictine, if that is the will of the abbot. The essential feature of the Benedictine community is obedience to the abbot, stability and conversion of manners. Everything else is up for grabs. If the abbot says “Go left,” and everyone in that house goes left, while every other house is going right, that house is just as Benedictine and as traditional as the next… It’s following the abbot. The abbot can command anything that is not contrary to the rule and can change anything in the rule that Benedict allows to be changed.
When people balk at these changes as not being traditional, they usually don’t know what the Benedictine tradition really is. If a Benedictine tells me that he tap dances on the way to chapel, because the abbot commanded it, I applaud him for being a traditional Benedictine. He is submitting himself to the voice of the abbot. If a Benedictine tells me that he lives in an apartment in NYC, two blocks from a Benedictine monastery, because he belongs to St. Elsewhere’s Monastery in Some City, USA, I applaud him for his fidelity to stability. Stability means that he belongs to the house in which he entered and to no other, even if he is sent on mission around the other side of the globe. I was actually taught by Benedictines who were thousands of miles away from their abbeys. The lived in faculty quarters at the university, not as a community, because they were not from the same abbey. The rule does not allow for mixing and matching as do Dominicans from different provinces.
When the local clergy, laity and sisters get upset because these monks are not doing whatever it is they would like them to do, they are often not understanding what the tradition is all about. I remember a situation where three Trappists were students at the same university where I was. We were all studying theology. On weekends, the other religious would go to different places to help out. Some of us taught CCD, others visited the hospital. If they were priests, they would help the local parish with confessions and mass.
These three Trappists were priests. On weekends, they stayed on campus. They played tennis, read, slept, worked on term papers and did whatever other students did. Of course they were very faithful to their liturgical life. There was a local parish that did not like them, because they desperately needed another priest for confessions and Sunday mass. They asked one of the Trappists. He said, “No. I don’t do that.” Their chagrin came from a mistaken belief that because the man was a priest, he should be eager to celebrate mass and hear confessions. They did not appreciate the fact that the man was a monk. Monks who are priests love celebrating mass in their monastery. They only hear confessions of people who come to the guesthouse on retreat. They don’t make it a habit of sitting in a confessional. They may hear the confessions of their confreres, but that’s about it. Staying put on a weekend and doing things together or alone is very much a part of Trappist tradition, even if they’re at university.
Tradition is not always what we think it is. We’d be surprised at what some traditions actually entail.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
G
guanophore
Guest
What does that mean, exactly? You have said that there is nothing about the Renewal you will object to, since it is supported by popes, but what are they doing that troubles you?
This seems reasonable.
I agree. I am still trying to understand the nature and extent of the problem.
Is it playing guitar during the LOTH?
A
Armyvet007
Guest
Brother,
Where can I find some good books on the religous orders; or what are some you would suggest? Your posts have me itching for some educational reading. Thanks.
Where can I find some good books on the religous orders; or what are some you would suggest? Your posts have me itching for some educational reading. Thanks.
G
guanophore
Guest
What are the incompatible “activities”? Also, can you help me understandy why having a charismatic prayer group is a problem? Is it because they were not using a Benedictine form of prayer?
How might his activities cause the monastery to “take a wrong turn”?
Yes, but this seems to be a critical point on obedience. A Benedictine must be willing to give up even what they believe God has called him to do, when the Abbot gives such an order. If it is God’s will, then it will be restored to the person, or God will guide alternatively. Part of consecration is subjecting one’s free will to the Abbot, and in taking the vow of obedience, one chooses to accept the will of the Abbot as God’s will.
J
JReducation
Guest
It depends what you’re looking for. Even the internet has some very good information on our history, if you search by the names of the orders.
Cistercian History
The Benedictine Order
Franciscan History
Here are some really nice ones. I printed them and keep them in a binder for my students.
Let me know if you want something more specific and about which order. Spiritual Theology is my Doctorate Degree. I love studying this stuff and teaching it.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I
iloveangels
Guest
Thank you, Br JR. I’m very glad you love teaching it. You’ve taught all of us, me included, sooo much. And it’s been very helpful to me in understanding the Franciscan orders.People have some very interesting notions of what a Benedictine house should look like, how it should pray and how it should interact with the secular world, because “This is how it was done before Vatican II.”
…clip…
Tradition is not always what we think it is. We’d be surprised at what some traditions actually entail.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I’m reading a lot of stuff about history, and know about 2% of what you know, but it’s interesting how the idea of religious life grew and developed over the history of the Church. The Benedictine rule was approved in Rome but the houses were approved locally–yes, because approving them together hadn’t become common yet. That happened later around the time of the mendicants because of the condition of society. St. Francis was trusted because of his fidelity and Waldo wasn’t, for instance.
