Vocation problem

[Busy_bee]

In mission countries there are often places that have no chapels or churches. The mass is celebrated on a makeshift altar under a tree or a tent.

By the way, the Orthodox priests can consecrate validly and licitly. There is no restriction placed on them. However, Catholics can only receive communion at an Orthodox mass with very special conditions. I can’t recall all of the conditions off the top of my head, because I’ve never been in that situation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Okay, but where I’m from, we have Basic Christian Community (or is it council?)
Anyway, we have mass every tuesday in a parishoner’s house, like a mass centre. What’s the reasoning of that? (The priests are Franciscans)

 

[Busy_bee]

One of the reasons American Catholics are so “American” is because they have been left to their own devices for so long. The information we need is simply not available to us most of the time, and there is very little in the way of education in our faith. When a layperson absolutely has to make decisions and “get on with it” because of time constraints that exist in lay life, they have to use what information and guidance they have, and most of it frankly has not been Catholic because that’s been absent to most laypeople. [There are time constraints in the nature of our work and family lives, ie raising children through stages of x-years and so on.]

The internet has helped a lot, and it’s enabled conversations like this one, which help a great deal. Also the Church is waking up from its long sleep now in the US, and there are an increasing number of classes for the laity, since the Church is getting increasingly worried about the number of people leaving and evangelization. And all that is wonderful, but not enough.

We need more information and more education as Catholics. The lack of these things are why so many Catholics don’t know their faith, let alone these finer points like how religious orders work.

Exactly!!!

 

[iloveangels]

Many secular priests hold rather interesting jobs. Lumberjack is not a common one.

…

You’re welcome. If you understand the Franciscans, you’re now ready to tackle the Trinity.

Last night, I had class with our postulants (future friars). We’re starting to learn how to pray the LOTH. Before we learn the mechanics, I was teaching them the theology behind it from the point of view of the Church and then from the point of view of Francis and Clare. Of course, I had to explain how they compliment each other, rather than conflict. Part of this was explaining why we don’t use Gregorian chant in the Divine Office.

One of the postulants looked at me and said, “I think I’d rather tackle the Trinity. It’s probably easier than this.” I was rolling on the floor. Another postulant said, “Understanding how the Franciscans fit into the Catholic Church is like trying to put together one of those puzzles with 1,000 pieces.”

I finally said, “If you want predictability and structure, join the Dominicans or the Benedictines. However, if you thrive on chaos, confusion, spontanaeity, diversity, uncertainty and absolute obedience and trust, be a Franciscan of any kind. None of the Franciscan communities has a monopoly on disorganization. That’s what makes us so cute.” :yup:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Oh, it’s one of those 5000 piece 3-D things, at least. I’m still learning and I don’t think I’ll ever get to the end of it. I have books here too, trying to at least get a workable handle on it. That’s all I need but it’s a lot.

 

[JReducation]

I also think that something must be the case. They can’t all be mean! I think you are being a little hard on the laity though. Most times we don’t even think about what goes on in the religious life, and if we do, I’d say we are not especially motivated to read about it.

I certainly don’t mean to be hard on the laity. However, I am deliberately demanding on the laity when they venture to talk about religious life, because many people make comments that reflect their preferences or their belief of what religious life is supposed to be rather than find out from the sources. The sources are always going to be the founders, the constitutions, Canon Law and rules and regulations put out by the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. When people shoot from the hip, without checking the sources, they give the wrong information or wrong answers to questions.

It’s very important that if one is going to venture into an area that affects a person’s whole life, such as religious life, one understand the rules, charisms, mind of the Church and the mind of the founders.

I recently read a post where someone said “Why be a nun, if you’re not going to wear a habit? Why be one, if you’re ashamed of it?”

I thought it was the most ill informed comment that I ever read. You don’t become a nun to wear a habit. Sisters and nuns who dress in secular clothing do not do so because they’re ashamed of being women religious. Whether they wear a habit or not depends on their charism, their vision of themselves in the life of the Church, what the Church expects of them, and what the founder had in mind when he or she founded them. Some founders never had a habit in mind. Some were forced to impose a habit, because it was the custom of the time. Others left it up to the sisters (such as St. Clare) do decide for themselves. To say something like this about these women shows a lack of knowledge. Obviously, this poster does not know that St. Clare said that the Franciscan nuns were to dress according to the wishes of the superior, but the superior had to factor in several things: custom, culture, climate, work, and the personalities of the nuns in her house. The superior could not pull a habit out of her sleeve and impose it on the nuns. It had to be well thought out.

