Once Again on C 603 Vocations as Ecclesial Vocations

[[Hi Sister, when you speak of consecrated eremitical life as an ecclesial vocation, are you saying more than that the vocation is lived within the Church? Does this reflect the difference between hermits who are consecrated and those that are not?]]

Thanks for your question. Yes, I am saying that ecclesial vocations imply much more than that these are lived within the Church, though that will also be true. I have written here that such vocations belong to the Church before they belong to an individual called to live them. I have also said that such vocations are edifying to the Church; that is, they build up the Church and are a call to do that. Finally, I have noted that ecclesial vocations call for both clergy and laity to be faithful to their vocations as clergy and People of the faith. The essential meaning of an ecclesial vocation combines these dimensions. It refers to a vocation that builds the Church in a way that lets it truly be the Church God wills it to be, and that does all of this in the name (authority) of the Church.

To be called to an ecclesial vocation means that one embraces this vocation not only because the Church explicitly calls one to do so (note the public call at the beginning of the rite of perpetual profession which symbolizes the culmination of a whole process of mutual discernment by diocesan personnel, mentors working with such personnel, and the candidate herself), but because one is prepared to consciously do so "in the name of the Church". Yes, one lives one's hermit life as part of the Church (as do non-canonical hermits in the Church), but one also does so by the authority of the Church. Because of this explicit authorization, one also accepts the responsibility to "be Church", to pray as the Church is called to pray, to minister in one's solitude, to grow and mature in Christ and the power of the Spirit as is true of the Church and to do so because the Church as Body of Christ has herself called one to do so. The Church entrusts such vocations to some because she believes that only through such vocations can the Church be what God calls it to be. She recognizes that such vocations are an integral part of her own call to holiness.

While c 603, for instance, explicitly provides for flexibility in this vocation, the hermit takes on a meaningful place within a tradition of eremitical life. This does not allow the hermit to make up her life out of whole cloth. She prays as God calls her to, yes, and at the same time, she does so with forms of prayer the Church sets at the center of her life and in an ordered way that reflects the rhythm of prayer that sanctifies the whole of one's life. I believe most non-canonical hermits will do the same in their personal response to God, but not all and not necessarily. 

Unfortunately, some self-designated "hermits" do indeed make up a way of eremitical life without reference to the Church's supervision and vision of it; they embrace prayer lives essentially cut off from the liturgical life of the Church, for instance, and justify it in terms of a theologically, spiritually, psychologically, and historically naive notion of "solitude", among other things. Hermits with an ecclesial vocation cannot and do not cut themselves off from the historical Church, the ecclesia (assembly of "called ones") that exists in space and time. We cannot omit going to Mass (or receiving Communion as an extension of the community's Eucharistic liturgy) regularly, for example, nor can we neatly divide reality up in terms of the spiritual and the temporal and then reject the temporal in the name of the Spirit of God. That would be a betrayal of the Holy Spirit herself. Our Church is a sacramental reality where the spiritual and temporal presuppose and even require one another if the Church is to be what it is called and empowered by God to be, namely, a primordial sacrament where heaven and earth interpenetrate one another in a paradigmatic and yet-proleptic way. 

I believe such "hermits" are exceptions and, as I already noted, most non-canonical hermits live their lives in ways that, of course, also build up the Church even if they do not do this consciously or in the name of the Church. Canonical hermits are meant to do so consciously as part of a public vocation. When I speak of ecclesial vocations, then, I am speaking of those whom the Church herself calls forward in her public liturgy and formally commissions through profession** and consecration to 1) live and build up the life of the Church in a conscious way and 2) to do so in the name (authority) of the Church as solitary hermits under c 603, or alternately, as part of a canonical congregation or community of hermits. It is a specific responsibility given publicly by God through representatives (Bishops) of the Church to some hermits who receive and commit to undertaking this specific commission formally in their acts of profession and their embrace of God's consecration. Let me reiterate once more that it does not make canonical hermits better than non-canonical hermits, but it does say their formal and canonical responsibilities differ from those of non-canonical hermits.

** Despite common misuse of the term, profession is always a public act of the whole church that initiates one into a new state of life. There is actually no such thing as private profession. Because of the misunderstanding of this term, it has also become common to qualify profession as public or private. In this post my use of the term profession always means a public act linked to a new state of life and new canonical rights and obligations.

Ecclesial Vocations: Foundational Vocations Belonging to the Church and Allowing it to truly be Christ's own Church

[[ Hi Sister, you have been speaking about ecclesial vocations in what sounds like a special way. I see that these are vocations that belong to the church first before they belong to individuals but does it mean more than this? You write about living for the sake of the church, is this also part of what you call an ecclesial vocation?]]