I was surprised when I realized that so many orders were using the rule of St. Augustine. That must’ve been written about 400AD. Very old. And when was it finally approved in Rome for the purpose it was put to after the death of Augustine? Much later, I’ll bet. Except maybe that’s another piece we haven’t talked about much–Augustinian canons and their development? Your characterization of the history of mens’ religious orders is interesting and helpful to me in trying to understand these things.
“I don’t do that” made me laugh. Don’t get me wrong, now, because I love the priesthood and we need the priesthood. But we also need religious life. Catholic society since Vatican II has been very, very, very clerical. Everyone and his uncle wants to be a priest or a permanent deacon, or they want to be a liturgical minister and act like a priest for 45 minutes a week anyway. For a lot of people, 100% of the focus is right there. I can’t tell you how many times people have asked me if I’m “active in my parish,” MEANING am I a liturgical minister. Period, full stop.
There are a lot of vocations in the Church, and most of them are not priestly.
A lot of them aren’t even particularly liturgical, other than the fact, that as Catholics we receive the Eucharist and go to Mass.It’s kind of like we’re trying to walk around on one foot, and then wondering why we have to hop.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s right. Religious life was the first organized form of Socialism. It was not corporate. There was community of religious around which there were laymen and secular clergy. The abbots actually had more power than the bishop. The bishops had sacramental power, but it was the abbot who had the money, education and man power. Like all socialist societies, the concept was and still is “one for all and all for one.” The good of the whole surpasses the good of the individual. There was no sense of individual rights as we think of today. The monastic community and the faithful around it worked for the common good. The monks and the rest of the Church had a symbiotic relationship. But the idea of Church was not like our own.
We think of Church in terms of a worldwide organization. That’s not how people before Vatican I thought of Church. Church was very local. Before the Middle Ages, the Church was the monastery and its neighbors. During the Middle Ages, the Church was the bishop and those who lived around him. As much as people say that today’s bishops do their own thing and disobey the pope etc, that’s a lot of rubbish. First abbots and later bishops were entities unto themselves. The pope was in Rome and he dealt with the macro issues of the Church and with the emperors and rulers. He had very little connections to the bishops. The bishops and abbots would come to Rome on pilgrimage. Hence the Ad Limina visits. The pope has no idea what was going on out there until a crisis exploded and he was called upon to resolve it. It was usually the local abbot or the local bishop who ran the Church.
It is interesting to note that the local people were expected to acsommodate to the monastic rule. The complaint that we hear on these forums, “The religious life has nothing to do with me, because I’m a layman,” was very foreign to the laity of the first 1,000 years of the Church. If you lived on the monks property, you followed their way of life or you were chased off their land and you starved. The monastery was the city on the hill. While the rule of Benedict was approved by the Holy See, the houses were approved by the local bishop and the deal was that the faithful fell in line with those houses, hence the autonomy of each Benedictine house. Each house actually represented an local culture.
The only mendicant founder who was allowed to write rules for his orders was St. Francis. Dominic and the founders of the Servites, which are contemporaries with the Franciscans were told to follow the Rule of St. Augustine. The papacy did not trust anyone to write more rules. It had been burned by the heretics such as Waldo. Though Waldo himself was not a heretic, but his followers were. There was something about St.Francis that impressed Pope Innocent III. He had the miraculous dream where he saw Francis saving the Church. He approved Francis’ rule and his three orders.
The 13th century was the first time in Church history where orders were approved as corporate bodies, hence the term provinces. Europe was divided into Kingdoms and each kingdom occupied a certain geographical province. The mendicants were governed by a superior who was based on the province. These superiors answered to the superior general who was based in the homebase. For the Franciscans that was Assisi for a while and later Paris. Today it’s Rome.
J
JReducation
Guest
Augustine originally gave his rule to a group of monks that no longer exist. They evolved into what later became the Canons. Several of those canons influenced the foundation of different religious communities. The most famous canons of all were Anthony of Padua and Dominic Guzman. Dominic as we know founded the Order of Preachers and Anthony left the Canons to join the Franciscans. But things did not stop there. When the seven founders of the Servites, who wanted to merge with the Franciscans had a mystical experience with Our Lady, they approached the Holy Father for permission to found their own order. The Holy Father granted the permission but told them use the rule of Augustine. St. Norbert also approached to ask for permission to found an order, the O’Praem (Norbertines). He too was told to found, but with the Rule of St.Augustine. Later a group of mendicants calling themselves the Augustinians came forward, later the Augustinian Recollects, then the Assumptionist Augustinians and many other communities. As we can see, by the 13th century, the Rule of St. Augustine received approval by use.