This person obviously does not know that some religious communities were founded to be anonymous. The founder did not want them to be obvious. They were not to wear a habit or any sign of being religious. One of those founders was Mother Teresa. The Missionary Brothers of Charity are not allowed to wear any kind of habit, not even a crucifix to identify themselves as Catholic religious. Most people don’t know that there are male Missionaries of Charity, several thousand of them. Jesus told Mother that he did not want the males to be other than Indian men. Even those who come from the Western countries must adapt to dressing and living as Indian men.

When I see these kinds of comments, which are cruel and judgmental, I then get very hard on the person making them. If you ask those of us who are religious, we are not in competition with each other. I can walk down the street in my habit, alongside a Jesuit in his Roman Collar, and a Missionary of Charity in his secular clothes and feel the fraternal connection, because we are all part of the religious life of the Church. We contribute something spiritual to the life of the Church that cannot be seen or felt, which the laity cannot contribute.

Okay, but where I’m from, we have Basic Christian Community (or is it council?)
Anyway, we have mass every tuesday in a parishoner’s house, like a mass centre. What’s the reasoning of that? (The priests are Franciscans)

Not knowing anything about your diocese, I cannot tell you the answer. The rule is that masses should be celebrated in chapels, oratories or churches. However, bishops and religious superiors can make exceptions to those rules for pastoral reasons.

In any case, the mass is valid and licit. Even if the bishop has not given permission, celebrating in some other place does not make it illegal or invalid. The laws speak about the parts of the mass itself, not the place. The place is addressed in guidelines, not in laws. Guidelines do not have the same force as laws.

That’s the best answer that I can give you with the little information that I have. I can say this. Franciscans are a disorderly bunch, but we’re known for our orthodoxy. Whenever one of us breaks a rule, there a five of us on his case. :tsktsk:

Not only are we cute, but we can be real pains in the neck to each other.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Busy_bee]

I certainly don’t mean to be hard on the laity. However, I am deliberately demanding on the laity when they venture to talk about religious life, because many people make comments that reflect their preferences or their belief of what religious life is supposed to be rather than find out from the sources. That’s the best answer that I can give you with the little information that I have. I can say this. Franciscans are a disorderly bunch, but we’re known for our orthodoxy. Whenever one of us breaks a rule, there a five of us on his case. :tsktsk:

Not only are we cute, but we can be real pains in the neck to each other.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Oh oh! I have made a mistake with my little information. See, I have grouped Jesuits with Franciscans! My parish is St. Francis and it is a Jesuit parish. I apologise. How different are they, please? We pray the St. Francis prayer for peace and everything…

 

[sarahq]

Dear Lord Jesus,
Please help this man discern his vocation. May he follow Your will!!!
Thank You Jesus!
Amen.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Not knowing anything about your diocese, I cannot tell you the answer. The rule is that masses should be celebrated in chapels, oratories or churches. However, bishops and religious superiors can make exceptions to those rules for pastoral reasons.

I found this:

Can. 295 §1. The statutes established by the Apostolic See govern a personal prelature, and a prelate presides over it as the proper ordinary; he has the right to erect a national or international seminary and even to incardinate students and promote them to orders under title of service to the prelature.

And this explanation:

Many features of a personal prelature may seem similar to religious orders. … the prelate governs the prelature with ordinary power and is selected according to the statutes of the prelature (can. 295), which could mean election by the members of the prelature or some other method. Also, the clergy of the prelature also are incardinated into the prelature itself as opposed to the local particular church (ibid).

Doesn’t this mean that the members can elect a prelate who is not a Bishop, but who functions as a Bishop in that he can ordain priests? And that members of the Prelature, even though they might belong to a local Parish, aren’t under the authority of the Bishop of the Diocese where the Parish is located, but under the authority of the Ordinary of the Prelature?

