Home | Contact Us | Subscribe/Renew | Register | Search | Site Map
Q. I’m confused: What’s the difference between a monk and a friar? -- C. J., Corpus Christi, TX
A. Though the term monk is commonly used to designate all male religious, it more properly refers to a member of a community of men that leads a more or less contemplative life apart from the world, under vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, according to a formal rule. Monks tend to remain living in one place, and they chant in choir the Divine Office of daily prayer.
There are exceptions, of course. I once belonged to a parish in Missouri whose pastors were monks from a Benedictine abbey in another part of the state. The parish had originally served a German-speaking community and had been dependent on German-speaking monks for ministry.
The English word monk comes ultimately from the Greek monos, meaning “solitary” or “alone.” Some examples of monastic communities would be the Benedictines, the Cistercians and the Carthusians.
Friars (literally, “brothers”) are also male religious who live in community under a formal rule; like monks, they pray the Divine Office in choir. But they aren’t properly called “monks” because their work of preaching, going out among those in the world, soliciting alms and moving from place to place isn’t consistent with the monastic ideal.
While the vow of poverty for monks allows the community to own property corporately, originally the friars were allowed neither individual nor corporate ownership of property; they had no fixed revenues to live on and relied totally on the voluntary offerings of the faithful. This restriction (which was eventually modified) meant that begging for alms was an important part of their activity; that’s why they also came to be called mendicants (literally, “beggars”).
Some examples of friars would be the Dominicans, the Franciscans and the Augustinians.
Under the entry for “friar,” A Catholic Dictionary (ed., Donald Attwater; 3rd ed., Macmillan, 1958) provides this useful comparison:
“‘Friar’ is not synonymous with ‘monk’; they are as different as artillery from infantry; the life of a monk is normally passed within the walls of his monastery; a friar has his headquarters in a friary but his work is of the active ministry and may take him to all parts of the earth; a friar is a member of a highly organized, widespread body with a central authority to which he is professed; a monk’s allegiance is to the abbot of an autonomous individual monastery.” We should also note that clerks regular form a third class of male religious. Though they too are bodies of men in the Church bound by solemn religious vows and living in a religious community under a rule, they’re engaged primarily in the active work of priestly ministry. Unlike the monks and mendicants, they aren’t expected to pray the Daily Office in choir. The Jesuits, the Theatines and the Barnabites are three examples of clerks regular.
Q. How does a person properly dispose of old Bibles? I have a couple of soft-back (blessed) Bibles that I read at work during my lunch breaks (I’m a letter carrier with the U.S. Postal Service) and over time the Bibles have really gotten torn, dirty and grimy. I don’t want to throw them away, nor do I want to give them to someone who will do the same.
There’s a ceremony for retiring American flags that the Boy Scouts of America perform. Is there a certain procedure for “retiring” Bibles? Please advise. -- A. O., El Paso, TX
A. As far as I can determine, the Church has not mandated a procedure for disposing of old Bibles. Since the Bibles you’re talking about have been blessed, however, I’d encourage you to follow the Catholic tradition that respectfully disposes of blessed religious items by burning or burying. When you do that, you might also say a prayer thanking God for giving us the Scripture and asking Him to grant His grace to all who have used these copies of it.
Q. I recently read in a news story that the first Christian converts in what is now the United States were Native Americans evangelized by the English settlers at Jamestown. Is that correct? -- R. H., Richmond, VA
A. The news story was wrong. Long before Jamestown was settled in 1607, Catholic missionaries from Spain were spreading throughout what is now the southeastern region of the United States. They preached the Gospel, baptized native converts to the Faith and provided them with the sacraments and Christian catechesis.
Jesuits and Franciscans came to St. Augustine, Florida, the oldest continuously occupied settlement of European origin in the United States, founded in 1565. (This was 42 years before the English colonized Jamestown and 55 years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.) From there they went out to establish missions in what is now Florida, Georgia, Alabama and the Carolinas—nearly two centuries before the better-known Franciscan missions of the American southwest.
I happen to be familiar with this little-known chapter in American history because I’m the coordinator for a group called Friends of the Georgia Martyrs. This international association promotes the cause of canonization for five Spanish Franciscan missionaries who came to serve the native Guale people in what is now Georgia and gave their lives for the Faith in 1597. By that time there were numerous native converts throughout the region, and within a few decades afterward there were tens of thousands of them—in no small measure because, as Tertullian once said, “the blood of the martyrs is the seed” of the Church.
The cause for the Georgia martyrs has recently completed its initial phase (the diocesan inquiry) and is now awaiting word from Rome about whether these heroic men will be beatified. For more information click here»
Q. I’ve been reading about the prophecies of St. Malachy. The claim is that they were written by an Irish saint in the twelfth century and make predictions about every future pope up to the present. Are these genuine prophecies? -- C. S., Indianapolis, IN
A. The “Prophecies of Malachy” were alleged visions of the celebrated Irish saint Malachy O’Morgair, Archbishop of Armagh (d. 1148), received while he was in Rome in 1139 to consult with Pope Innocent II. They claim to provide what we might call predictive “mottos” for every future pope from Celestine II (reigned 1143-1144) to the last pope, “Peter the Roman.” The mottos give a clue about the men or their time period.
