What is your vocation or which vocation are you discerning

[Margsy]

Didn’t want to start a new thread, so I’ll ask here:

What are the main differences between a parish priest and a priest who is part of a religious society (Jesuits, for example)? Would the Jesuit priest be able to say mass every week? I like the idea of saying mass and really having an effect on normal people’s lives, but I don’t think I could stay at one parish for years and years. Would a society be the best option for me?

Also, I’ve felt a very strong attraction to the Franciscan friars. I realize that most friars are not priests, but what would be the process for becoming a friar as well as a priest? Thank you!

Bro, a priest should say mass everyday no matter what/where :3
A parish priest is attached to his parish and obeys his bishop. He makes the vow of obedience and chastity, not necessarily poverty. A religious brother/father makes all three and obeys the superior of his order.
As for changing parishes, you may get to in both cases. Depending on the diocese, some bishops like moving their priests around every so often. In an order, you may end up preaching mostly for your brothers, but the church where you’d celebrate should be open to the laity, too.
As for being a friar/priest, they exist! All orders need priests. With the Franciscans (that I know) it’s something you work on after you take the habit, but each order has their own process :3
I would check out some nearby order if I were you!

I’m discerning, still. Thinking very hard about being a cloistered nun.
I am also seriously impressed to hear from a hermit and a single person in the world! That is awesome!

 

[Bataar]

Since the single life is not technically a vocation, I’m vocationless.

 

[Sarcelle]

I believe you can be single and consecrated to Christ (you don’t have to be a religious to be consecrated to Christ).

Do you have to be formally consecrated by a bishop? I know that is the case with consecrated virgins.

Another question I have is being vocationless a sin?

 

[smichhertz]

I’m currently living and discerning single life. I have absolutely no idea if this is my true vocation, but I received a sign that this is where God wants me for now.

 

[MPSchneiderLC]

Do you have to be formally consecrated by a bishop? I know that is the case with consecrated virgins.

Another question I have is being vocationless a sin?

1. Vocation or not never involves sin. Everyone has a vocation and it is the constant teaching of the Church that there is not sin in not following yours.
2. If you want to be a consecrated virgin, you need to have it ratified by a bishop or do so in a society of apostolic life or association of the faithful. You can be single but not consecrated on your own - nobody can consecrate themself.

 

[SerraSemper]

1. If you want to be a consecrated virgin, you need to have it ratified by a bishop or do so in a society of apostolic life or association of the faithful. You can be single but not consecrated on your own - nobody can consecrate themself.

People mean by “consecrated virgin” those who have received the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity as spelled out in the Roman Pontifical. Membership in a society of apostolic life is not the same thing because such people are not in the consecrated state and the same can be said of associations of the faithful.

 

[MPSchneiderLC]

People mean by “consecrated virgin” those who have received the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity as spelled out in the Roman Pontifical. Membership in a society of apostolic life is not the same thing because such people are not in the consecrated state and the same can be said of associations of the faithful.

You are right in the strict sense that the term “consecrated virgin” I probably should have used “consecrated single person” (or something similar) to include to those who consecrate themselves in societies of apostolic life and associations of the faithful.

 

[SerraSemper]

You are right in the strict sense that the term “consecrated virgin” I probably should have used “consecrated single person” (or something similar) to include to those who consecrate themselves in societies of apostolic life and associations of the faithful.

Technically they’re not consecrated single people either. That’s why societies of apostolic life “imitate” institutes of consecrated life and associations of the faithful are just that. Until they are an institute of consecrated life, they do not change the status of their members even if they make vows. I always call professed members of secular institutes “consecrated lay persons” because they are lay, and truly consecrated. Societies and associations do not consecrate and can’t and people can’t self consecrate in the strict sense. They can dedicate their lives to Christ but they don’t receive a true and proper consecration. This is not denigrating societies or associations, it’s just a fact. It’s also a choice for members: do you feel called to a way of life that involves some kind of promises or vows, bands you together with some kind of common charism, but ultimately you remain a lay person or a cleric and do not receive a consecration? We can’t lie about status. Either you’re consecrated or you’re not. Self consecration is a misnomer in the Catholic Church. That’s why the Regnum Christi 3gf got into such hot water canonically is that they had practically no canonical protections because they thought their status was somehow more special than that of a group of women privately promised and who possessed no real consecration of the soul.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

The men who got married and ignored the vocation to priesthood now have the vocation of marriage whereas single people who are not religious do not have any vocation.