 

[JReducation]

Oh oh! I have made a mistake with my little information. See, I have grouped Jesuits with Franciscans! My parish is St. Francis and it is a Jesuit parish. I apologise. How different are they, please? We pray the St. Francis prayer for peace and everything…

Franciscans are a brotherhood of mendicants. Jesuits are an order of priests. They were founded to be preachers, teachers and missionaries. They have much more freedom than do Franciscans. The Church makes many exceptions for them because of their special place in the Church.

I found this:

And this explanation:

Doesn’t this mean that the members can elect a prelate who is not a Bishop, but who functions as a Bishop in that he can ordain priests? And that members of the Prelature, even though they might belong to a local Parish, aren’t under the authority of the Bishop of the Diocese where the Parish is located, but under the authority of the Ordinary of the Prelature?

A prelature is a diocese without boundaries. That’s what this is saying. For example, Opus Dei ins a prelature. There is now the Anglican Ordinariate, which is a prelature.

The clergy in the prelature can elect the prelate (the head). He need not be a bishop. The election does have to be approved by the pope.

When they say that it’s like a religious order, what they are saying is that the prelate has the same authority as the superior of religious order. He can open houses of formation, including seminaries. He can recruit seminarians for the diaconate and the priesthood. Everyone answers to him. He governs, controls the finances and assets. He is responsible for the care of the elderly priests in the prelature, just like the superior is responsible for the elderly religious. He is the legal representative of the prelature, just like a religious superior is the legal representative of his community.

In essence, the prelate and the religious superior have the exact same Ordinary powers that a bishop has. They DO NOT HAVE THE SACRAMENTAL POWER. They are not successors to the Apostles. Only bishops are successors to the Apostles. Even if they are priests, they cannot ordain. Only an Apostle can ordain. A bishop is an Apostle. The prelate is the head of the prelature, but the prelature is not considered a Church, just as a religious community is not considered a Church. Whereas a diocese is a real Church. Where there is a bishop, there is Church.

That’s why prelatures and religious orders must be directly under the authority of the pope. Dioceses have much more independence from the pope. The diocese is a real Church headed by a real Apostle. The pope need not involve himself too much. There is already an Apostle overseeing the diocese . . . not so in the case of a prelature or a religious order, unless there is a bishop at the head. Religious orders are not allowed to have bishops at the head.

Opus Dei has a bishop at the head, but he has not been given full authority over Opus Dei as a bishop has over his diocese. The Opus Dei prelate has to answer to the pope more frequently than other bishops.

If a prelature has its own parishes, such as does the Anglican Ordinariate, those parishes are not under the authority of the local bishop, but under the authority of the prelature. However, the prelature can’t just put up a tent in a diocese and declare it a parish. It has a duty to inform the local bishop of it’s intention to enter his territory and the local bishop has the right to deny the permission to enter his territory. In that case, the pope would have to override. If the pope does not override, then the prelature cannot setup a parish in that diocese.

None of this is that complicated. All of these details are already worked out when the prelature is erected so that everyone knows who does what.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Julia_Mae]

In essence, the prelate and the religious superior have the exact same Ordinary powers that a bishop has. They DO NOT HAVE THE SACRAMENTAL POWER. They are not successors to the Apostles. Only bishops are successors to the Apostles. Even if they are priests, they cannot ordain. Only an Apostle can ordain. A bishop is an Apostle. The prelate is the head of the prelature, but the prelature is not considered a Church, just as a religious community is not considered a Church. Whereas a diocese is a real Church. Where there is a bishop, there is Church.

Okay, thanks. I think what confused me was this:

promote them to orders under title of service to the prelature.

If the prelature is not an Order, then I thought it meant Holy Orders, though it said “promote” not ordain. And “orders” is just a simple all lowercase word.

When I was studying paleoanthropology, I used to say 50% of learning any new discipline was memorizing the jargon! I could read a whole paragraph, be able to define every word in it as a common English word, and still not have a clue what it said. So I imagine “promote” has a very specific meaning here.

 

[JReducation]

Okay, thanks. I think what confused me was this:

If the prelature is not an Order, then I thought it meant Holy Orders, though it said “promote” not ordain. And “orders” is just a simple all lowercase word.