There was one more group, slightly older than the Franciscans, not by much, maybe 20 years or so, the Order of the Most Holy Trinity founded by St. John De Matha. They’re an interesting group. They too are mendicant friars. They follow neither the rule of Augustine nor any of Francis’ rules, because neither rule fit their needs. The Trinitarians traveled with the Crusdaders ransoming captives. The rules of Benedict, Augustine and Francis required a certain degree of stability. Had mobile homes been in existence, those would have been their monasteries. They set up a monastery where ever there was work to be done and they picked it up as easily and moved it. They were a riot. The Holy See gave St. John de Matha permission to write statutes for his friars. He borrowed from Augustine and Benedict, but left out stability and parishes. Otherwise, they couldn’t follow the Crusaders.
Actually, Traddom is much more clerical than the Church is. The Church became intolerably clerical from the 1500s forward. There as a need. The clergy was a disaster. Dominicans and Jesuits set about fixing it. In order to do so, they had to take control. Since Dominicans and Jesuits are orders of priests, it was proper for them to reform the clergy. They handed down to the diocesan clergy the same infrastructure that they followed. Even though these were only two of several hundred orders, they were the two that most influenced the reform of the clergy. Dominic was very structured and Ignatius very military.
When you combine structure and military, you get a very powerful force, which was necessary. The problem was when the other orders that were not orders of priests, but were fraternal, such as the monks, Trinitarians, Augustinians and Franciscans started to work alongside these men, they were “contaminated” by clericalism. By the time the 1800s roll around, clerics governed not only the secular dioceses, but they had taken over the religious orders as well. Any religious who was not a cleric had no rights.
This prompted founders of congregations to found without priests, to avoid being abused and oppressed by them. That’s how you get Xaverian Brothers, Christian Brothers, Marist Brothers, Marianist Brothers, Alexian Brothers, Good Shepherd Brothers, Brothers of St. John of God and De la Salle Brothers. These were very intelligent and scholarly men. They knew that if they let priests take a foothold in their communities, they would lose these communities and lose their charism as had happened to the Franciscans, Augustinians, Carmelties and Servites who gradually became diocesan priests in religious habits and whose non ordained members went from being their equal and their brothers to being their houseboys, to the point that some of them were actually beaten and they were segregated from the rest of the community.
That’s why male religious cringe when we hear Trads talk about the good old days before Vatican II. From about 1800 until the late 1950s, these orders deliberately forced every well educated man to become a priest and deliberately recruited the illiterate and what they considered “the simple minded” to be the “lay brothers”. These lay brothers answered doors, did laundry, cooked, cleaned and did everything housewives did, except procreate.
They were not allowed to eat in the same room. Speaking to an ordained member of the community, before you were spoken to was arrogance. You never spoke to a seminarian, even though you were a friars of 25 years and the young cub was a friar of 2 years, because he was going to be a priest. You shined his shoes, did his laundry and cleaned up after him. You could not pray the Divine Office with the ordained or those who were going to be ordained. You either had a separate oratory or if there was only one chapel, you had a different schedule so that you did not share it. You even had different recreation rooms. The Franciscans often had two formation houses, one for the future priests and one for the non ordained friars. Under that system, Francis of Assisi would not have been superior general of his order.
J
JReducation
Guest
Let’s stop and think about the good old days before Vatican II, between 1800 and 1950. For 150 years, every Francis of Assisi that ever came up was lost in some laundry room or some kitchen, because he was not a priest.
When people say, “You folks need to get back to what you were before Vatican II,” our reaction is, “You go back to that and see how you like it. The rest of us are going further back to the founders when we were all one family with one vocation and one common way of life, while we each had different gifts: priests, lawyers, teachers, nurses, preachers, farmers, mechanics, tailors, cooks, gardeners, theologians, spiritual directors, administrators, missionaries and much more.” We’re not going back to anything between 1800 and 1950, sorry. As was said about he Holocaust, “Never again.”
Thanks to Bl. John Paul who followed up Perfectae Caritatis with Vitae Consecrata reaffirming the Church’s commitment to religious never to exploit us again and never to suppress us in favor of priests and laity. He is very strong in his words to bishops to protect the religious form those who would force them back into those molds, unless they go by choice.
There are religious who do this by choice and that’s their right and we are grateful for them. The Carthusians have a caste system. They always had it. Everyone who enters a charter house knows what to expect. They know that there are two types of Carthusians.
