Spirituality of religious orders in Catholic tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melchior_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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,
Dominic came from the Canons. He was denied his rule, in a nice way. Innocent was not a mean person and Dominic was too much of sweetheart for anyone to be mean to him.

OK, so I’m prejudiced toward Dom. 😃

Innocent actually asked him to remain with the Rule of Augustine. Whether they voted on this or not. I don’t recall ever seeing this in their history. That does not mean that it did not happen. It just means that I never read that they democratically chose.

I know that they democratically wrote their own constitution to fill in the gaps in Augustine’s rule so that it allowed them to be both friars and priests. Augustine’s original rule was not written for friars. Maybe this is what you may have heard that they voted on, whether to be canons or friars. They chose to be friars.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
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.
Brother mentioned the Trappists. I recommend “The Cistercian Way” bya Andre Louf for a good look at what it means to be a Trappist or Cistercian (Benedictine) monk.

Stability, community, leisure, prayer, obedience, ascetecism, silence, brotherhood, etc. There is even a short chapter on history.

I’ll send you my copy if you want. Send me a PM.

-Tim-
 
Brother mentioned the Trappists. I recommend “The Cistercian Way” bya Andre Louf for a good look at what it means to be a Trappist or Cistercian (Benedictine) monk.

Stability, community, leisure, prayer, obedience, ascetecism, silence, brotherhood, etc. There is even a short chapter on history.

I’ll send you my copy if you want. Send me a PM.

-Tim-
One of the classics but great books on Trappist spirituality is Merton’s Seven Story Mountain.

I loved it, because he shows you how the Cistercian spirit influenced him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
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 🙂
I think this post highlights one of the issues I have with some in the “traditionalist” movement. That of setting their definition on some arbitrary time within the Church such as “pre-Vatican II” or the “council of Trent”.

What they are really focusing onis a sub-set of the Church, mainly the secular Church as see in parish life.
 
I think this post highlights one of the issues I have with some in the “traditionalist” movement. That of setting their definition on some arbitrary time within the Church such as “pre-Vatican II” or the “council of Trent”.

What they are really focusing onis a sub-set of the Church, mainly the secular Church as see in parish life.
This is a constant theme on this forum. If we are mostly secular folks, of course we would be speaking of secular folks. Why would we have any (name removed by moderator)ut in Religious life?
 
Dominic came from the Canons. He was denied his rule, in a nice way. Innocent was not a mean person and Dominic was too much of sweetheart for anyone to be mean to him.

OK, so I’m prejudiced toward Dom. 😃

Innocent actually asked him to remain with the Rule of Augustine. Whether they voted on this or not. I don’t recall ever seeing this in their history. That does not mean that it did not happen. It just means that I never read that they democratically chose.

I know that they democratically wrote their own constitution to fill in the gaps in Augustine’s rule so that it allowed them to be both friars and priests. Augustine’s original rule was not written for friars. Maybe this is what you may have heard that they voted on, whether to be canons or friars. They chose to be friars.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
I could swear I remember in both The Life of St. Dominic by Augusta T Drane and Early Dominicans - Selected Writings by Simon Tugwell discussion of St. Dominic being told he couldn’t create his own Rule and would have to use one which was already established and him going back to his brethren and them discussing it and voting on it. I could be wrong though, we have been moving for past couple of days and I decided it would be a good idea to get two days worth of a workout in one day since I missed yesterday, so I’m pretty much fried at the moment.

I’ll have to look again and see if that was accurate. It doesn’t matter much either way, now i’m just curious.

Peace,
 
This is a constant theme on this forum. If we are mostly secular folks, of course we would be speaking of secular folks. Why would we have any (name removed by moderator)ut in Religious life?
And you do not fall into that category. You admit that you are not aware of religious life.

As pointed out by Br JR there are some out there who do wish to impose on religious what they think is right. You will also find many threads here at CAF where people do so, just one example would be the numerous habit threads.

I believe some of this was/is occurring in this thread which prompted btother’s post that I replied to.
 