When I was studying paleoanthropology, I used to say 50% of learning any new discipline was memorizing the jargon! I could read a whole paragraph, be able to define every word in it as a common English word, and still not have a clue what it said. So I imagine “promote” has a very specific meaning here.

OK, I see what happened. “To promote to orders” does refer to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. It means that a prelate, just like a religious superior, has the authority to grant permission for someone to be ordained a deacon or a priest. He doesn’t do the ordaining. A bishop must do the ordaining. But no bishop can ordain a member of a prelature or a member of a religious community without permission. To do so can lead to an excommunication of the bishop and a suspension of the priest whom he ordains. We’ve see this story before.

Bishops cannot ordain willy nilly. They must have the authorization to ordain. If it’s his own diocese and the man belongs to his diocese, then he has the authorization, because he is the head of the local Church. If the man belongs to a prelature, a religious community or a priestly society such as the FSSP, this man is not under the bishop’s jurisdiction, even if he lives across the street. The only person who can promote him is his superior. That would be either the superior of the institute to which he belongs or the prelate of his prelature.

In law, “to promote” means to move something forward. When a prelate or a superior promotes a man for ordination, he’s moving his case forward. Better said, he’s presenting his man to a bishop of his choosing and asking that bishop to ordain him.

Essentially, the law is giving prelates the same authority that religious superiors have. That is . . . the authority to approve an ordination. They don’t do the ordaining. But they must give the permission. Without the permission, the ordination is illegal (illicit) and the bishop who ordains is in serious trouble and the man who allows the bishop to ordain him is suspended before the oils are dry. He has no canonical place in the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[FraLeones]

Dear Lord Jesus,
Please help this man discern his vocation. May he follow Your will!!!
Thank You Jesus!
Amen.

GOD bless you

 

[Julia_Mae]

Essentially, the law is giving prelates the same authority that religious superiors have. That is . . . the authority to approve an ordination. They don’t do the ordaining. But they must give the permission. Without the permission, the ordination is illegal (illicit) and the bishop who ordains is in serious trouble and the man who allows the bishop to ordain him is suspended before the oils are dry. He has no canonical place in the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks so much for being so patient. I wish you would make a blog or something and copy all your posts in it so we could have it as a permanent reference. A lot of your brother have blogs, but, well … mostly what they say isn’t so interesting. I would very srsly make you one if you wanted, it’s quite easy to post. Only, I’m sure of of the brothers is smarter than I at doing online stuff.

So, if a Prelate is also a Bishop, then he can promote and Ordain. Otherwise he can say, “Okay, I’d like this guy to be a priest now” (Promotes) and a Bishop Ordains him.

So, if a Prelature has as part of it’s rules that only a Bishop can be the Prelate, and a church is where a Bishop is, then, wouldn’t the Prelature be like a Church, like the Archdiocese of Philadephia?

 

[Filii_Dei]

Thanks so much for being so patient. I wish you would make a blog or something and copy all your posts in it so we could have it as a permanent reference. A lot of your brother have blogs, but, well … mostly what they say isn’t so interesting. I would very srsly make you one if you wanted, it’s quite easy to post. Only, I’m sure of of the brothers is smarter than I at doing online stuff.

So, if a Prelate is also a Bishop, then he can promote and Ordain. Otherwise he can say, “Okay, I’d like this guy to be a priest now” (Promotes) and a Bishop Ordains him.

So, if a Prelature has as part of it’s rules that only a Bishop can be the Prelate, and a church is where a Bishop is, then, wouldn’t the Prelature be like a Church, like the Archdiocese of Philadephia?

I believe it that even if the Prelate were a Bishop, he would still require the permission of the local ordinary to ordain a priest. Local jurisdiction must always be respected, even if the ordination is performed in the context of a religious order or fraternity.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I believe it that even if the Prelate were a Bishop, he would still require the permission of the local ordinary to ordain a priest. Local jurisdiction must always be respected, even if the ordination is performed in the context of a religious order or fraternity.

Br JR wrote above:

If it’s his [the Bishop’s] own diocese and the man belongs to his diocese, then he has the authorization, because he is the head of the local Church. If the man belongs to a prelature, a religious community or a priestly society such as the FSSP, this man is not under the bishop’s jurisdiction, even if he lives across the street.