Singleness is the default state we are born in.

The one question I have is that are people who neither consecrated religious or married, living in sin?

Not Church teaching! What are you talking about? Some people are in fact called to be single.

 

[SerraSemper]

Not Church teaching! What are you talking about? Some people are in fact called to be single.

Well, it is simplistic to think that men who get married have rejected a personal call to the priesthood. I would bet that more men reject a personal call to religious life or to secular institutes or other form of consecrated life than they do to the priesthood because somehow they look down on consecrated life as priesthood lite or second rate not realizing religious are in a higher state charismatically than non-religious priests.

As for people being called to be single, I very much doubt it. We are all called by baptism to holiness. Some people remain in the single state because they are simply not called to a specific vocation in the Church. Some people deliberately remain single for the sake of the Kingdom but as part of the lay faithful like St. Kateri Tekakwitha.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Well, it is simplistic to think that men who get married have rejected a personal call to the priesthood. I would bet that more men reject a personal call to religious life or to secular institutes or other form of consecrated life than they do to the priesthood because somehow they look down on consecrated life as priesthood lite or second rate not realizing religious are in a higher state charismatically than non-religious priests.

As for people being called to be single, I very much doubt it. We are all called by baptism to holiness. Some people remain in the single state because they are simply not called to a specific vocation in the Church. Some people deliberately remain single for the sake of the Kingdom but as part of the lay faithful like St. Kateri Tekakwitha.

I am speaking more of his comment of “Are single people living in sin?” implying that to remain single is to live in sin. Your mention of St. Kateri Tekakwitha proves that isn’t so. Called to be single vs. not called to a vocation is too legalistic for my tastes.

 

[MPSchneiderLC]

Technically they’re not consecrated single people either. That’s why societies of apostolic life “imitate” institutes of consecrated life and associations of the faithful are just that. Until they are an institute of consecrated life, they do not change the status of their members even if they make vows. I always call professed members of secular institutes “consecrated lay persons” because they are lay, and truly consecrated. Societies and associations do not consecrate and can’t and people can’t self consecrate in the strict sense. They can dedicate their lives to Christ but they don’t receive a true and proper consecration. This is not denigrating societies or associations, it’s just a fact. It’s also a choice for members: do you feel called to a way of life that involves some kind of promises or vows, bands you together with some kind of common charism, but ultimately you remain a lay person or a cleric and do not receive a consecration? We can’t lie about status. Either you’re consecrated or you’re not. Self consecration is a misnomer in the Catholic Church. That’s why the Regnum Christi 3gf got into such hot water canonically is that they had practically no canonical protections because they thought their status was somehow more special than that of a group of women privately promised and who possessed no real consecration of the soul.

The consecrated women in Regnum Christi resolved their canonical issue and are a public association of the faithful. They were not told in their revision that their consecration was invalid (the issue they had there was they did their consecration before adequate time for discernment. Actually, the canonists helped them change what they called promises of poverty, chastity and obedience to be vows (albeit not PUBLIC vows in the full sense of the word or they’d be religious).

I know members of other associations and institutes who refer to consecration and / or vows of chastity to God. (for example, Madonna House) If you make vow of chastity to God, you’re consecrated to God. You do not change your canonical status by said consecration; neither does a consecrated virgin as their are only 3 canonical states: religious, cleric and lay.

 

[SerraSemper]

The consecrated women in Regnum Christi resolved their canonical issue and are a public association of the faithful. They were not told in their revision that their consecration was invalid (the issue they had there was they did their consecration before adequate time for discernment. Actually, the canonists helped them change what they called promises of poverty, chastity and obedience to be vows (albeit not PUBLIC vows in the full sense of the word or they’d be religious).

I know members of other associations and institutes who refer to consecration and / or vows of chastity to God. (for example, Madonna House) If you make vow of chastity to God, you’re consecrated to God. You do not change your canonical status by said consecration; neither does a consecrated virgin as their are only 3 canonical states: religious, cleric and lay.