I could swear I remember in both The Life of St. Dominic by Augusta T Drane and Early Dominicans - Selected Writings by Simon Tugwell discussion of St. Dominic being told he couldn’t create his own Rule and would have to use one which was already established and him going back to his brethren and them discussing it and voting on it. I could be wrong though, we have been moving for past couple of days and I decided it would be a good idea to get two days worth of a workout in one day since I missed yesterday, so I’m pretty much fried at the moment.

I’ll have to look again and see if that was accurate. It doesn’t matter much either way, now i’m just curious.

Peace,
I’ve never read that book. So, if you find the answer, let me know. Now you’ve gone and did it! 😛

You triggered my curiosity, but I don’t have the energy to drive to the local library.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
I think this post highlights one of the issues I have with some in the “traditionalist” movement. That of setting their definition on some arbitrary time within the Church such as “pre-Vatican II” or the “council of Trent”.

What they are really focusing onis a sub-set of the Church, mainly the secular Church as see in parish life.
I think that if one is going to get a historical perspective on religious life or a specific religious community, one hast to take the entire tradition, not one period in its history. You run the risk of running into the Dickens effect, either the best of times or the worse of times. You really want to get everything in between.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
And you do not fall into that category. You admit that you are not aware of religious life.

As pointed out by Br JR there are some out there who do wish to impose on religious what they think is right. You will also find many threads here at CAF where people do so, just one example would be the numerous habit threads.

I believe some of this was/is occurring in this thread which prompted btother’s post that I replied to.
Oh, ok.
 
This is a constant theme on this forum. If we are mostly secular folks, of course we would be speaking of secular folks. Why would we have any (name removed by moderator)ut in Religious life?
This is a rather interesting part of religious tradition the Catholic Church. The relationship between the laity and religious communities in the Church has been very different depending on the type of community and the gender.

Let’s take gender first. Female religious tend to just blow off the laity. They do their thing. They pay no particular attention to the laity’s opinion. As a result you have the great diversity of women religious from consecrated virgins to societies of apostolic life, habited and non habited, active and cloistered, orthodox and heterodox. They really don’t care what the rest of the Church thinks about them. They never did in the past, why start now?

There was something to this indifference. I believe it’s that it gave them great peace and the rest of us knew better than to focus too much on what they did, because we knew that we were going to get an ear full or a tongue lashing and be sent on our way, after collecting a nice donation form us. 😉 Women religious just have this way about them, that is uncanny. I’m still trying to figure it out. :confused:

Male religious run the spectrum from totally indifferent to reactionary and everything in between. For the most part, male religious are gracious toward secular clergy and laity. They have no hope that the secular clergy or the laity will ever understand the vocation of the male religious or his place in the Church. At most, their hope is to influence the secular clergy and the laity to follow their spirituality and learn some things form their way of life and to avoid contamination from the secular world, as much as is humanly possible.

This is very important to understand, because there are call kinds of mixed signals going back and forth. There was a time when male religious were taught to serve the secular laity and clergy, but avoid contamination. Borrowing from the secular was a very bad thing, punishable by needles under your nails and tarring and feathering, if you found enough chickens or geese.

Then came the 1800s and the thing to do was to live like diocesan priests. Then came the 1960s. We handed over the religious houses to the secular laity and clergy. Hung up the habit, put on the shirt and tie, grew beards, if you were not Franciscan or shaved, if you were . How idiotic can the world get? Right? Contamination was something that you thought about when you talked about oil spills and automobiles. The idea that the religious life could be contaminated by the secular laity and clergy was thought of as absurd.

SURPRISE!
 
Today, contamination is a very important issue and one that threatens our very existence. We realize that opening the doors to the religious house was not such a good idea. Living and working as if we were secular priests was an even worse idea. Once upon a time, it was much easier to keep the secular out of the religious house. You simply established a cloister and you limited yourself to a specific job and a specific place of work. You never went beyond that circle, nor allowed outsiders to come in. For example, teaching brothers only dealt with students and their parents. Friars in a parish, only dealt with the faithful in that parish.

I grew up in town where we had diocesan priests running the parish and Capuchin Franciscans running the school. The two never spoke to each other. The diocesan clergy treated the friars as second class citizens and taught the laity to do the same. The friars could care less, because they were taught that they were not worthy to look at a diocesan priest, even though 60% of the friars were priests. The lines were very clear. There was no contamination. Contamination was a problem of the friars who worked in parishes and had to deal with diocesan priests in the synod and around the diocese. The friars who dealt only with friars were safe.