The Bishop of the geographic Diocese doesn’t have any authority over these folks. He could not give them permission to operate within his boundaries, of course. But they are not located in a geographical area and so they have their own Ordinary. The Bishop of one place doesn’t need permission from the Bishop of another place. The Bishop Prelate of Opus Dei is the “local” (sort of) Ordinary. He doesn’t need anyone’s permission to ordain. That’s my answer based on what I have read so far of what Br JR has written and he’ll be along presently to correct our papers. I am hoping I learned this lesson because I need something to hang on my refrigerator door!

 

[Busy_bee]

Franciscans are a brotherhood of mendicants. Jesuits are an order of priests. They were founded to be preachers, teachers and missionaries. They have much more freedom than do Franciscans. The Church makes many exceptions for them because of their special place in the Church.

A prelature is a diocese without boundaries. That’s what this is saying. For example, Opus Dei ins a prelature. There is now the Anglican Ordinariate, which is a prelature.

The clergy in the prelature can elect the prelate (the head). He need not be a bishop. The election does have to be approved by the pope.

When they say that it’s like a religious order, what they are saying is that the prelate has the same authority as the superior of religious order. He can open houses of formation, including seminaries. He can recruit seminarians for the diaconate and the priesthood. Everyone answers to him. He governs, controls the finances and assets. He is responsible for the care of the elderly priests in the prelature, just like the superior is responsible for the elderly religious. He is the legal representative of the prelature, just like a religious superior is the legal representative of his community.

In essence, the prelate and the religious superior have the exact same Ordinary powers that a bishop has. They DO NOT HAVE THE SACRAMENTAL POWER. They are not successors to the Apostles. Only bishops are successors to the Apostles. Even if they are priests, they cannot ordain. Only an Apostle can ordain. A bishop is an Apostle. The prelate is the head of the prelature, but the prelature is not considered a Church, just as a religious community is not considered a Church. Whereas a diocese is a real Church. Where there is a bishop, there is Church.

That’s why prelatures and religious orders must be directly under the authority of the pope. Dioceses have much more independence from the pope. The diocese is a real Church headed by a real Apostle. The pope need not involve himself too much. There is already an Apostle overseeing the diocese . . . not so in the case of a prelature or a religious order, unless there is a bishop at the head. Religious orders are not allowed to have bishops at the head.

Opus Dei has a bishop at the head, but he has not been given full authority over Opus Dei as a bishop has over his diocese. The Opus Dei prelate has to answer to the pope more frequently than other bishops.

If a prelature has its own parishes, such as does the Anglican Ordinariate, those parishes are not under the authority of the local bishop, but under the authority of the prelature. However, the prelature can’t just put up a tent in a diocese and declare it a parish. It has a duty to inform the local bishop of it’s intention to enter his territory and the local bishop has the right to deny the permission to enter his territory. In that case, the pope would have to override. If the pope does not override, then the prelature cannot setup a parish in that diocese.

None of this is that complicated. All of these details are already worked out when the prelature is erected so that everyone knows who does what.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you very much! How do you know all this stuff? I’m understand your explanation (surprisingly) however I don’t know what Mendicants mean. Also, what kind of exceptions?
There are Jesuit brothers too. How do they fit into the picture? Are they just on their way to the Priesthood?

 

[JReducation]

Thanks so much for being so patient. I wish you would make a blog or something and copy all your posts in it so we could have it as a permanent reference. A lot of your brother have blogs, but, well … mostly what they say isn’t so interesting. I would very srsly make you one if you wanted, it’s quite easy to post. Only, I’m sure of of the brothers is smarter than I at doing online stuff.

So, if a Prelate is also a Bishop, then he can promote and Ordain. Otherwise he can say, “Okay, I’d like this guy to be a priest now” (Promotes) and a Bishop Ordains him.

So, if a Prelature has as part of it’s rules that only a Bishop can be the Prelate, and a church is where a Bishop is, then, wouldn’t the Prelature be like a Church, like the Archdiocese of Philadephia?

A prelature can be setup as an autonomous organism, such as the Opus Dei. If the head of the prelature is a bishop, he can ordain and does not need the permission of the local bishop to ordain, as long as he’s ordaining his own men. Any bishop can ordain his own men without the permission of another bishop. He can’t ordain someone else’s men.