Thanks for your questions. I realize I haven't really explained why ecclesial vocations differ from those that are not considered ecclesial in the proper sense of the term, and also, I never really defined the term. So yes, thanks!  Lumen Gentium said the following: [[(the profession of the evangelical counsels) indisputably belongs to the life and holiness of the church.]] and also, [[The evangelical counsels which lead to charity join their followers to the Church and its mystery in a special way.]] (#44) In Vita Consecrata, John Paul II enlarged on the first citation above, saying, [[This means that the consecrated life, present in the Church from the beginning, can never fail to be one of her essential and characteristic elements, for it expresses her very nature.]] (#29) When I speak of the vocation belonging to the Church herself before it belongs to the individual to whom it is entrusted, or that consecrated eremitical life is lived for the sake of the Church herself or (another way of saying this) that it is lived so the Church can truly be the Church she is called to be, yes, I am talking about these two points made by Luman Gentium and John Paul II, just as you also noted in your question. 

Every vocation to the consecrated state recognizes they belong as an essential (foundational and necessary) part of the holiness and life of the Church. As JPII also wrote in the same section, "The idea of a Church made up only of sacred ministers and lay people does not, therefore, conform to the intentions of her divine Founder as revealed to us by the gospels and the other writings of the New Testament." (VC# 29) Moreover, this essential part of the Church's very constitution as the Body of Christ serves both sacred ministers and laity while technically belonging to neither group (it is drawn from both). It is an eschatological sign to both regarding what it means to be more fully conformed to Christ. It reminds members of both these hierarchical groups, that following Christ is not about power or the exercise of power, nor is it about slavish subservience, but instead, it is about close union with Christ that leads to the freedom to respond maturely as Church (ecclesiola) in service to every need in both Church and world. 

You can imagine what distortions might well occur if the Church were only comprised of "sacred ministers and laity"!! Clericalism is a terrible and destructive form of this which fails both clergy and laity as it fails Christ and his Church. Vocations to consecrated life call both hierarchical groups to greater holiness and humility as servant disciples of Christ. This presence of consecrated persons in the Church serves as an immediate summons to clerics to truly be priests in the mode of Christ and to members of the laity to realize the fullness and great responsibility of their baptismal consecration. 

In other words, consecrated life in the Church is a moderating and mediating presence that helps the Church to be Christ's own Church, and not fall into the pattern of some sort of not-so-sacred fiefdom composed only of rulers (priests) and ruled (laity). Thus, we are reminded that consecrated life does not constitute a third layer of a triple-level hierarchy, but that members of this state of life are drawn from both clerics and laity while serving in an undeniable role regarding the life and holiness of the Church. Some, including myself, call this role prophetic because of the way it speaks Gospel values to both clerics and laity. It serves as a kind of leaven affecting the whole life of the Church. 

Thus too, God and the Church herself calls persons to the consecrated state. These persons enter this state through a second and special consecration that differs from baptismal consecration. John Paul II continues in Vita Consecrata, [[In the Church's tradition religious profession [now including the profession and consecration of c 603 hermits] is considered to be a special and fruitful deepening of the consecration received in Baptism, inasmuch as it is the means by which the close union with Christ already begun in Baptism develops in the gift of a fuller, more explicit and authentic configuration to him through the profession of the evangelical counsels. This further consecration, however, differs in a special way from baptismal consecration, of which it is not a necessary consequence.]]

John Paul II continues, [[In fact, all those reborn in Christ are called to live out, with the strength which is the Spirit's gift, the chastity appropriate to their state of life, obedience to God and to the Church, and a reasonable detachment from material possessions: for all are called to holiness, which consists in the perfection of love. But Baptism in itself does not include the call to celibacy or virginity, the renunciation of possessions or obedience to a superior, in the form proper to the evangelical counsels. The profession of the evangelical counsels thus presupposes a particular gift of God not given to everyone, as Jesus himself emphasizes with respect to voluntary celibacy (cf. Mt 19:10-12). This call is accompanied, moreover, by a specific gift of the Holy Spirit, so that consecrated persons can respond to their vocation and mission. For this reason, as the liturgies of the East and West testify in the rite of monastic or religious profession and in the consecration of virgins, the Church invokes the gift of the Holy Spirit upon those who have been chosen and joins their oblation to the sacrifice of Christ.]]

We can look at some more of what Vita Consecrata (and maybe Lumen Gentium) says about ecclesial vocations later, especially if these posts raise more questions, but for the purposes of this article, I want to emphasize the way vocations to the consecrated state "belong to [and serve] the Church" as Church in an essential and characteristic way. When I speak of ecclesial vocations then, I am speaking about vocations that belong to the Church and help constitute her as Church in a very direct and immediate way. God, through the Church's mediation calls these vocations forth, and entrusts the Church with their supervision and governance. (This means too that these vocations are established in law (canon law) and that those who are called to such vocations take on the appropriate rights and obligations (expressed in additional canon laws) of such vocations.) Above all, I think, vocations to the consecrated state of life are a source of hope to the whole Church that it will remain the Church Christ wills to represent him to the World.

