- Status
M
malphono
Guest
Even for an institute of Pontifical Right, I seem to think the approval is necessary.
As far as I recall, it’s a one-time consent. A bishop )or his successor) may not revoke that consent unilaterally.
J
JReducation
Guest
The ministry of a society, congregation, religious order, secular order, third order or secular institute is dependent on the vision and mission given to it by the founder. Some founders had no intention of ever having a public ministry. The purpose of the instiute, regardless of the kind of institute, is the sanctification of its members. The ministry the means through which an institute sanctifies its members. This ministry can be a public ministry or it can be another as living a life of prayer or living in community.
For example, enclosed communities are societies whose ministry is to pray with the Church and for the Church. Technically, it’s not a public ministry, because the members do not go outside of the religious house.
Another model is that of St. Francis of Assisi. The Franciscan men were founded to grow in holiness through a life of: obedience, prayer, poverty and brotherhood. Observe that there is no mention of service outside of the community. The Franciscan Order does not have a public ministry. Therefore, the brothers (friars) can be brothers outside of the hosue or within the house without ever leaving it. Their primary function in life is to be brothers to each other. They extend this brotherhood to others at the discretion of the superior and according to the wishes of the brothers in the house. An entire house may elect to remain isolated from the rest of the world. However, the fac that they are present in a neighborhood is a ministry. Their presence sanctifies them and their neighbors. Grace flows through their presence, even if all they do is live next door to you. How you use that grace is another story.
As you can see, institutes, be they societies, orders, congregations or other need not have an external ministry or even a defined ministry. By virtue of the way they live, they are serving the Church. Because we believe in the Communion of Saints, the grace that is earned by one member of the body benefits the whole body. Keeping this in mind, St. Francis and other founders never assigned their communities a ministry and some went as far as deliniating what they could never do. For example, there are societies that were founded for priests. However, those priests may never serve in parishes. They do other things: teach, counsel, preach, retreats, pray, manual labor. One that comes to mind is the Carthusian foundation. A Cathusian priest may never say mass where a layman will see him. He does not celebrate any other sacrament. There is usually one priest assigned to attend to the needs of the lay brothers and guests. He is limited to what sacraments he may celebrate. The other priests spend their day in prayer and manual labor. You will never see them. They are a clerical institute (institute for priests) that may never do priestly ministry. They exist to sanctify the Church by sacrificing their lives.
Those societies that do not have an external ministry do the same thing. They sanctify their members and share their holiness with the rest of us, because we are all part of the same body.
I hope that helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
A House of Studies has no public ministry.
A priory has no public ministry, it is just a place where our friars live who go out to work at (possiblly) public ministries.
There are many internal ministries.
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe that you and Brother may be talking about different things. A religious community has to request permission to enter a diocese, even if they do not intend to serve the diocese, which is what the canon is speaking about.
Religious do not need the bishop’s permission to assign men or women to that house, once the house is erected. They can assign anyone and the bishop cannot interfere.
This is often a point of contention between the laity and religious orders and between the laity and religious congregations. Lay people assume that if the Jesuits mess up, the bishop can take charge and fix the problem. Not so. He has no authority. He is the Ordinary for the secular clergy and the laity, only. The Jesuit, Franciscan, Carmelite, etc superior is the Ordinary for the religious. Lay people and secular clerics are bound to obey a bishop, not religious may or may not be bound to obey, depending of their founder.
In this context, since the FSSP is secular, they have certain duties to the local bishop that the Carmelites, Jesuits, Christian Brothers, Sisters of St. Joseph, etc would not have. These men and women constitute a separate group known as consecrated people. The priests of the FSSP, SSPX, Maryknoll, Missionhurst, Opus Dei, Secular Franciscans, Secular Carmelites, Secular Dominicans are not consecrated people. Therefore, they are not exempt from obedience to the local bishop, unless the exemption is granted by the Holy See. It is not granted to them by law.
That is why a bishop can demand that they comply with canon law, moral teachings and so forth. The bishop has that authority, which he does not have over the Dominicans, for example.
To the best of my knowledge there are very few Societies of Apostolic Life that have been granted the same exemption as religious: Maryknoll, Missionhurst, Vincentians, and Opus Dei. Their relationship with the local bishop is like that of the religious, even though they are not religious. That is why, to the lay person in the pew, they look like religious, because they have greater autonomy and their superiors have greater authority.
No bishop can ever suppress a religious house or a secular order. It’s not a matter of not being able to do so unilaterally. It’s a matter of not being able to do it under any circumstance. He can have the entire conference of bishops behind him and he still cannot do it. Only the Holy See can suppress a religious house or a secular order in any diocese. Religious and secular orders enjoy the protection of the pope. A bishop can deny permission to enter. He cannot demand that they leave or that they remain inactive. He can fire them, if they work in one of his ministries. But he cannot fire them if they work in one of their own.
This is why it is a very dangerous move to give an association a bishop. If that association believes that their rights have been violated, that bishop can in fact create another Church. The problem is that you cannot violate the law to defend a right. This only works in civil law, not in Church law. The Pope is the supreme legislator over which no civil or ecclesial law has any jurisdiction and whose authority no civil or ecclesial law can overrule. The only thing left would be a schism, because you can’t name the pope as defendant, even in a civil case. Catholics do not acknowledge such authority on earth.