The Dominicans don’t have a caste system, but they too have two kinds of friars. Everyone knows that the vocation of the Dominican priest and the Dominican coadjutor brother are not the same. They are both in the service of preaching. The priest is the preacher and the coadjutor brother makes sure that everything necessary for preaching is taken care of. Whereas in the Franciscan tradition, whoever has the gift of preaching, preaches, priest or not. Whoever is a good cook, cooks, priest or not. That’s the way it was before 1800. It was the constitution of the 1856 that changed all of that. In 1970, we had to rewrite the constitution to recover that sense of equality and fraternity again. I believe that’s why so many religious orders of men look so strange to anyone who knows nothing about our life before 1800 or our lives behind the walls between 1800 and 1950.
There is always a positive side. Those 150 years produced great brother saints. You had to be a saint to live and work in that setting. It required a great deal of trust and humility. What we religious always chuckle about is that those who want us to go back to the “good old days” are the same people who are fighting the Vatican for power, control of their liturgy and their parishes, and for “a return to tradition.”
When we fight for a return to tradition, it’s not good. When they fight for a return to tradition, it’s OK. That’s not kosher.
As I say, people need to really understand what the traditions of these orders really are. They are not what they appeared to be in 1950. You want to know their traditions, go back to their founders. Read the writings of the founders, their statutes, their rules, and their constitutions. Read their early history. Watch how it developed and keep a sharp eye out for that point when they made a sudden 90 degree turn. What happens if a 747 makes a sharp 90 degree turn?
That’s what happened to many religious orders. For some there will never be a recovery. They will die a slow and painful death. Others, like Franciscans, Carmelites, Cistercians, and Benedictines are recovering. Thank God.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
When people say, “You folks need to get back to what you were before Vatican II,” our reaction is, “You go back to that and see how you like it. The rest of us are going further back to the founders when we were all one family with one vocation and one common way of life, while we each had different gifts: priests, lawyers, teachers, nurses, preachers, farmers, mechanics, tailors, cooks, gardeners, theologians, spiritual directors, administrators, missionaries and much more.” We’re not going back to anything between 1800 and 1950, sorry. As was said about he Holocaust, “Never again.”
Thanks to Bl. John Paul who followed up Perfectae Caritatis with Vitae Consecrata reaffirming the Church’s commitment to religious never to exploit us again and never to suppress us in favor of priests and laity. He is very strong in his words to bishops to protect the religious form those who would force them back into those molds, unless they go by choice.
There are religious who do this by choice and that’s their right and we are grateful for them. The Carthusians have a caste system. They always had it. Everyone who enters a charter house knows what to expect. They know that there are two types of Carthusians.
The Dominicans don’t have a caste system, but they too have two kinds of friars. Everyone knows that the vocation of the Dominican priest and the Dominican coadjutor brother are not the same. They are both in the service of preaching. The priest is the preacher and the coadjutor brother makes sure that everything necessary for preaching is taken care of. Whereas in the Franciscan tradition, whoever has the gift of preaching, preaches, priest or not. Whoever is a good cook, cooks, priest or not. That’s the way it was before 1800. It was the constitution of the 1856 that changed all of that. In 1970, we had to rewrite the constitution to recover that sense of equality and fraternity again. I believe that’s why so many religious orders of men look so strange to anyone who knows nothing about our life before 1800 or our lives behind the walls between 1800 and 1950.
There is always a positive side. Those 150 years produced great brother saints. You had to be a saint to live and work in that setting. It required a great deal of trust and humility. What we religious always chuckle about is that those who want us to go back to the “good old days” are the same people who are fighting the Vatican for power, control of their liturgy and their parishes, and for “a return to tradition.”
When we fight for a return to tradition, it’s not good. When they fight for a return to tradition, it’s OK. That’s not kosher.
As I say, people need to really understand what the traditions of these orders really are. They are not what they appeared to be in 1950. You want to know their traditions, go back to their founders. Read the writings of the founders, their statutes, their rules, and their constitutions. Read their early history. Watch how it developed and keep a sharp eye out for that point when they made a sudden 90 degree turn. What happens if a 747 makes a sharp 90 degree turn?
That’s what happened to many religious orders. For some there will never be a recovery. They will die a slow and painful death. Others, like Franciscans, Carmelites, Cistercians, and Benedictines are recovering. Thank God.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
D
Dorothy
Guest
Wow!..Thank you, Brother J.R. for all that information about the various orders!
O
OraLabora
Guest
No it’s because that is not the mission of the abbey. It is an abbey of contemplatives.
By having an abbey with a contemplative mission end up with an extensive external apostolate, which is what was happening.
There’s much more to it, but which I would rather be discrete about.
J
jwinch2
Guest
My understanding is that St. Dominic was told to choose “a” Rule and that he and the brethren voted to adopt the Rule of St. Augustine. Is your understanding different?
Thanks,
- Status