Sisters Of St. Benedict Center, Slaves Of The Immaculate Heart Of Mary

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

I would like to introduce to all of you a community that I know well, [url="http://www.sistersofstbenedictcenter.org"]The Sisters of St. Benedict Center, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary [/url]
This a diocesan religious community that has the Tridentine Mass and Vespers and Compline in Latin.

It's a small community and many of the Sisters are older but still it's a very lively community. They have a strong support of lay people and there is a real family atmosphere.

I know the community well as they taught me in school and I was a novice with them for 2 years. I left because I wanted a more contemplative community with the full Divine Office which they don't have. However, the place is very conducive to contemplative prayer and the community schedule leaves plenty of time for an individual to have more time for prayer if they wish.

If you wish to inquire ask for Sr. Cecilia who is the prioress. While not Benedictine, in the benedictine tradition they have a wonderful spirit of hospitality.

[TradMom]

This Order prints/publishes some of the prettiest and most orthodox resources I have ever seen. I believe some of their work is responsible for my eldest daughter's vocation.

I had heard that they offer retreats. My second daughter is beginning to consider the possibility of religious life. I would love for her to have to chance to visit them! Sister, do you know if they are indeed offering retreats?

Please, everybody, pray for our oldest daughter in Carmel. While she is very happy, she had terrible homesickness this Christmas. She was allowed to call home (the Prioress is very gracious) and it was very hard on all of us. When she spoke to just me, she cried and said how much she missed being home, though the Monastic life is very beautiful. The Prioress later told me this is very normal and all the nuns go through this. Thank you,
TradMom

[DameAgnes]

[quote]Please, everybody, pray for our oldest daughter in Carmel. While she is very happy, she had terrible homesickness this Christmas. She was allowed to call home (the Prioress is very gracious) and it was very hard on all of us. When she spoke to just me, she cried and said how much she missed being home, though the Monastic life is very beautiful. The Prioress later told me this is very normal and all the nuns go through this. Thank you,
TradMom[/quote]

How good that the Prioress is so very kind and understanding. I always wonder how young people who enter the cloistered life within months of Christmas deal with it. To my way of thinking that first Christmas would be incredibly tough - even though beautiful. It would probably be odd (and perhaps even a cause for concern) if a postulant did NOT have some difficulties and struggles with their first Christmas "apart." I'll keep your daughter in my prayers!
DA

[Guest Perpetualove]

Sister Mary Catharine...is this the community that was founded by Father Feeney? If it is, I was long confused about their communion (status) with Rome. What were the nuns like? You must have had a good education with them. If it's not them, do you know what community I am thinking about? Are they connected to Petersham? I am so glad to see they take "older" vocations! Thanks for the post and information.

[Guest Perpetualove]

Oops. I meant to also address TradMom. You and your family are in my prayers. I am sorry that your daughter is feeling the "pangs" of monastic life. I guess she doesn't need reminding that it is a sacrifice! The Mother Prioress sounds absolutely fantastic. I am so glad your daughter is safe and in a good place. You must be doing something right if your "second" daughter is looking! God Bless you and your family.

[brendan1104]

This is a regular house of the MICM. They're approved and in full communion with the Church.

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

[quote name='Perpetualove' post='1440376' date='Dec 31 2007, 03:33 AM']Sister Mary Catharine...is this the community that was founded by Father Feeney? If it is, I was long confused about their communion (status) with Rome. What were the nuns like? You must have had a good education with them. If it's not them, do you know what community I am thinking about? Are they connected to Petersham? I am so glad to see they take "older" vocations! Thanks for the post and information.[/quote]

Yes, this is the orginal community founded by Fr. Feeney. The community itself was never not in communion with Rome. Their status as a religious community was irregular, however, but they were always in communication with the bishop. They were "regularized" in 1988 and made a community of apostolic life in the early '90's after I left. They, along with their "sister" community which broke away during internal troubles in the '70's are in FULL communion and approved by the local bishop. Both communities enjoy his support and esteem and he is often over there. Both communities, while canonically separate work together and the problems of the past are long over with and really, even forgotten.

The Benedictines of Petersham were originally part of Fr. Feeney's community but they along with many of the brothers separated to become Benedictines in the early 70's.

I love these communities as my own family! It was simply God's will for me that I wasn't called to their way of life but to the cloister. We remain in touch and when they are in the area they stay here at the monastery or come for a visit.