Our friars dealt with the students and their parents. The diocesan clergy dealt with the rest of the world. The friars rarely left their friary, except to go visit their families. The secular clergy rarely stopped in the school, because they did not want to be seen in the same room with a friar in his grimy habit. So, everyone was happy.

Then came TV, internet, cell phones, cable TV and satellite radio and all hell broke loose. Everyone knew about everyone else and everyone had an opinion. Everyone knew about everyone else and everyone wanted a little bit of what the other had. This was not just inside the Church. This was around the world. I still believe that talk shows were the worse thing that ever happened to the modern world, because suddenly everyone had an opinion, the right to express it, regardless of whether it was right or wrong and everyone became an expert. What a mess!!! We’re still trying to recover.

Then you have the old orders and the apostolic congregations. The orders never identified with any kind of work or ministry. They did what was needed at the moment, as long as their way of life was not upset. Dominicans preached and taught, as long as they could study and contemplate. Carmelites ran parishes, as long as they could retreat to their cloistered state. Franciscans did almost anything, as long as it did not involve the wealthy. There was no middle class yet. Each order had defined boundaries.

The congregations were founded to do something very specific. They taught, cared for the sick, the elderly, the orphan, did social work, ran hospitals and dispensaries, took care of the poor, etc. They adjusted their community life to fit the needs of the people they served. Most Catholics grew up with congregations. Very few Catholics grew up with orders. Even though Catholics tend to use the two words interchangeably.

As a result, Catholics tend to expect religious to be whatever they knew as they were growing up. If they grew up with congregations, they expect religious to be active in the apostolate and very interested in the salvation of everyone’s soul. Those who may have grown up among monks, are shocked when they see religious interested in the salvation of souls and in what’s happening in the world. Monks don’t do such things. They lay down their lives for the Church, when and where no one can see them.
 
Before the communication explosion and before the age of travel, people lived in very stable worlds. They stayed put. They knew only what was in their part of the world. People like my parents who lived in a small town and who only knew Capuchins all their lives, had no idea that there were religious men who played golf. Capuchins don’t play golf. The first time my father ran into a religious on a golf course, he came home and told it as if he were Columbus discovering America. It was actually a monk, whom he met. We “yunguns” who were more seasoned travelers in the Catholic world, knew that cloistered monks played golf, because they work very little and have very little community life outside of prayer time. They have a lot more free time than friars. To this day, I’m not sure if my father was excited or scandalized.

By that time, I was a student at Catholic University in DC. We had St. Anselm Benedictine Abbey up the street, White Friars Hall down the street, Franciscans of the Holy Land to the East, Franciscans of the Holy Name at the other end, the Dominicans across the street, Divine Word Missionaries on the hill, St. Josephat Byzantine Seminary across the other street and about 40 religious houses in a three mile radius. My reaction to the golfer monk, was, “Pass the ketchup.” 🤷

The secular and religious interaction is going to be marked by one’s experience and expectations. If the experience is broad, nothing is shocking. If the experience is narrow, everything is interesting and some things may be shocking, because they’re not as we imagined them to be.

The male religious, who are fighting for their identity are going to kick and scream when anyone tries to pigeon hole them. The religious needs to be more circumspect about his relationships outside of the religious house and how much he allows the secular world to enter his own. The secular world had to understand that the influence is supposed to be one way, from the religious to the secular, not the secular to the religious. That’s not in the mind of the Church, nor in the mind of the founders. Most founder prohibited the secular laity and secular clergy influence on religious or even the attempt. Some, like St. Francis and St. Benedict went as far as bringing the laity into their families, so as to avoid the secular influence. Hence the birth of the Benedictine Oblate and the Secular Franciscan. It is a way of bringing the religious influence into the life of the laity, rather than the laity influencing the life of the religious. You form these lay men and women in your school of spirituality and you send them out into the Catholic world to transform it to your worldview. It actually worked. The secular orders and oblates saved Europe.