Question on Vita Consecrata

Dom Robert Hale, OSB Cam

Dear Sister, have you read John Paul II's Vita Consecrata? I don't have it and have not read it. I figured you surely would have! Because of your post on basic vocabulary. I am thinking that the phrase "legitimate profession" is a technical term which does not merely refer to the making of vows, especially private vows. Am I  right? I am guessing here, but does it mean a profession of vows made in law or under canon law and initiating one into a new state of life? That would mean that if John Paul II said "legitimate profession" he is not referring to private vows. Also, is the following quote accurate? [[(Pope JPII makes clear we are not part of the laity by reality of our professing the three evangelical counsels, our vows, rules of life, and way of living our vocations daily, some of us for years, and considering all the historical, traditional hermits of the past many centuries)]] [See added quote included just below for the entire passage]

[[[St. John Paul II clearly differentiates in Vita Consecrata how it is that traditional privately professed hermits are definitely not part of the laity. This is by virtue of our allowed and legitimate profession of the three evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience, by our vows, our rule of life, and our having lived in all aspects of solitary hermit life: fully surrendered in sacrifice and our bodies, minds, hearts, and souls fully consecrated to Christ and His Church.]]

Yes, of course, I have read Vita Consecrata. I don't recall what JPII said of historical hermits prior to canon 603 or apart from those professed in societies or institutes of consecrated life so I will need to check that out. I sincerely doubt that he says hermits who use private vows to make their dedication of the evangelical counsels  (sans religious poverty or religious obedience) have made a legitimate profession. Moreover, I am sure he never says anything about someone not being part of the laity because he is specifically writing positively about canonical consecrated life, which draws from both clergy and laity, nothing else. However, you are correct in what you surmise; the word profession always refers to a public and, thus, an act of dedication made by canonical vows or other sacred bonds; when perpetual profession is made along with ecclesial consecration, this profession initiates one into a new state of life. If John Paul spoke of legitimate profession, he means a canonical (legal) and public act involving the one professing, a competent authority who receives the profession, and the entire church also witnessing to this exchange between God, the hermit, and the competent authority.

(After reviewing) The document speaks of hermits under forms of consecrated life and at some length only once that I could find: [Men and women hermits belonging to ancient Orders [e.g., Benedictine, Camaldolese, Carthusian, etc] or new Institutes [new canonical Societies and Congregations of consecrated life], or being directly dependent on the Bishop [c 603] bear witness to the passing nature of the present age by their inward and outward separation from the world. By fasting and penance, they show that man does not live by bread alone but by the word of God (cf Mark 4:4)   There are then references to contemplative life, much of which will apply to hermits, however, there is no way that I can see that the document suggests much less affirms that hermits with private vows are not considered laity (and therefore, lay hermits). Private vows are never explicitly mentioned with regard to hermits. JPII does speak of those who are married and make vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, but he says of these: [[However by reason of the above-mentioned principle of discernment, these forms of commitment cannot be included in the specific category of the consecrated life.]]

In another place, he says of the difference between the consecration of baptism and that of the "second consecration": [[This further consecration, however, differs in a special way from baptismal consecration, of which it is not a necessary consequence. In fact, all those reborn in Christ are called to live out, with the strength which is the Spirit's gift, the chastity appropriate to their state of life, obedience to God and to the Church, and a reasonable detachment from material possessions.. . .]] I believe this is another way of saying, one does not profess what one is already bound to do. For instance, every person is bound to chastity and to poverty as well as to obedience as appropriate to their given state. Religious obedience and religious poverty are different matters and are only embraced by public profession (vows made publicly and received by a competent authority). Public profession initiates one into a new state with new canonical rights and obligations; the People of God have the right to new expectations of such a person and there are new structures (e.g., legitimate superiors and the ministry of authority) which bind in law. Private vows do none of these things.

Thus, as you surmised, JP II uses the term profession to indicate an ecclesial action by which the Church, in the hands of a competent authority, receives the vows and mediates the Divine consecration that initiates the person into a new state of life with new legal (canonical) rights and obligations. Private vows do not constitute profession. Avowal, yes, but profession, no. I read through the entire document and read a theology of consecrated life which is as I have posted many times. Perhaps you could ask (and please cite) your source what s/he read that made his/her alternate conclusion so clear. I didn't see it. Get back to me with the info and once I review it I'll correct this post as needed. Thanks.