Anyone familiar with both the TOR and CFR sisters?

[Julie]

Hi everyone! So, both of these communities started the same year, and both say they're trying to bring an authentic return to the original Franciscan charism. 

Immwondering how they're similar and how they're different.

Here's I sort of know, just from brief communication and thier websites:

-The TOR sisters are more rural, the CFRs are definitely urban.

- The TOR sisters have a very Charismatic flavor. I don't really know about the CFRs.

-Both take penance seriously. 

- Both take poverty seriously (duh, Franciscans!) but it seems like the CFRs have a slightly more visible poverty. (This could be wrong).

- Thier apostolates seem pretty similar, except that the TORs do campus ministry, and the CFRs have a bunch of youth groups and things.

- Time-wise, the CFRs seem to spend a little more in the apostolate than the TORs, and the TORs a little more in contemplation.

- The TORs have a threefold kind of life with the hermitages (and the work that goes along with that- altar bread and stuff), the CFRs have retreat days and things, but no hermitages.

- The CFRs seem more involved with the CFR Friars than the TORs seem to be with the TOR Friars.

- It's a little easier to find out about the TORs, with their blog and Facebook and stuff. The CFRs seem more private.

I'm wondering a) if this is accurate. b) if someone can tell me anything else they think is helpful. I'm extra interested in knowing the sirt of "vibe" of each of these beautiful communities (even like externally: how do they interact with the people around them? With the sisters' families?). Nothing can replace visiting, I know, but that's a LOT of travel. 

 

[Nunsuch]

I obviously have no problem with either of these communities. But it does bother me when communities declare that they are all about "authenticity." That they are trying to bring back, say, "authentic" Franciscanism. Because what does that say about all the other Franciscan communities out there? Are they INauthentic? Even if they are venerable in age and in full communion with the Church? I really have an issue with that kind of usage. It also suggests that if you don't do things their way, then it is somehow "less than." Can't we accept that there is more than one way to be, say, Franciscan? Or Dominican? Or whatever?

[Julie]

53 minutes ago, Nunsuch said:

I obviously have no problem with either of these communities. But it does bother me when communities declare that they are all about "authenticity." That they are trying to bring back, say, "authentic" Franciscanism. Because what does that say about all the other Franciscan communities out there? Are they INauthentic? Even if they are venerable in age and in full communion with the Church? I really have an issue with that kind of usage. It also suggests that if you don't do things their way, then it is somehow "less than." Can't we accept that there is more than one way to be, say, Franciscan? Or Dominican? Or whatever?

I think it's less - authentic vs inauthentic- and more - These are some practices that were left behind in other developments. it is a good thing that those developments happened, and they needed to choose some new practices and leave some old ones behind. But, it is not a good thing that those older practices disappear completely, because there is still some need for them in the Church. So, while some communities should remain as they are right now, some OTHER communities should kind of take up and bring back some emphases and practices and maybe certain aspects of the spirit of the original which would otherwise disappear completely. So, basically, it's better to have both. Less like a "reform" of something broken, and more like- well, there are some great Franciscan things, but when you read some early writings- like the original rule and (I don't know) all of the vignettes in the Little Flowers or something- you can see that there are even MORE great Franciscan things. We shouldn't ignore those completely. It's a good idea to have some people living out those things too, so that ALL of the great Franciscan-ish things get to exist.

[truthfinder]

It's a Franciscan tradition to create reform communities.

[Nunsuch]

Just to clarify: I have no problem with new communities emerging, with new interpretations or emphases on Fransciscanism or whatever. What does trouble me is when a group describes its understanding as more "authentic" than another that has the approbation and authorization of the Church. That was my point, and my only point. As a historian of religious life, I'm fully aware of new groups and new perspectives emerging... all the time.

[truthfinder]

39 minutes ago, Nunsuch said:

Just to clarify: I have no problem with new communities emerging, with new interpretations or emphases on Fransciscanism or whatever. What does trouble me is when a group describes its understanding as more "authentic" than another that has the approbation and authorization of the Church. That was my point, and my only point. As a historian of religious life, I'm fully aware of new groups and new perspectives emerging... all the time.

Sorry Nunsuch, I was being glib.  I am doing a history graduate degree on a particular religious community and I take your concerns.  Although, I'd have to ask then, what do we make of the Capuchins who were trying to reclaim 'authenticity' or like the other thread on Trappists and Cistercians? Do we colour them with the same brush or does hindsight allow these distinguishing titles?

[sr.christinaosf]

History certainly is interesting.

As a sister of the Third Order Regular of St. Francis, this thread peeked my interest.  I find it interesting that some communities are referred to as 'The T.O.R.s' - all of the congregations in the third order regular could be called T.O.R.s, right?  Anyway.

Just another bit of history to add to the discussion.  Our congregation of Franciscan Sisters of Dillingen is actually celebrating 775 years in May!  This makes us the oldest group of Franciscan Sisters in continuous existence.

We were started in Germany in 1241 when Count Hartmann IV of Dillingen (the town in Germany) and his son, Hartmann V, Bishop of Augsburg, donated to a 'Community of Ladies' in Dillingen a house near the parish church and with it one lot of land, a cabbage patch and a meadow” where they could live a life of work and prayer.  

“According to the intention of the founders, the Ladies should serve God, their Creator, peacefully, devoutly, and zealously for the benefit of all the faithful, giving praise and honor to the Blessed Trinity.”

I wrote a bit about this in a post this past Fall: https://ourfranciscanfiat.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/sauerkraut-days-in-north-dakota-or-dillingen-germany/ .  

History is so interesting!   

 

[katherineH]

Hi Julie! It seems like your observations are fairly accurate, from my experience with both communities.  I would add that the TORs are significantly smaller. Also the history of each community differs significantly.  The TORs are unique in that they are attached to a university: their sisters are active serving on the campus and consider it one of their main apostolates.  I remember the foundress saying that one of the main motivations for starting the community was to renew the charismatic/franciscan/contemplative dimension to Steubenville.  The CFRs obviously serve a great need in NYC but the city itself doesn't seem to be as embedded into their charism. 

[Swami Mommy]

Sr. Christina, thank you for highlighting the initials of your order.  For those of us not familiar with the shortened acronyms for the different orders, it would be very helpful if posters listed the complete name of the orders they mention, at least the first time the orders are mentioned in their post, so the rest of us can look up the communities and learn more about them.  Otherwise, we don't know which communities you are comparing and contrasting and it's frustrating!