The secular Catholic must to be careful to pick and choose those religious who are faithful to their charism, not just those who look good in a habit. Never forgetting that the devil wears sackcloth and ashes, not just Prada. The charism does not begin or end at Vatican II. It spans from the beginning of the community to today. Everything that has happened to the community has influenced its charism, for better or worse.

The expectation is that the secular priest or secular layman will sit down and seriously learn the spirituality of the religious and adopt it to his life. This is the message that Pope Benedict gave to the bishops in their Ad Limina visits when he questioned them about their failure to expose the laity to religious men and to promote male religious life. He has been getting many complaints by religious around the world about this issue. He’s finally decided to address it. The American and European secular bishops were notorious for paying more attention to the laity than to the religious. The religious always felt like the hired help.

It was Pope Paul VI who first said, that we were not the hired help. Bl. John Paul repeated it in Vita Consecrata and now Pope Benedict has written about it and has told the American bishops to make sure that the American laity learns to promote religious vocations and learns the need for balance between the secular priesthood and the consecrated life. I understand that Cardinal Dolan has already started in NY with a very powerful homily on the need for teaching brothers like the Christian Brothers. Archbishop Wenski of Miami as given his blessing to the Franciscans of Life to grow. A few other bishops are now scrambling to find male religious to comply with the Holy Father’s wishes. I know one diocese, that I shall not name, that has raised about $5 million dollars to build a religious house instead of a new seminary. They know that if the religious disappear from their dioceses, the local Church will be spiritually handicapped.

What I’m saying here is that there is a movement to recover not only traditional religious practices inside the religious houses, but there is also a global movement to recover a strong religious presence as we had before 1800, when religious were much more free than they were before Vatican II, but had much more direction than they did after Vatican II. Vatican I was the death knoll of religious life for men. We really needed Vatican II in order to let things die and begin over.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
I could swear I remember in both The Life of St. Dominic by Augusta T Drane and Early Dominicans - Selected Writings by Simon Tugwell discussion of St. Dominic being told he couldn’t create his own Rule and would have to use one which was already established and him going back to his brethren and them discussing it and voting on it. I could be wrong though, we have been moving for past couple of days and I decided it would be a good idea to get two days worth of a workout in one day since I missed yesterday, so I’m pretty much fried at the moment.

I’ll have to look again and see if that was accurate. It doesn’t matter much either way, now i’m just curious.

Peace,
Sigh.

A woman’s work is never done. 🙂

Pope Innocent told Dominic to choose one rule out of the ancient rules already approved. When Dominic returned to Toulouse, he explained to his brethren,
the result of his expedition to the Holy See and the necessity which now lay on them to apply themselves to the choice of a rule…
It was April when they all gathered in this mother-house of the order, and after earnest prayer and invocation of the Holy Spirit, they agreed to choosing the rule of St Austin – a rule to which Dominic himself had long been bound, ever since he had worn the habit of Canon Regular, and which from its simplicity was the better fitted for their purpose as being susceptible of nearly any development which the peculiar objects of their institute might require. The Life of St Dominic, chapter 9, by Augusta Drane.
 
This is a rather interesting part of religious tradition the Catholic Church. The relationship between the laity and religious communities in the Church has been very different depending on the type of community and the gender.

Let’s take gender first. Female religious tend to just blow off the laity. They do their thing. They pay no particular attention to the laity’s opinion. As a result you have the great diversity of women religious from consecrated virgins to societies of apostolic life, habited and non habited, active and cloistered, orthodox and heterodox. They really don’t care what the rest of the Church thinks about them. They never did in the past, why start now?

There was something to this indifference. I believe it’s that it gave them great peace and the rest of us knew better than to focus too much on what they did, because we knew that we were going to get an ear full or a tongue lashing and be sent on our way, after collecting a nice donation form us. 😉 Women religious just have this way about them, that is uncanny. I’m still trying to figure it out. :confused:

Male religious run the spectrum from totally indifferent to reactionary and everything in between. For the most part, male religious are gracious toward secular clergy and laity. They have no hope that the secular clergy or the laity will ever understand the vocation of the male religious or his place in the Church. At most, their hope is to influence the secular clergy and the laity to follow their spirituality and learn some things form their way of life and to avoid contamination from the secular world, as much as is humanly possible.