St. Malachy allegedly gave his manuscript to Innocent II. It was then placed in the Roman archives and forgotten for four centuries.
Most reputable historians agree that the “Prophecies of Malachy” were in fact not written by St. Malachy, nor even by one of his 12th-century contemporaries. According to Claude-François Menestrier, a respected 17th-century Jesuit scholar, the prophecies were fabricated around 1590. Their purpose was to influence a papal conclave that year by including a motto for the next pope that would clearly apply to a particular papal candidate.
The list of papal mottoes was first published five years later by a Benedictine monk, resulting in fierce debate over whether they were genuine. More than four centuries later, the fascination with them continues.
Why the skepticism among scholars? Historians offer several reasons:
So what is it about the “prophecies” that continues to fascinate so many Catholics? Perhaps the best explanation is that a handful of the later mottos actually do seem accurate.
For example, the Latin phrase for Pope Pius VII was “Aquila rapax” (“rapacious eagle”). This has often been interpreted as a reference to Napoleon Bonaparte, the ruthless French emperor who was this pope’s nemesis and whose symbol was the eagle.
The motto for Blessed Pope John XXIII, “Pastor et nauta” (“pastor and sailor”), was also on target. He was a great pastor and a former patriarch of the maritime city of Venice.
The motto for Pope John Paul II was “De Labore Solis (“sun in labor” or “sun eclipsed”). That pontiff was born during a solar eclipse.
Gloria Olivae (“glory of the olive”) would be the motto for our current pope. The olive branch is an ancient sign of peace. Joseph Ratzinger, some say, took the name Benedict XVI because he wanted to emulate the peacemaking pontiff Benedict XV, to bring the world an olive branch. A second connection: The olive is also a symbol of one branch of the Order of St. Benedict (sometimes known as the Olivetans).
The most famous prediction on the list is the last. The final pope, “Peter the Roman” (Petrus Romanus), “will feed his flock among many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people.”
These final words were not actually included in the original text published in 1595; that list concluded with Benedict’s motto. They appear for the first time in a document published in 1820. Ironically, then, the most spectacular claim of the prophecies was not even part of the original version.
More details about this document and its fascinating history will appear in an article by Matthew Bunson in an upcoming issue of The Catholic Answer. Look for it!
Q. While in Orlando, Florida, we recently visited a shrine dedicated to “Mary, Queen of the Universe.” But that seems a little creepy to me because Jesus is obviously “King of the Universe.” Wouldn’t that imply that Jesus and Mary are married? -- H. B., Seattle, WA
A. You’re assuming a regal arrangement in which the queen is the wife of the king, which is how the title is most commonly understood today. Our understanding of Mary’s queenship, however, is based on a different arrangement—the one in use during the period of ancient Israel’s monarchy. In that kingdom, it was the king’s mother who reigned as queen, not the king’s wife.
King David, the shepherd who was anointed to rule God’s people, is the forefather of the Good Shepherd, King Jesus, who rules the universe forever. His reign is an Old Testament type (or foreshadowing) of Our Lord’s eternal reign. Both David and his royal successor, his son Solomon, had multiple wives. But they did not have multiple queens. That honor was reserved for the revered woman who had given birth to the king—the Queen Mother.
The “Great Lady,” as she was called, is portrayed in the Old Testament as a pre-eminent member of the royal court who wore a crown (see Jeremiah 13:18) and headed up the list of palace officials (2 Kings 24:12–15). When the biblical books of First and Second Kings introduce a new king, they almost always mention the name of the queen mother alongside that of her royal son.
In addition, the queen took part in her son’s reign. She helped to shepherd the people (see Jeremiah 13:18–20) and was the advocate who presented their petitions to the king (1 Kings 2:17).
Listen to what the angel Gabriel said when he announced to Our Lady that she would be the mother of Our Lord: “Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son, and you shall name Him Jesus. … The Lord God will give him the throne of David his father [that is, his ancestor], and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:32–33).
When Gabriel announces Our Lord’s birth, he is also declaring that Our Lady will be the Queen Mother in Jesus’ everlasting kingdom. Because Jesus is King of the Universe (see 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:13–16; Revelation 17:14), His mother is Queen of the Universe. As in all regards, her honor and authority are derived from and dependent on His.
OSV4Me | Parish | Retail Search | Catalog | Books | Periodicals | Parish Resources | Other Resources | Offering Envelopes | About Us | Contact Us Send comments regarding this site to webmaster@osv.com Click here for our site map. Copyright © 2008, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. All rights reserved.