With due respect, you are incorrect on several accounts.

First, no public association of the faithful changes the canonical standing of its members in terms of consecration. Nor spiritual for that matter. In other words, just because Regnum Christi is a public association doesn’t make its promises public nor does it make its members consecrated. Regnum Christi members who are 3gf or so-called “consecrated” are really in the exact same canonical situation as members of the Legion of Mary or the Association of the Sacred Heart where people make a “consecration” to the Sacred Heart. This is a personal self-dedication that has no standing in law. There is no authentic consecration in the sense of a person being made sacred as in the case of the consecrated state. This is why erection into an Institute of Consecrated Life (as opposed to mere association of the faithful) is a big deal and which Regnum Christi is NOT. To pretend that the effects of private promises is the same as vows or sacred bonds in an institute of consecrated life is abhorrent because it is like saying the priesthood of the faithful is the same as the priesthood of the ordained if one makes promises in a “priestly” band. Only ordination has that effect and no membership in a public association would change that.

Second, you are incorrect in saying that consecrated virgins are not in a public state of consecration and are equal to Regnum Christi members. Those who belong to the consecrated state are: Religious (or formally: members of Religious Institutes), Consecrated Virgins (who have been consecrated by the Bishop using the Rite in the Roman Pontifical), and Diocesan Hermits (whose profession has been received by the Bishop). Equal to these forms of consecration are vowed members of secular institutes and those organizations approved under canon 605. And no, Regnum Christi does not belong to a new form of Consecrated Life under canon 605 because the decree of erection would clearly state this new form and have to be approved by the Vatican as such. Regnum Christi is simply a public association of the faithful erected under the provisions of the canons that apply to all pious groups and is a group that desires to achieve canonical status as an institute of consecrated life but isn’t there yet and possibly never will. In short, Regnum Christi continue to be lay, privately dedicated, but certainly not consecrated except by the consecrations of baptism and confirmation. They can pretend all they like to be an Institute of Consecrated Life and pretend to be recognized as sacred persons who are consecrated by God but they do not enjoy this status in the eyes of God or the Church. But religious, diocesan hermits, sacred virgins, and consecrated lay members of secular institutes do have this grace of consecration and should never be confused with those who don’t.

This isn’t to say that there isn’t merit to making private vows because there is, but one must always respect that consecrated life is a Divine institution and is regulated by the Church. The norms are very clear as to who is consecrated and who is NOT. To mislead trusting people that Regnum Christi folks are consecrated is one of the abuses that needed to be corrected in the reforms launched by Pope Benedict. A private promise or vow does not a consecrated person make. Look it up.

 

[MPSchneiderLC]

Second, you are incorrect in saying that consecrated virgins are not in a public state of consecration and are equal to Regnum Christi members. Those who belong to the consecrated state are: Religious (or formally: members of Religious Institutes), Consecrated Virgins (who have been consecrated by the Bishop using the Rite in the Roman Pontifical), and Diocesan Hermits (whose profession has been received by the Bishop). Equal to these forms of consecration are vowed members of secular institutes and those organizations approved under canon 605.

This is something we should ask an expert in Canon law since as far as I understood from my canon law professor was that diocesan virgins retained their lay state. I notice 604.2 talks about proper state but at least to me is not 100% clear. I’ve spent 15 minutes trying to find a commentary online for this number to no avail.

Anyways, my point was: one can be consecrated outside of religious life in 2 ways: as a diocesan virgin hermit and as a member of a society of apostolic life or association of the faithful. (The first may change your state but the second does not. Nonetheless, when the Church recognizes the norms / statues of such groups, it gives approval to them living a specific vocation that is consecrated to the Lord; when it approves norms that say they make vows to said association it is saying that said vocation is a legitimate consecration to Jesus. Simplified: the Church accepts consecrated vocations that do not include a change of state.)

I do know about the “Consecrated Women of Regnum Christi” and canon law:

1. The name was by some of the Church’s top experts on consecrated in canon law so the term “consecrated” must be valid.
2. I asked a priest who did his doctorate on distinguishing public and private vows about their vows (actually I asked a consecrated woman, she was stumped but this priest was in the audience) as I thought they should just be called promises and he said calling them vows was proper but not public vows (which change your state).