This is very important to understand, because there are call kinds of mixed signals going back and forth. There was a time when male religious were taught to serve the secular laity and clergy, but avoid contamination. Borrowing from the secular was a very bad thing, punishable by needles under your nails and tarring and feathering, if you found enough chickens or geese.

Then came the 1800s and the thing to do was to live like diocesan priests. Then came the 1960s. We handed over the religious houses to the secular laity and clergy. Hung up the habit, put on the shirt and tie, grew beards, if you were not Franciscan or shaved, if you were . How idiotic can the world get? Right? Contamination was something that you thought about when you talked about oil spills and automobiles. The idea that the religious life could be contaminated by the secular laity and clergy was thought of as absurd.

SURPRISE!
So in your opinion, which is better? That the religious ignores the laity, respects and pays attention to the Laity or take a position in the middle?
 
One of the classics but great books on Trappist spirituality is Merton’s Seven Story Mountain.

I loved it, because he shows you how the Cistercian spirit influenced him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
That was a very important book for me early on.

A lady I really didn’t get along with recommended it to me. She was teacher for my confirmation class. I disagreed with her and argued about everything. I was very much into dogma and doctrine and had not really been introduced to anything spiritual, or spirituality. For me it was doctrine, dogma and taking apart scripture as if it was a car engine, to see how it worked - that’s what God and religion were all about. She gave me one or two spiritual books, and a book of poetry on Job and I thought she was some whacko nut-job.

She knew Latin though, and used to tutor it to the other kids at Fordham University in NYC. She told us stories about how the Vatican II documents were published in special editions of the NY Times. Someone would stand on the table in the student hall reading the documents out loud as everyone listened quiety. She knew scripture cold, and could recite it in Latin.

For some reason I took her up on the recommendation to read Seven Story Mountain. God speaks to me through books sometimes. A few months later I went to the monastery and was blown away. I tried to engage one monk in a discussion of some doctrine and he looked at me like I had three heads. Catholic beliefs were a given, like gravity or the need to breathe. I asked the novice director about Thomas Kempis, asceticism and mortification and he actually rebuked me pretty sternly. I was quite taken aback by his response.

It was interesting to see how God worked early in Merton’s life and how ultimately his own resistance was what was standing in the way, all the time God was patient while the layers of dirt and distraction were stripped away. And that was really what the novice director told me. He said, “You can mortify yourself it you want to but moving from the image of Christ to the likeness of Christ is a process of subtraction - subtraction of greed and self-love.” I can see Brother’s face right now drilling those words into me.

-Tim-
 
What I’m saying here is that there is a movement to recover not only traditional religious practices inside the religious houses, but there is also a global movement to recover a strong religious presence as we had before 1800, when religious were much more free than they were before Vatican II, but had much more direction than they did after Vatican II. Vatican I was the death knoll of religious life for men. We really needed Vatican II in order to let things die and begin over.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
There are quite a few things that would benefit from going back to before 1800 and starting again. 😉

Thank you so much for taking the time to type all this up for us. It is really very interesting to know the history and the full tradition behind what we often see as just a habit instead of a person. :o

We have 10 groups of male religious and I think 15-20 groups of women religious in this diocese. They are spread out doing all kinds of different things, and they include, as it turns out, some Trappists! 😃 So now I get to go visit and see what I can learn about them.
 
Sigh.

A woman’s work is never done. 🙂

Pope Innocent told Dominic to choose one rule out of the ancient rules already approved. When Dominic returned to Toulouse, he explained to his brethren,
But only a woman would know where to find this. It’s the kind of detail that men would not think of or putting away for a rainy day.

You see, you are needed. 😃 👍
So in your opinion, which is better? That the religious ignores the laity, respects and pays attention to the Laity or take a position in the middle?
I believe that respect is due to every human being, regardless of his canonical state. The first question is answered there.

I also believe that a religious community is not an institution. It’s a family. It has all the rights of a family. Just like every family, others should not attempt to interfere in its internal life, its vision, worldview, its or its relationship with the world.

