The vocation of a married person in Traditional Catholicism

[DL82]

Would it be fair to say that the Traditional(ist) view of the vocation of married lay people can be summarised as:

1. To produce children and raise them in the faith
2. To provide financially and materially for the welfare of the priests and religious
3. To pray and offer up penance for the priests and religious.

Is this an accurate summary? Is it something anyone here would defend?

Liturgical reforms aside, do most Traditional Catholics on this forum find any benefits to the refocusing on the vocation of the laity to being Christ’s message to the world which was emphasised at Vatican II?

 

[Rich_C]

Would it be fair to say that the Traditional(ist) view of the vocation of married lay people can be summarised as:

1. To produce children and raise them in the faith
2. To provide financially and materially for the welfare of the priests and religious
3. To pray and offer up penance for the priests and religious.

Is this an accurate summary? Is it something anyone here would defend?

Liturgical reforms aside, do most Traditional Catholics on this forum find any benefits to the refocusing on the vocation of the laity to being Christ’s message to the world which was emphasised at Vatican II?

Good summary.

Regarding the bold above, it seems like most trads I’ve met don’t think of Vatican II when they think of their vocation, but more than a few are very interested in the social reform themes and the promotion of the Social Reign of the Christ the King as formulated by Leo XIII and the Piuses.

I tend to look at the Catholic lay movements of the 1920s and 1930s for inspiration. I appreciate reading about real structured organizations and movements from history more than encyclicals, whether old or new.

 

[Mike30]

Would it be fair to say that the Traditional(ist) view of the vocation of married lay people can be summarised as:

1. To produce children and raise them in the faith
2. To provide financially and materially for the welfare of the priests and religious
3. To pray and offer up penance for the priests and religious.

Is this an accurate summary? Is it something anyone here would defend?

Liturgical reforms aside, do most Traditional Catholics on this forum find any benefits to the refocusing on the vocation of the laity to being Christ’s message to the world which was emphasised at Vatican II?

No. It is not an accurate summary. At least not to me. In fact I always thought the whole idea of the laity even having a “vocation” was just an attempt to blur the lines between the laity and Clergy. I would assume that faithful Catholics of all stripes brought Christs message to the world anyway.

 

[Megan7]

Would it be fair to say that the Traditional(ist) view of the vocation of married lay people can be summarised as:

1. To produce children and raise them in the faith
2. To provide financially and materially for the welfare of the priests and religious
3. To pray and offer up penance for the priests and religious.

Is this an accurate summary? Is it something anyone here would defend?

Liturgical reforms aside, do most Traditional Catholics on this forum find any benefits to the refocusing on the vocation of the laity to being Christ’s message to the world which was emphasised at Vatican II?

Interesting thread, thanks

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Would it be fair to say that the Traditional(ist) view of the vocation of married lay people can be summarised as:

1. To produce children and raise them in the faith
2. To provide financially and materially for the welfare of the priests and religious
3. To pray and offer up penance for the priests and religious.

Is this an accurate summary? Is it something anyone here would defend?

Liturgical reforms aside, do most Traditional Catholics on this forum find any benefits to the refocusing on the vocation of the laity to being Christ’s message to the world which was emphasised at Vatican II?

We are all called to support the church (#2 and #3) whether we are married or not. The family is the basic unit of society (not the individual) so raising children in the faith and as moral members of society is the primary role of the family/married Catholics.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Would it be fair to say that the Traditional(ist) view of the vocation of married lay people can be summarised as:

1. To produce children and raise them in the faith
2. To provide financially and materially for the welfare of the priests and religious
3. To pray and offer up penance for the priests and religious.

Is this an accurate summary? Is it something anyone here would defend?

Liturgical reforms aside, do most Traditional Catholics on this forum find any benefits to the refocusing on the vocation of the laity to being Christ’s message to the world which was emphasised at Vatican II?

I think you missed a few very important points. The spouses are supposed to help one another get to heaven. That is a huge part of their vocation. Also singling out priests and religious for financial and material help does not quite fit the bill. We are to be concerned for ALL those who need our assistance. We may choose to help out certain groups because we can’t help everyone, but Jesus said we are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and in prison etc., without prejudice.