They are known for a real love for Jesus and Mary, for the truths of the Faith, for the Holy Father, and for their wide-open hospitality. They have the Tridentine Mass but they also are just fine with the Novus Ordo. They really do not like to be called traditionalist. "We are Catholic and that says it all."

[Starets]

Ive met the Benedictines of Petersham. They are wonderful too

[Mary-Kathryn]

[quote name='Sr. Mary Catharine' post='1440405' date='Dec 31 2007, 08:02 AM']. "We are Catholic and that says it all."[/quote]

I love that!

[Freudentaumel]

The Saint Benedict Center now has a [mod]Link removed. --Era Might[/mod]Youtube Channel. It has two nice vocation videos.
[mod]Links removed. --Era Might[/mod](This one is a bit older and was on their site [mod]Link removed. --Era Might[/mod] too).

[Catholic777]

Wow, I consider this thread to be providential as I just found out about this group yesterday, seperate from phatmass, and am considering the affiliated Brothers as a possible vocation. And, what do you know, it was the first thread on the phatmass vocations forum!

I simply didn't know they existed before yesterday even though they seem to meet much of what I'm looking for.

You don't hear about them a lot like the other groups using the Old Rite. Perhaps it's because of the confusion resulting from the multiple groups with the same name (and even in the same town), some of approved status and others (like the ones in NH, apparently) not. And because of the confusion regarding Fr. Feeney himself and the orthodoxy of his positions (though he died reconciled to the church and was never chastised for his take on EENS but rather for non-doctrinal disciplinary matters).

But I hope their rocky history isn't a problem for them as they seem to have a lot of the infrastructure (many members, two schools, a printing press) already in place and seem devout. I didn't know there was a more active religious congregation using the old rite. I knew that several Apostolic Societies (ie, without vows/religious consecration) famously exist (FSSP, ICRSS, Good Shepard, etc) and that there are several institutes both in the US and in Europe that are more monastic...living as monks, canons regular, or mendicants. But I didn't know there was a teaching/evangelizing order.

I've emailed them, but I wonder if you can give me some preliminary information too:

1) Do they have priests, or only lay brothers? And if not, how are they chaplained? Do they hope to ever have priests, and how are/would they be educated (the diocesan seminary? etc)?

2) I see they have the old latin mass, but is the Office also the 1962 version...and how much of it do they say in common? What is a typical daily horarium like for them?

3) What are their policies on things like home-visits, phone-calls, letters, or even email? I know more strictly cloistered orders might never let you home and even screen all letters coming in and out. On the other end of the spectrum, I know of more active religious, while still perfectly devout, who even maintain blogs. Where do they fall on communications media in this regard?

If anyone could answer these questions, it would be great. And I'll also try to tell you what they say when they respond to my email.


My final question is a bit more complicated, and requires me explaining my own position on how EENS should be viewed. Feel free to answer the first three if you dont want to tackle this one:

4) How rigorist is their Feeneyite position anymore, really?

I agree that water baptism into the Church in visible communion with the Pope is the only means Revealed for salvation, is objectively required of man as necessary for salvation. But, at the same time, I recognize that God is not bound by the external requirements He places on us and so I maintain a private hope that He saves the innocent non-baptized.

Theologians have always speculated on exceptional means of salvation outside the sacraments...from baptism of blood and desire to invincible ignorance in the case of baptism, and perfect contrition in the case of not being able to have confession. I recognize and always try to remind people that this is a matter of private hope, not faith, and is unrevealed (though not forbidden) speculation. If it does happen, it is a subjective matter between the individual and God in the internal forum, and as such should not be presumed or given the same official status as the publically revealed dogma about the objective visible requirements of salvation.

I totally agree with the Feeneyites that the hierarchy's modern tone (and it goes back even to Trent) of always qualifying the public teaching on EENS with this speculation, always apologetically proclaiming "but, we can hope that by other means..." weakens the message and lead to presumption. Yes, we can privately have hope, after the fact, that God in His mercy will have extraordinarily saved someone...but we must never presume it and therefore lessen the urgency of baptizing someone in danger of death or the zeal of evangelization.

I hold that, publically, EENS and the absolute need for water baptism should be proclaimed unqualified. Without any adjunct speculation about things unrevealed (ie, niether about "limbo", nor about extraordinary means of salvation), nor even with a reminder about which positions of theological speculation are not forbidden or supported by long theological tradition. God Revealed some things and not others and that's good enough for me. When publically speaking (ie, in their official teaching capacity) they should take a practical agnosticism about what He might do beyond the means Revealed.