I also believe in the vision of the founders. Religious orders were founded fore two purposes.
  • The Salvation of the religious.
  • The education of the laity in Christian spirituality.
It was not the intention of any founder that male religious be educated by the laity, diocesan clergy or female religious. The renewal of male religious life has to be about going back to that time when we were self-sufficient and where we were a resource to the rest of the Church. It was not the idea of any of our founders that we live in a give and take relationship with the rest of the Church. We did the giving and the Church did the receiving. Bl. John Paul and now Pope Benedict have repeated the call for religious men to go back to that model. Both have very strong feelings that this is much needed in today’s Church. This kind of takes us back onto the whole issue about roles.

Just as we discuss roles for men and women in liturgy and ministry, there are roles for secular and religious as well. Remember, the key word here is not laity. It is secular. A diocesan priest, a permanent deacon or a diocesan bishop are also secular, but they are not laity.

I believe this is what throws many lay people. The terms faithful and secular have been used to refer to the laity. That’s an incorrect use of both words. All of us make up the faithful, not just the laity. Laity and clergy compose the secular. Religious are in a category of our own. Some religious are clergy and some are not. But they are always religious.

I truly believe that this is one of the fuzzies of movements such as the SSPX. I guess that’s why I lean toward the FSSP, not only because of their great humility, but also because they’re very clear. They are secular priests, period. The SSPX has blended the secular with the religious. It has created too many overlaps. They have oblates, third order, brothers and sisters. None of these are elements of a secular society of apostolic life. These are elements of religious communities.
That was a very important book for me early on.
A few months later I went to the monastery and was blown away. I tried to engage one monk in a discussion of some doctrine and he looked at me like I had three heads. Catholic beliefs were a given, like gravity or the need to breathe.
Monks and friars do not make it a habit to ever talk about dogma or liturgy. As far as we’re concerned, dogma is written in stone and liturgy is whatever the superior wants it to be. Our life is very simple.
I asked the novice director about Thomas Kempis, asceticism and mortification and he actually rebuked me pretty sternly. I was quite taken aback by his response.
You’re lucky he did not put you out with the cat. NEVER NEVER NEVER try to talk to a monk or a friar about those things. It’s offensive. They are the masters on the subject. They teach the Church on those subjects.

When you brought it up, you crossed over into his territory. You did exactly what tradition does not allow. You blurred the lines between the secular and the religious. It is his role to call your attention to Kempis, not the other way around.

Think of it this way. It’s like walking into your cardiologist’s office and start to speak heart medicine. He’ll look at you as if you had just lost your mind.
“You can mortify yourself it you want to but moving from the image of Christ to the likeness of Christ is a process of subtraction - subtraction of greed and self-love.” I can see Brother’s face right now drilling those words into me.
He’s talking about detachment.
There are quite a few things that would benefit from going back to before 1800 and starting again. 😉
You’ve got that right. 👍

Thank you so much for taking the time to type all this up for us. It is really very interesting to know the history and the full tradition behind what we often see as just a habit instead of a person. :o

You’re welcome.
We have 10 groups of male religious and I think 15-20 groups of women religious in this diocese. They are spread out doing all kinds of different things, and they include, as it turns out, some Trappists! 😃 So now I get to go visit and see what I can learn about them.
May I ask which diocese? It sounds like Boston.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Think of it this way. It’s like walking into your cardiologist’s office and start to speak heart medicine. He’ll look at you as if you had just lost your mind.
I’m very happy you brought this up because this is exactly what patients do these days. We research on the internet, we look at different drugs and treatments and say, “What about this Doc? Have you heard of this?”

Doctors have had to adjust and view patients differently. Patients are more educated now. They can read about side effects right on the internet. They don’t have to sneak a peak at their doctor’s drug book.

A lot of times the patient is wrong or has an incomplete picture. But every now and then you hear of a patient who brings up a treatment the doctor has never heard of and that treatment ends up saving the patient’s life!

In the same way, the laity have access to a lot of knowledge. I do not understand why a Religious would get upset if someone brings up a topic to them. Maybe they respect them as an expert and would like to know their opinion?

To get upset to me is pride.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top