The whole Church, not just Traditionalists should be offering up penance and prayers for priests and religious., and helping the poor.

Bringing Christ to the world is a command of the Lord, and it is meant for all those who follow him. We laity in the past have tended to leave most of this up to the clergy, and religious, and that cannot be denied. That was not so in the early Church. Well, now we have a shortage of ordained and religious, and I believe God is using this to bring us back to facing up to our responsibility as laity to spread the Gospel. We’re getting better at it.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

1659 St. Paul said: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church. . . . This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church” (Eph 5:25, 32).

1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).

1661 The sacrament of Matrimony signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved his Church; the grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love of the spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity, and sanctifies them on the way to eternal life (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1799).

1662 Marriage is based on the consent of the contracting parties, that is, on their will to give themselves, each to the other, mutually and definitively, in order to live a covenant of faithful and fruitful love.

1663 Since marriage establishes the couple in a public state of life in the Church, it is fitting that its celebration be public, in the framework of a liturgical celebration, before the priest (or a witness authorized by the Church), the witnesses, and the assembly of the faithful.

1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its “supreme gift,” the child (GS 50 § 1).

1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith.

1666 The Christian home is the place where children receive the first proclamation of the faith. For this reason the family home is rightly called “the domestic church,” a community of grace and prayer, a school of human virtues and of Christian charity.

 

[PJM]

=DL82;10225313]Would it be fair to say that the Traditional(ist) view of the vocation of married lay people can be summarised as:

1. To produce children and raise them in the faith
2. To provide financially and materially for the welfare of the priests and religious
3. To pray and offer up penance for the priests and religious.

Is this an accurate summary? Is it something anyone here would defend?

Liturgical reforms aside, do most Traditional Catholics on this forum find any benefits to the refocusing on the vocation of the laity to being Christ’s message to the world which was emphasised at Vatican II?

Been too long sice I read Vatican I:blush:

Your points are IMO valid but limited and therefore incomplete.

Pauls 1st. Cor. 12; the entire chapter comes to mind and brings a fuller picture. Here’s part of it: Verses 26-31 “And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.*** Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member***. And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But be zealous for the better gifts. And I shew unto you yet a more excellent way”

Here’s the SUMMARY:

we are members of the One Same Body. Each od is given by the HS differing gifts to be used FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE body.

There may have been a time when what you described would surfice for a proper “married” responce; but that was post Vatican II.

Today’s Church and the society in which we exist DEMANDS very much more from us.

Last Years Theme of “The New Evangelazation” followed by this years “The Year of FAITH” make clear the need for ALL of to be pro-active. To use what ever gifts we have been given beyond what our family responsibilities are and to be ACTIVE is ways we have not been before.

Certianly we MST do all that you pointed out; but that is where we start, not where our obligations end.

Continued Blessings,
Pat/Pjm

 

[YoungTradCath]

Would it be fair to say that the Traditional(ist) view of the vocation of married lay people can be summarised as:

1. To produce children and raise them in the faith
2. To provide financially and materially for the welfare of the priests and religious
3. To pray and offer up penance for the priests and religious.

Is this an accurate summary? Is it something anyone here would defend?

Liturgical reforms aside, do most Traditional Catholics on this forum find any benefits to the refocusing on the vocation of the laity to being Christ’s message to the world which was emphasised at Vatican II?

I would add a #4), in that, I believe the average Traditionalist holds to the notion that married persons are also good for each other, of course. Their mutual emotional, intellectual and spiritual support and shared experience is nothing but a sublime gift of Christ–that is, should they choose to take it.

As far as being the “salt of the earth” and all that, yes, I believe Traditionalist Catholics accept this and are generally aware of their duty in the world. I also think they do a pretty good job, even if it isn’t something they specifically think about day to day, like, “Oh, Vatican II said: ___ about the vocation of the laity in the world.” I don’t think that happens much, but the effects of that are lived out, even if the concept itself is only a subconscious thing. Perhaps contrary to popular belief, I find that Traditionalists don’t think about Vatican II all day either way, no sarcasm intended. Ironically, we might consider the Traditionalist movement a direct and immediate fruit of the Council, however unintended it might be. I certainly consider it to be. God works in funny ways sometimes.