This is an side, but germaine to this issue. When people complain that Pope John Paul sat on Archbishop Lefebvre’s request, the complain has no justification in Church law. Popes do not have to respond to any request made by anyone. A pope answers out of courtessy, not duty. To avoid these conflicts, the appointment of a bishop to a society requires a lot of consideration. The consequences can be devestating.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
malphono
Guest
Maybe no, maybe yes, but I don’t think so. I was not speaking directly to the thread topic, but strictly to one particular [post=7144667]post[/post], which seemed rather clear to me. Perhaps I was mistaken as to Br David’s intent.
J
JReducation
Guest
I see what you’re saying in your last paragraph. However, it does not follow the tradition of the Church. There are many clerical communities in the Church: Dominicans, Carthusians, Carmelites, Jesuits, Salesians, just to name a few. They are totally dependent on finding a bishop to ordain their men. The principle is that Holy Orders is not a right, not even a right of society or religious order. It is a privilege. The second principle is that the man who is ordained must be called to Holy Orders by the Church, which is represented by the superior who grants the permissioin and the ordaining bishop. This leads to the third principle, if there is no ordination, then it is the will of God that the community die by attrition. Many communities, religious and associations have died such deaths, because they could not ordain. This is accepted as God speaking through the Church.
That’s why clerical societies and clerical religious communities do not worry about ordination. If they can’t ordain, they accept it as God’s will that they should no longer live. This has been the tradition of the Church since the Apostles. It’s not a matter of whether or not we believe that the Church needs this or that society or this or that religious community. It’s a matter of whether Christ believes that we need it. Christ only speaks through the canonical authorities within the Church. Anything outside of that is circumventing the voice of Christ. Bishop Lefebvre’s case was very unique. He was a bishop long before the SSPX existed. He had been given permission to take it under his wing. He was not ordained a bishop for the SSPX. He was ordained a bishop for a diocese. To ordain a bishop for the FSSP, is quite a different situation. That would be considered circumventing, unless the pope approves.
By the way, thank you for referring to them by their proper canonical title. society or association. It may sound insignificant, but it’s not. It confuses people, because the average person in the pews does not know that the two vocations are very different. Not knowing the difference, the faithful often place unreasonable expectations on those who minister to them.
I lived through one of those situations and it was horrific. We were assigned to a parish where the faithful would get angry when the brothers had to leave the confessional for community functions. They had been used to diocesan priests, who obviously do not have a community life. Then they were very upset when they were told that they could not call our priest, Father, but that they had to call the superior, Father. The superior was not a priest and the priest was to be called Brother. Because they had not been forewarned by those who were leaving the parish, the people thought that we had changed the Catholic Church on them. Those days are over, thank God. There is younger generation of parishioners, mostly teens, now. For them, this is not a problem, because they were born into this arrangement. There are some older folks, who are very sweet, but they still get confused and ask, “Why can’t I go to confession? I’ve been on this line for an hour!” Once in a while you have to explain that Brother has to go for community dinner and can’t sit there all day. Even Padre Pio had to leave the confessional for community functions. Which is funny, because people read about this holy man and great confessor, believing that this was all he did all day long. They don’t know that Padre Pio was not in a parish or that he did leave the confessional for all required community exercises. Your understanding is very much appreciated and note. It will help other posters who read this thread.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
Aramis
Guest
Many bishops are members of clerical societies or of religious orders. In matters of their order, they obey. In matters of their diocese, they make the decisions. These men seldom become superiors of their order; their work as a bishop is too much.
Further, such men are a drain on the societies and orders involved, as well. Those that have a rule of community life (that is, no member lives alone, but always as part of a community) almost always send a brother or two to live with and support the bishop-brother in his spiritual needs. This means that the order loses not just a priest-brother, but also two other brothers, to the diocese.
While such arrangements often produce very orthodox bishops, they also result in bishops who may not say no to the superior general when it comes time for ordinations within the order or society. Their vows or oaths of obedience to their order or society bind them to ordain those whom the superior has ordered to be ordained. Most superiors, however, are very careful to NOT make such orders.
Further, such men are a drain on the societies and orders involved, as well. Those that have a rule of community life (that is, no member lives alone, but always as part of a community) almost always send a brother or two to live with and support the bishop-brother in his spiritual needs. This means that the order loses not just a priest-brother, but also two other brothers, to the diocese.
While such arrangements often produce very orthodox bishops, they also result in bishops who may not say no to the superior general when it comes time for ordinations within the order or society. Their vows or oaths of obedience to their order or society bind them to ordain those whom the superior has ordered to be ordained. Most superiors, however, are very careful to NOT make such orders.
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, if a bishop belongs to a religious order, the superior may never command him to ordain. He does not have that authority over his subjects. A religious superior may do the opposite. He can forbid an ordained religious from celebrating any sacrament, except in case of emergency. He may never mandate that an ordained religious celebrate a sacrament. Even the pope cannot do that. To celebrate the sacrament under duress invalidates the sacrament. The celebrant must have the freedom to celebrate it and the intention to celebrate it. No one can impose freedom and intent. Therefore, no one an order an ordination or any sacrament.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
No, you are right, I was mistaken. I did not look to Canon Law before I commented. I thought an order could open a house anywhere with out a bishop’s consent if they were not proforming some public ministry.Maybe no, maybe yes, but I don’t think so. I was not speaking directly to the thread topic, but strictly to one particular [post=7144667]post[/post], which seemed rather clear to me. Perhaps I was mistaken as to Br David’s intent.
The canon posts shows I was clearly mistaken. Even a House of Studies or Formation needs the bishop’s approval to be opened.
- Status