 

[SerraSemper]

This is something we should ask an expert in Canon law since as far as I understood from my canon law professor was that diocesan virgins retained their lay state. I notice 604.2 talks about proper state but at least to me is not 100% clear. I’ve spent 15 minutes trying to find a commentary online for this number to no avail.

Anyways, my point was: one can be consecrated outside of religious life in 2 ways: as a diocesan virgin hermit and as a member of a society of apostolic life or association of the faithful. (The first may change your state but the second does not. Nonetheless, when the Church recognizes the norms / statues of such groups, it gives approval to them living a specific vocation that is consecrated to the Lord; when it approves norms that say they make vows to said association it is saying that said vocation is a legitimate consecration to Jesus. Simplified: the Church accepts consecrated vocations that do not include a change of state.)

I do know about the “Consecrated Women of Regnum Christi” and canon law:

1. The name was by some of the Church’s top experts on consecrated in canon law so the term “consecrated” must be valid.
2. I asked a priest who did his doctorate on distinguishing public and private vows about their vows (actually I asked a consecrated woman, she was stumped but this priest was in the audience) as I thought they should just be called promises and he said calling them vows was proper but not public vows (which change your state).

I happen to be a sacred virgin (canon 604) canon lawyer writing my dissertation on diocesan hermits (canon 603). Again, I repeat. NO association of the faithful elevates its members to the consecrated state. ONLY Institutes of Consecrated Life (and for clarification they are Religious Institutes and Secular Institutes) are classic institutional forms of consecrated life in the sense that its members have a true consecration. I was classmates in Rome with a woman in an emerging new form of consecrated life that is in the process of being approved by Rome under canon 605. Societies of Apostolic Life and Associations of the Faithful do NOT enjoy the benefits of a true consecration nor are they in the consecrated state. This is not a bad thing because the Church allows for all kinds of groups with pious purposes to be formed. Oh, and canon 604.2 was written to prevent bishops from forbidding consecrated virgins from exercising their rights of association and forming groups for mutual support.

My specialization is in consecrated life and law and I did do the 2 year course at the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life for formators in the theology and law of consecrated life. I would hope I have some knowledge on these issues.

 

[MPSchneiderLC]

I happen to be a sacred virgin (canon 604) canon lawyer writing my dissertation on diocesan hermits (canon 603). Again, I repeat. NO association of the faithful elevates its members to the consecrated state. ONLY Institutes of Consecrated Life (and for clarification they are Religious Institutes and Secular Institutes) are classic institutional forms of consecrated life in the sense that its members have a true consecration. I was classmates in Rome with a woman in an emerging new form of consecrated life that is in the process of being approved by Rome under canon 605. Societies of Apostolic Life and Associations of the Faithful do NOT enjoy the benefits of a true consecration nor are they in the consecrated state. This is not a bad thing because the Church allows for all kinds of groups with pious purposes to be formed. Oh, and canon 604.2 was written to prevent bishops from forbidding consecrated virgins from exercising their rights of association and forming groups for mutual support.

My specialization is in consecrated life and law and I did do the 2 year course at the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life for formators in the theology and law of consecrated life. I would hope I have some knowledge on these issues.

OK, I was basing my thought that consecrated virgins don’t change states on my memory of the basic canon law class from seminary. I’ll trust you in stating that this consecration changes their state.

I presume from your comment that you agree that although those who become members of societies of apostolic life or associations of the faithful do not change to the consecrated state; the members of some are consecrated to the Lord. Although do not change their state, they can refer to themselves or be referred to as “consecrated.” For example, Card. Velasio de Paolis who has written a 700 page commentary called “La vita consecrata nella Chiesa” (Consecrated life in the Church - which I read about 50 pages on a few themes I was interested in) accepted that name at least for the members of Regnum Christi who make private vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. I’ve heard others who remain in the lay state refer to their vocation as “consecrated” as well. For another example of those who are in the lay state but refer to their “consecration” to Jesus, there’s the Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Church in Washington State (their “who we are” section refers repetitively to a consecration but the history notes they have been erected as a public association of the faithful).