But I also hold that privately we can have very good hope for the innocent unbaptized based on the fact that God isn't bound by His own requirements, and on His universal salvific will. However, this is unrevealed and exceptional and extraordinary...ie, not a subject of Revelation. I agree with the Feeneyites, then, that their position is certainly not forbidden, nor ever could be. That it is an acceptable stance or interpretation to take. Such hope is a private speculation about something unrevealed, and is not obligatory. The idea that one "ought to" have hope for the unbaptized, that is to say should or must have it, was even condemned by Pius IX in one of his syllabi, I believe. It is not a matter of "ought" or "should" as it is private and unrevealed. One certainly MAY have hope. But you also certainly don't [i]have[/i] to. I personally do. But I accept the Feeneyites right not to. However, do the Feeneyites, especially those at Still River, accept the right of other people TO have that private hope? I would find it just as bad if the tables were turned and they insisted that their feelings on it were obligatory. Their position isn't forbidden, but neither is having the hope. Niether has any right to condemn the other as it is not a matter of the public forum. It is a personal, individual issue. And, on this same line, is one required to have no hope privately to be part of this community? Or would they accept a diversity of private speculation as long as one is willing to [i]publically[/i] proclaim the absolute necessity of baptism and the Church as the only Revealed means???

I also think it needs reminding that "exceptional" and "extraordinary" don't necessarily means "happens rarely" or "is uncommon". I have hope God may do it in every case of an innocent unbaptized (while, admittedly, recognizing that justice doesnt require it as man has no "right" to heaven). Extraordinary and exceptional are official, juridical terms that say nothing about how common or usual something is. For example, the priest is only the extraordinary minister of Confirmation and Confession (ie, he needs faculties for validity, not just licitity) and yet the priest is the most common minister of Confirmation in the East and of Confession in both East and West. Still, it is ordinary only for a bishop. Likewise, with exceptions to rules. They may be more common than the enforcement of the rule...I mean, look at jaywalking. But the rule is the rule and it's not for the public authorities to wink and nudge and say, "yeah, but you probably won't get caught, and even if you do, the cop will probably let it slide." Then what's the point of even having the law??! The fact is, public officials should simply proclaim "jaywalking is illegal" and we should never presume to act against that law...even if in reality people often get away with it and it is enforced on an "as-needed" basis.

Water baptism into the Catholic Church is the only Revealed means for salvation and that's all I need to know. We have our marching orders to baptize as absolutely necessary for salvation, and we should never presume otherwise in our efforts. After the fact, after someone tragically dies without baptism for example...we may have private hope. I certainly do. But that's all unrevealed speculation and so is of a distinctly different nature from the public dogma which is to be presumed in the external forum.

I also think the teaching of "infant limbo" was invented by theologians in a legalistic age to try to preserve the urgency of baptism while more softly interpretting the infallible Revealed teaching that all who die with even just Original sin on their souls go to hell. Any not cleansed through either baptism in the new covenant or membership in the people of Israel (meaning circumcision for the males) in the time of the old covenant. So, they said, "well, that must mean 'hell' in the broader sense" and so speculated on a state that is not the beatific vision but naturally happy in order to not make God seem cruel but also to maintain the urgency of baptism. And I agree that hypothetically IF someone died with even just Original Sin on their souls, they'd go to hell but probably not the hell of the damned, probably something more like the natural happiness of the theoretical "infants limbo". Certainly there was a similar "hades" state for the Old Testament saints before Christ opened heaven. However, I don't think that the idea that God does, in fact, let any personally innocent person die in Original Sin...is at all established. It's something we simply don't know, it simply isn't Revealed. Like I said, I have good hope that at least in the moment before death, God does save the innocent non-baptized by exceptional and unrevealed means. That the communal requirements of the external forum are mercifully waived for individuals in the internal forum. If we're going to be speculating on things unrevealed, I see no need to sort of legalistically maintain that God binds Himself by His own requirements.

I feel that much of the speculation on "limbo" and even "baptism of desire" and such was prying too much into things Unrevealed. God doesn't need to be bound by His own requirments to preserve the urgency of baptism. We dont need to justify infant baptism and such by saying, "we need to make sure they avoid limbo!" He may very well save the innocent unbaptized even to Heaven. But it's UNREVEALED and therefore our ignorance on the matter, our uncertainty combined with the statements He DID make...should be enough to prevent presumption and maintain the urgent tone seen in the writings of the missionaries and Saints...without having to turn to speculation on things He DIDNT talk about.