Prelatures are like a diocese without boundaries. For example, you mentioned the Philadelphia Archdiocese. That diocese includes the City of Philadelphia and adjacent counties. The Archbishop only has jurisdiction within that geographical area.

In the case of the Opus Dei, the bishop who runs it has jurisdiction in any part of the world where there are Opus Dei communities. His jurisdiction is limited to the members of Opus Dei. He can only ordain men to the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross, which is the Opus Dei’s priestly society. He does not need the permission of any bishop to do so.

Good manners would dictate that if you’re going to ordain someone at a Church that is in someone’s diocese, you inform that bishop and you may even invite him.

For example, when a religious superior decides to present his men for ordination, he may bring in a bishop from his own community who may live in another city. The ordination would take place at the mother house of the community. But the superior sends a note and invitation to the local bishop. It would be rude not to do so. Afterall, he does live in his diocese, even though the local bishop has no authority over the superior. That would be the case with a prelature. It is its own organism.

This idea of a prelature is very new to us, because so far there has only been Opus Dei and now the Anglican Ordinariate. We’re not too sure how the ordinariate is going to be run, since they don’t have bishops. Rome may appoint a bishop to run it or the Holy Father may appoint a priest who will serve as his vicar. We’ll have to wait and see.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you very much! How do you know all this stuff?

Many religious brothers study two-years of Canon Law, four years to get a BA degree and four years to get a Master’s Degree in Theology or Divinity. If nothing else, you do study Canon Law in novitiate. You have to know the laws that govern you.

I’m understand your explanation (surprisingly) however I don’t know what Mendicants mean.

Mendicants are religious communities founded to be itinerant beggars: Servites, Trinitarians, Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Missionaries of Charity, Missionaries of the Poor and a few others. These communities do not live in monasteries. They live in community houses under different names: friaries, priories, convents or just community house. We don’t have the cloistered life of a monk. We do have a cloister that the laity may not enter, but we can come and go freely. We’re not governed by abbots. Instead, we elect our superiors every three years. An abbot is elected for life. We combine the life of prayer with the life of community and service. It’s a three part existence. Monks combine prayer and community. Service is optional for monks.

Also, what kind of exceptions?
There are Jesuit brothers too. How do they fit into the picture? Are they just on their way to the Priesthood?

The Jesuits are also religious. They make solemn vows of obedience, poverty and chastity. But they have many exceptions. They belong to a territory called a province. It’s governed by a superior called the provincial superior. All of the provincial superiors answer to the one general superior.

They do not elect their provincial superiors. The general superior appoints them.

They do not have to live in community as long as they remain connected to their province.

They do not have to pray together, eat together, play together or work together. If they live in the same house they do so. But they can be sent alone to some far off mission or another city.

Bishops have no authority over them. They answer directly to the pope. They are protected by the pope. When people complain about them, the pope protects them. If they need correcting, only the pope can do that, not a bishop nor the laity. All of us can get into real trouble for meddling with the Jesuits. You take your concerns to the Holy See. Let the pope or whomever he appoints deal with it.

They can own property as a community. The individual Jesuits must observe poverty, but the order can own property and it can allow its members to use whatever they need for their work, health and spiritual welfare.

They are not brothers, but do have brothers. The Jesuits are an order for priests. They are brothers to each other, but they are not brothers as are the Franciscans, Servites, Trinitarians, Cistercians, Trappists and Benedictines. In other words, the Jesuits need priests. Without priests, the Society of Jesus ceases to exist. It was founded to do priestly work. These other communities do not need priests. They were not founded to do priestly work. If they have priests, they’ll use them. If they don’t have priests, they’ll rent one for the area to say mass for them and hear their confessions or they’ll go to the local parish. It’s not an issue for them. Again, they were not founded to do priestly work.

The Jesuits may not wear a habit, even though they are religious. It was the mind of St. Ignatius that they dress like gentlemen. Later, the Church insisted that they dress like diocesan priests. They can wear a clerical shirt or a cassock, but never a habit. They will always look like secular priests. If you meet a Jesuit, until he tells you that he’s a Jesuit, you will not know that he’s a religious. It’s done on purpose. This takes us back to that whole point of people trying to argue that all religious must wear a habit. St. Ignatius would roll over in his grave if one of his sons wore a habit.