I think there might be some good in circling the wagons and perhaps actively focusing on the whole vocation of the laity thing, if only to add further insights to the apostolates and ministries Traditionalist laity and priests, respectively, already have.

Note: I am not married.

Good summary.

Regarding the bold above, it seems like most trads I’ve met don’t think of Vatican II when they think of their vocation, but more than a few are very interested in the social reform themes and the promotion of the Social Reign of the Christ the King as formulated by Leo XIII and the Piuses.

I tend to look at the Catholic lay movements of the 1920s and 1930s for inspiration. I appreciate reading about real structured organizations and movements from history more than encyclicals, whether old or new.

Yes, this very much.

 

[choliks]

Would it be fair to say that the Traditional(ist) view of the vocation of married lay people can be summarised as:

1. To produce children and raise them in the faith
2. To provide financially and materially for the welfare of the priests and religious
3. To pray and offer up penance for the priests and religious.

Is this an accurate summary? Is it something anyone here would defend?

Liturgical reforms aside, do most Traditional Catholics on this forum find any benefits to the refocusing on the vocation of the laity to being Christ’s message to the world which was emphasised at Vatican II?

Is this “officially” the view of Traditionalists on the vocation of a married couple? I thought (and was taught) that the vocation can be found in the vows. Simplistically, to love Christ through my spouse, and journey with her to Christ’s perfection.

 

[catholicanne]

I think you missed a few very important points. The spouses are supposed to help one another get to heaven. That is a huge part of their vocation. Also singling out priests and religious for financial and material help does not quite fit the bill. We are to be concerned for ALL those who need our assistance. We may choose to help out certain groups because we can’t help everyone, but Jesus said we are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and in prison etc., without prejudice.

The whole Church, not just Traditionalists should be offering up penance and prayers for priests and religious., and helping the poor.

Bringing Christ to the world is a command of the Lord, and it is meant for all those who follow him. We laity in the past have tended to leave most of this up to the clergy, and religious, and that cannot be denied. That was not so in the early Church. Well, now we have a shortage of ordained and religious, and I believe God is using this to bring us back to facing up to our responsibility as laity to spread the Gospel. We’re getting better at it.

Excellent response.

 

[Rich_C]

Me thinks a lot of responders misunderstood the original post.

Wasn’t the question about whether or not trads derive benefit from Vatican II’s teaching on families?

I think the OP knows the Church’s teaching and is interested in learning about how other folks see things.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Baelor]

Would it be fair to say that the Traditional(ist) view of the vocation of married lay people can be summarised as:

1. To produce children and raise them in the faith
2. To provide financially and materially for the welfare of the priests and religious
3. To pray and offer up penance for the priests and religious.

Is this an accurate summary? Is it something anyone here would defend?

These things, among the others mentioned, are views that should be held by all Catholics, and are not lost on non-traditionalists.

No. It is not an accurate summary. At least not to me. In fact I always thought the whole idea of the laity even having a “vocation” was just an attempt to blur the lines between the laity and Clergy. I would assume that faithful Catholics of all stripes brought Christs message to the world anyway.

The Church recognizes marriage as a vocation.

 

[acarlson]

No. It is not an accurate summary. At least not to me. In fact I always thought the whole idea of the laity even having a “vocation” was just an attempt to blur the lines between the laity and Clergy. I would assume that faithful Catholics of all stripes brought Christs message to the world anyway.

CCC 1603: “The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage.” The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator . . .

 

[DL82]

Thank you all for your answers. It is good to hear these same truths expressed in these different ways.

 

[anilorak13ska]

As a childless (not by choice!) married woman, I implore my fellow Catholics to focus on the various purposes of marriage, and not to single out children, which of course goes without saying that children belong to the vocation of marriage as opposed to the vocation of single life or religious life or the priesthood!

It was quite a challenge for me to finally figure out what some of you mentioned on here - that I am already complete in my marriage vocation by being the best wife I can be to my husband, and by us working together in our church and in our community to bring Christ to others. We are much more effective as a team than we would be individually as single people. (Though that’s not to say that others aren’t called to a vocation of lay single life!)

Just my two cents! But a good question