The objective rule is need to maintain the typology of the [i]communal[/i] nature of salvation, the visible People of God. The subjective leniency, I hope is applied to [u]individuals[/u]. Maintaining the distinction between the public and private forums like that I think is very important. And while the modern hierarchy certainly allows the private speculation to encroach much too much on the public teaching...I worry that Feeneyism leans too much towards having the public teaching encroach too much on private hope. Each should be kept to their own sphere, each recognized in their distinct nature.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Catholic777

[brendan1104]

Let me begin by reminding everybody that this thread is about the Sisters of St. Benedict Center, and while in Still River, a separate community from those at [mod]Link removed. --Era Might[/mod]

[b]"Do they have priests, or only lay brothers? And if not, how are they chaplained? Do they hope to ever have priests, and how are/would they be educated (the diocesan seminary? etc)"[/b]

Only lay brothers, served by a secular priest. They don't intend to have priests.

[b]"I see they have the old latin mass, but is the Office also the 1962 version...and how much of it do they say in common? What is a typical daily horarium like for them?"[/b]

I believe only the Major Hours. E-mail their vocations director at the bottom of the Brother's site.

[b]"What are their policies on things like home-visits, phone-calls, letters, or even email? I know more strictly cloistered orders might never let you home and even screen all letters coming in and out. On the other end of the spectrum, I know of more active religious, while still perfectly devout, who even maintain blogs. Where do they fall on communications media in this regard?"[/b]

I'm not sure on this. It's probably less restrictive since they're active. They make Youtube and other videos so their work with communications media is a little more advanced than others. Again ask their vocations director.

[b]"How rigorist is their Feeneyite position anymore, really?"[/b]

Probably the same as Fr. Feeney's. And if you want to call them "Feeneyites" that's probably not a very good sign! It's as if you were interested in the SSPX and asked how rigorist their "Lefebvrite" position was!

[b]"I agree that water baptism into the Church in visible communion with the Pope is the only means Revealed for salvation, is objectively required of man as necessary for salvation. But, at the same time, I recognize that God is not bound by the external requirements He places on us and so I maintain a private hope that He saves the innocent non-baptized..."[/b]

OK now we're getting into personal views, etc. This is not the place to try to prove your own view or discuss EENS. It's the Vocation Station. However - if you're not in agreement with a major part of their apostolate and charism, as if with any community, how to do you ever expect to get accepted and/or perservere?

[b]"I totally agree with the Feeneyites..."[/b]

Again your style might be a problem... for them - besides the 'heresiarch' label - it'd be equivalent to calling members of the Order of Preachers "Dominicites" or Friars Minor "Francisites."

[b]"However, do the Feeneyites, especially those at Still River, accept the right of other people TO have that private hope? I would find it just as bad if the tables were turned and they insisted that their feelings on it were obligatory."[/b]

This I'm not sure on... I think it's doubtful though. Best to check.

[b]"It is a personal, individual issue."[/b]

I see this in the light of another dogma as: "Well it's necessary to believe Mary was conceived without original sin. But I'll privately hope she wasn't, so I can feel more connected to her on a human level."

[b]"And, on this same line, is one required to have no hope privately to be part of this community? Or would they accept a diversity of private speculation as long as one is willing to [i]publically[/i] proclaim the absolute necessity of baptism and the Church as the only Revealed means???"[/b]

You'd have to ask them, but you're sounding like a superior general of a now-well-known community. When many of the religious prepared to leave, it was offered to them that they could have stayed had they signed an agreement and "shut up" about their beliefs.

[b]"And, on this same line, is one required to have no hope privately to be part of this community? Or would they accept a diversity of private speculation as long as one is willing to [i]publically[/i] proclaim the absolute necessity of baptism and the Church as the only Revealed means???"[/b]

In the words of the Liturgy: "Et in essentia, unitas"!

[b]"I also think it needs reminding that "exceptional" and "extraordinary" don't necessarily means "happens rarely" or "is uncommon....."[/b]

Again this is the Vocation Station, not the Debate Table or a place to put your opinion out there. Good luck, you're gonna need it...

[Catholic777]

[quote]When many of the religious prepared to leave, it was offered to them that they could have stayed had they signed an agreement and "shut up" about their beliefs.[/quote]

Yes, but this is not what I'm describing at all.

I was not describing this sort of disingenuous "don't ask, don't tell" wink-and-nudge indifferentism towards heresy...