In many places, the Jesuits had permission to celebrate mass in the language of the people, long before Vatican II. They had a hybrid mass with parts in Latin and parts in the local language.

All of these things are the exemptions that the Jesuits have.

The other religious orders have exemptions too, but the Jesuits have the most. The big joke among religious is that for every exception to the law that the Church makes for religious, there is an exception to the exception just for the Jesuits. The laity seems more bothered by this than religious. Religious don’t care. We’re not in competition with each other and we don’t want to be alike. We like the diversity.

We like that we can have religious who pray in a choir with Latin and Gregorian chant, friars who pray without ever chanting, and Jesuits who pray individually. It makes the garden colorful. It is a sign of the Holy Spirit’s generosity. He does not give the Church only one way of living the consecrated life, but many ways of doing so.

That’s why sisters in long habits, short habits and no habits are all gifts of the Holy Spirit when it’s done correctly. However, we human beings, including religious, are sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. We can take a good thing and really mess it up really good.

Then the Holy Spirit has to come and bail us out again. Thank God for his infinite mercy, his patience and his sense of humor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Busy_bee]

Many religious brothers study two-years of Canon Law, four years to get a BA degree and four years to get a Master’s Degree in Theology or Divinity. If nothing else, you do study Canon Law in novitiate. You have to know the laws that govern you.

Mendicants are religious communities founded to be itinerant beggars: Servites, Trinitarians, Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Missionaries of Charity, Missionaries of the Poor and a few others. These communities do not live in monasteries. They live in community houses under different names: friaries, priories, convents or just community house. We don’t have the cloistered life of a monk. We do have a cloister that the laity may not enter, but we can come and go freely. We’re not governed by abbots. Instead, we elect our superiors every three years. An abbot is elected for life. We combine the life of prayer with the life of community and service. It’s a three part existence. Monks combine prayer and community. Service is optional for monks.

The Jesuits are also religious. They make solemn vows of obedience, poverty and chastity. But they have many exceptions. They belong to a territory called a province. It’s governed by a superior called the provincial superior. All of the provincial superiors answer to the one general superior.

They do not elect their provincial superiors. The general superior appoints them.

They do not have to live in community as long as they remain connected to their province.

They do not have to pray together, eat together, play together or work together. If they live in the same house they do so. But they can be sent alone to some far off mission or another city.

Bishops have no authority over them. They answer directly to the pope. They are protected by the pope. When people complain about them, the pope protects them. If they need correcting, only the pope can do that, not a bishop nor the laity. All of us can get into real trouble for meddling with the Jesuits. You take your concerns to the Holy See. Let the pope or whomever he appoints deal with it.

They can own property as a community. The individual Jesuits must observe poverty, but the order can own property and it can allow its members to use whatever they need for their work, health and spiritual welfare.

They are not brothers, but do have brothers. The Jesuits are an order for priests. They are brothers to each other, but they are not brothers as are the Franciscans, Servites, Trinitarians, Cistercians, Trappists and Benedictines. In other words, the Jesuits need priests. Without priests, the Society of Jesus ceases to exist. It was founded to do priestly work. These other communities do not need priests. They were not founded to do priestly work. If they have priests, they’ll use them. If they don’t have priests, they’ll rent one for the area to say mass for them and hear their confessions or they’ll go to the local parish. It’s not an issue for them. Again, they were not founded to do priestly work.

The Jesuits may not wear a habit, even though they are religious. It was the mind of St. Ignatius that they dress like gentlemen. Later, the Church insisted that they dress like diocesan priests. They can wear a clerical shirt or a cassock, but never a habit. They will always look like secular priests. If you meet a Jesuit, until he tells you that he’s a Jesuit, you will not know that he’s a religious. It’s done on purpose. This takes us back to that whole point of people trying to argue that all religious must wear a habit. St. Ignatius would roll over in his grave if one of his sons wore a habit.

In many places, the Jesuits had permission to celebrate mass in the language of the people, long before Vatican II. They had a hybrid mass with parts in Latin and parts in the local language.