 

[SerraSemper]

OK, I was basing my thought that consecrated virgins don’t change states on my memory of the basic canon law class from seminary. I’ll trust you in stating that this consecration changes their state.

I presume from your comment that you agree that although those who become members of societies of apostolic life or associations of the faithful do not change to the consecrated state; the members of some are consecrated to the Lord. Although do not change their state, they can refer to themselves or be referred to as “consecrated.” For example, Card. Velasio de Paolis who has written a 700 page commentary called “La vita consecrata nella Chiesa” (Consecrated life in the Church - which I read about 50 pages on a few themes I was interested in) accepted that name at least for the members of Regnum Christi who make private vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. I’ve heard others who remain in the lay state refer to their vocation as “consecrated” as well. For another example of those who are in the lay state but refer to their “consecration” to Jesus, there’s the Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Church in Washington State (their “who we are” section refers repetitively to a consecration but the history notes they have been erected as a public association of the faithful).

Actually, I don’t agree that SOME members of societies of apostolic life or associations of the faithful are consecrated, unless by “consecrated” you mean “self-dedication” which is basically on par with the self-dedication of those who make the “consecration” to Mary or the “consecration to the Sacred Heart”. Associations of the Faithful are groups of the faithful bound together by some common purpose. Unless and until they become an “institute of consecrated life” thereby switching from being under the canons 298 - 329 to canons pertaining to consecrated life, canons 573-730, they DO NOT make their members consecrated.

The only sense in which members of an association of the faithful can be considered consecrated is if people like consecrated virgins put together an association of the faithful as kind of a “professional organization”. The USACV, I believe, is pursuing status as a public association of the faithful, and membership is open to consecrated virgins. Membership in the association is NOT what makes them consecrated, they are consecrated prior to joining and joining is simply for purposes of fellowship.

Just because a group wears a habit and makes vows does not make them consecrated, much less so can a group of women in Regnum Christi be consecrated. Did you know that until the last couple of years, the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist in Ann Arbor were just a public association of the faithful, and because of that their vows were private? They were not truly consecrated women until their organization was elevated into an institute of consecrated life by their diocesan bishop. This is why it pays to know what canonical status an organization enjoys because a consecration and rights and obligations depend on it.

 

[MPSchneiderLC]

Actually, I don’t agree that SOME members of societies of apostolic life or associations of the faithful are consecrated, unless by “consecrated” you mean “self-dedication” which is basically on par with the self-dedication of those who make the “consecration” to Mary or the “consecration to the Sacred Heart”. Associations of the Faithful are groups of the faithful bound together by some common purpose. Unless and until they become an “institute of consecrated life” thereby switching from being under the canons 298 - 329 to canons pertaining to consecrated life, canons 573-730, they DO NOT make their members consecrated.

The only sense in which members of an association of the faithful can be considered consecrated is if people like consecrated virgins put together an association of the faithful as kind of a “professional organization”. The USACV, I believe, is pursuing status as a public association of the faithful, and membership is open to consecrated virgins. Membership in the association is NOT what makes them consecrated, they are consecrated prior to joining and joining is simply for purposes of fellowship.

Just because a group wears a habit and makes vows does not make them consecrated, much less so can a group of women in Regnum Christi be consecrated. Did you know that until the last couple of years, the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist in Ann Arbor were just a public association of the faithful, and because of that their vows were private? They were not truly consecrated women until their organization was elevated into an institute of consecrated life by their diocesan bishop. This is why it pays to know what canonical status an organization enjoys because a consecration and rights and obligations depend on it.

I agree that they are not “consecrated” in a strict canon law status but I think it goes beyond things like a consecration to the Sacred Heart a whole school might do together. the problem is that in the strict sense of Canon law, they are not YET distinguished from the latter, there is obviously some clear difference.

• They refer to themselves as consecrated or as Sr/Br X
• The Church refers to those groups as a specific vocation
• The Church has asked them to a period of discernment similar to those set out for institutes of consecrated life (this was an issue the RC consecrated recently resolved)
• The association of the faithful / society of apostolic life needs to take responsibility for sick and old members (as a religious community would)
• Societies of apostolic life can incardinate priests (and the Eastern Catholic equivalent of associations of the faithful can also incardinate priests)
• I remember that Card. Velasio de Paolis referred to this in Vita Consecrata nella Chiesa but I don’t have a copy where I am

These groups indicate a type of consecration in the Church but not to the Church.