I'm describing what I believe to be an essential difference in nature between public dogma and private speculation. Between God's general publicly promulgated requirements and his private dealings with individuals. I definitely unqualifiedly proclaim that water baptism into the Catholic Church is the only Revealed means for salvation, required objectively of all men. I at the same time maintain private hope that God, not being bound by His own requirements, may save the innocent non-baptized. However, being a matter of the internal forum and being unrevealed...I'd never presume that or let such presumption lesson my urgency to baptize and evangelize...nor do I think it should be speculated on in public teaching.

And I was asking if this group tolerates such nuance or if it's a simplistic "no salvation means no salvation at all ever, speaking publicly and privately, objective and subjectively, communally and individually, absolutely and relatively"...

[quote]I see this in the light of another dogma as: "Well it's necessary to believe Mary was conceived without original sin. But I'll privately hope she wasn't, so I can feel more connected to her on a human level."[/quote]

No. You can't privately hope something isn't true when God has specifically revealed it is. You know this is comparing apples and oranges.

Mary's immaculate conception was a specific event that God revealed happened. It happened. EENS discusses a general requirement. But it certainly isn't a revealed truth that in any specific case God didn't step in before death and give them grace.

There is always a difference between dogmas and what would be "dogmatic facts" if defined (but they usually arent). We know people go to hell as a general teaching of the faith, but we dont know if anyone specifically went. We know with the certainty of faith that the Church, in general, maintains valid sacraments and holy orders, but can't say with the certainty of faith that they're valid in any individual case. Likewise, I know that the Church is a requirement for salvation...but I don't know (because it isn't revealed) how God has dealt with any specific individual on this issue. All I know is that I can't presume anything beyond what he HAS revealed, and so must act, practically speaking, with baptism as the only sure means of salvation.

Similarly, it's objectively taught that, objectively, publicly, in the external forum...such and such constitutes grave matter, is a mortal sin. Like suicide for example. And publicly we must act as if we presume that. I'm a traditionalist in that sense, would deny suicides funerals and such. But in the private forum...I wouldn't withhold hope that in this case, or in most cases, some internal factor reduced culpability. It's not part of revelation that, in individual cases, that didn't happen. Because on such issues Revelation is public, is general, it doesn't touch the private individual cases which are between God and that person and really none of anyone else's business.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Catholic777

[brendan1104]

Again, I'm not going to debate any of this since this isn't the Debate Table. If you read any of the (I believe) 9 or 10 ex cathedra pronouncements re: EENS, you'd see they're not general at all!

[Catholic777]

[quote name='brendan1104' post='1470901' date='Feb 28 2008, 08:33 PM']Again, I'm not going to debate any of this since this isn't the Debate Table. If you read any of the (I believe) 9 or 10 ex cathedra pronouncements re: EENS, you'd see they're not general at all![/quote]

Well then let's move it to the debate table. How do we go about that? Start a thread?

But the ex cathedra pronouncements (such as the collection on wikipedia) ARE all general. Perhaps I should explain what I mean by "general". They never say, "Such and such a person is in hell because they were not united to the Catholic Church before his death". They all say, "One must be" or "no one" or "no person"...ie, they apply like a law to everyone generally. They are not a statement about God's dealing with leniency or not in a particular case of an individual. That's a private, unrevealed matter. Similarly, Public Revelation does not tell us that something is immoral in every particular case. It tells us that it is immoral in general. This is then to be applied to the individual cases we encounter. It is Revealed that "murder is immoral". It was not revealed that "Jeffrey Dahmer's murders will be immoral". They're to be judged as immoral because of a general prohibition against murder, not a specifically revealed condemnation of his. And it's even possible that his weren't subjectively imputed as a sin on his soul because of some sort of insanity or something. We can only hope. That's what I mean by general. Grave acts are objectively wrong, but not always subjectively. EENS is similar.

The only time the Church does do a specific teaching like that about a specific case I can think of...is in a papal Canonization. Where she says that a certain person led a good life, is in heaven, and that their life is an example of fullfilling the public requirements, in the external forum, for making it to heaven and, protected from error by the Holy Spirit, we know that they are now in heaven. As such, I'll admit the pope could never canonize someone not baptized or in communion with the Church in the "dogmatic fact" way canonizations are done now as that would contradict public revelation. But the difference between the objective and subjective, the public and the private, the law and the application of it...anyway, let's not debate here. Let's move it or not continue.