All of these things are the exemptions that the Jesuits have.

The other religious orders have exemptions too, but the Jesuits have the most. The big joke among religious is that for every exception to the law that the Church makes for religious, there is an exception to the exception just for the Jesuits. The laity seems more bothered by this than religious. Religious don’t care. We’re not in competition with each other and we don’t want to be alike. We like the diversity.

We like that we can have religious who pray in a choir with Latin and Gregorian chant, friars who pray without ever chanting, and Jesuits who pray individually. It makes the garden colorful. It is a sign of the Holy Spirit’s generosity. He does not give the Church only one way of living the consecrated life, but many ways of doing so.

That’s why sisters in long habits, short habits and no habits are all gifts of the Holy Spirit when it’s done correctly. However, we human beings, including religious, are sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. We can take a good thing and really mess it up really good.

Then the Holy Spirit has to come and bail us out again. Thank God for his infinite mercy, his patience and his sense of humor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The Church is so beautiful! Everything you said is true. The Jesuits are just as you describe. We have stations of the cross pictures where everyone including Jesus is a Negro. The cross is a tree with two side branches, and Mary ties a wrapper and wears a headtie! So, I guess that’s part of the freedom. Also, if you don’t know who the priests are beforehand, you may not recognise them at all! There is indeed unity in diversity and I have always had respect and love for the religious who I imagine are praying and working quietly and unseen for the church. It is a great calling and I’m glad God wanted it this way.
I believe that even if all else fails, the Holy Spirit will bring up fresh disciples to revive us again. Thank you Brother. (I hope I got that right)

 

[JReducation]

The Church is so beautiful! Everything you said is true. The Jesuits are just as you describe. We have stations of the cross pictures where everyone including Jesus is a Negro. The cross is a tree with two side branches, and Mary ties a wrapper and wears a headtie! So, I guess that’s part of the freedom. Also, if you don’t know who the priests are beforehand, you may not recognise them at all! There is indeed unity in diversity and I have always had respect and love for the religious who I imagine are praying and working quietly and unseen for the church. It is a great calling and I’m glad God wanted it this way.
I believe that even if all else fails, the Holy Spirit will bring up fresh disciples to revive us again. Thank you Brother. (I hope I got that right)

While it is true that we make mistakes and at times we deserve to be called on the carpet for those mistakes, it is more important to remember that religious continue to be the soul of the Church. While the priesthood nourishes the Church with the Eucharist, leads the Church in offering the sacrifice and forgives the members of the Church when we fail, it is the daily prayer and apostolic effort of the consecrated life that earns for the faithful the grace to seek Christ in the Eucharist and the Confessional.

It is only in the consecrated life where the faithful, priest and laity alike, will see on earth a glimpse of life in the Kingdom of God. Because the consecrated life foreshadows the life of the saints in heaven whose only desire is to exist in communion with each other praising God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TiggerS]

While it is true that we make mistakes and at times we deserve to be called on the carpet for those mistakes, it is more important to remember that religious continue to be the soul of the Church. While the priesthood nourishes the Church with the Eucharist, leads the Church in offering the sacrifice and forgives the members of the Church when we fail, it is the daily prayer and apostolic effort of the consecrated life that earns for the faithful the grace to seek Christ in the Eucharist and the Confessional.

It is only in the consecrated life where the faithful, priest and laity alike, will see on earth a glimpse of life in the Kingdom of God. Because the consecrated life foreshadows the life of the saints in heaven whose only desire is to exist in communion with each other praising God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I agree that ideally the consecrated life “foreshadows the life of the saints in Heaven whose only desire is to exist in communion with each other, praising God” and hence ideally the consecrated life is a witness to Heaven. I always thought it was the Holy Spirit who is the soul of The Church? (question).

Also, wouldn’t it be holiness per se (not only holiness in religious) that can earn Graces for the faithful ofevery kind, and most especially if at the heart and soul of that holiness is a desire for unity with Christ and an ardent love and prayer for The Universal Church in all Her needs, which includes the desire for the faithful to love and seek Christ in The Blessed Eucharist and also The Sacrament of Confession(another question)
Such holiness is, of course, inspired and strengthened, supported, by The Holy Spirit.

Tigger