 

[OurLadysServant]

Didn’t want to start a new thread, so I’ll ask here:

What are the main differences between a parish priest and a priest who is part of a religious society (Jesuits, for example)? Would the Jesuit priest be able to say mass every week? I like the idea of saying mass and really having an effect on normal people’s lives, but I don’t think I could stay at one parish for years and years. Would a society be the best option for me?

Also, I’ve felt a very strong attraction to the Franciscan friars. I realize that most friars are not priests, but what would be the process for becoming a friar as well as a priest? Thank you!

Both diocesan parish priests and religious order priests generally go to the same seminary (college) to train to be priests. The diocesan seminarians stay at the seminary in the evenings but the religious order seminarians go back to their religious order. Religous priests live together in a community, they take a vow of poverty -they cannot own individual possessions, and a vow of obedience to their superior which includes daily chores which could be hoovering, washing the dishes, washing clothes, -they pray the liturgy of the hours together in some religious orders and depending on the order have different ministries eg: hospital chaplain, parish priest, teacher in college, retreats, etc… But in a religious order the superior chooses their ministry, and generally every few years they are moved to a different community and ministry or even a different country. A parish priest does not take a vow of poverty, and only has to be obedient to his bishop regarding ministry , works in a parish and gets moved to a new parish every few years.

Both types of priest have to say mass every day (it’s a vow of being a priest. And they vow to say the liturgy of the hours also).

I’m discerning priesthood also!

 

[SerraSemper]

I agree that they are not “consecrated” in a strict canon law status but I think it goes beyond things like a consecration to the Sacred Heart a whole school might do together. the problem is that in the strict sense of Canon law, they are not YET distinguished from the latter, there is obviously some clear difference.

• They refer to themselves as consecrated or as Sr/Br X
• The Church refers to those groups as a specific vocation
• The Church has asked them to a period of discernment similar to those set out for institutes of consecrated life (this was an issue the RC consecrated recently resolved)
• The association of the faithful / society of apostolic life needs to take responsibility for sick and old members (as a religious community would)
• Societies of apostolic life can incardinate priests (and the Eastern Catholic equivalent of associations of the faithful can also incardinate priests)
• I remember that Card. Velasio de Paolis referred to this in Vita Consecrata nella Chiesa but I don’t have a copy where I am

These groups indicate a type of consecration in the Church but not to the Church.

Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of how canon law comes about. Canon law always follows theology and therefore it is improper to cite “canon law status” as if it is in contradiction to sound theology. In canon law class we had the example of a baptism of an infant performed with coca cola in the desert. Was this valid or invalid? As a baptism it is invalid because the things needed to bring about baptism were missing. This baptism could have been done in the heart of the desert inside a historic monument with all the vestments, incense, prayers, etc., but was lacking was water. Plain, simple drinking water. The infant is not old enough to have baptism by desire. Consequently, no baptism has occurred. You could say that this is just legalizing the situation but the theology came before the law and the law merely clarifies what the Church requires for a valid external baptism to take place. A sacrament always has elements that are essential to its existence.

Likewise sacramentals always have elements necessary for their existence, especially the consecration of persons. Societies of Apostolic Life and Associations of the Faithful and private promises/vows by their very nature do not give their vowed individualsthe essential elements necessary for a true and proper consecration. This is not up for debate, as if Regnum Christi promises are somehow a special exception. Regnum Christi promises could be made in the middle of St. Peter’s Basilica with the Pope listening in, and they would still remain basic lay women with private promises who are not consecrated. All the external trappings in the world - calling onself consecrated or brother/sister do not make a person consecrated. If saying one is a “brother” or a “sister” automatically made one consecrated, are we to consider members of the Legion of Mary (or even the Mormons or Amish) consecrated persons? Do you consider them consecrated persons? If not, what is your criteria? More importantly, what is the Church’s criteria? Do you know what the theological elements are that make for a true consecration of persons by God? Do you know why the canons on consecrated life were written the way they were? Do you know the theological effects of consecration “by” God as opposed to “to” God?