|What Is Dominican Priesthood?
by Thomas P. RauschWinter 199, Vol.42 No.4, pp. 323-339
|Thomas P. Rausch, S.J., is professor and chair of Theological Studies at
Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. He is a member the U.S.
Catholic/Southern Baptist Conversation and serves on the Theological
Commission and the Ecumenical Commission of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
and co-chairs the Los Angeles Catholic/Evangelical dialogue.
The church needs a priesthood more prophetic than cultic in its orientation.
HOW should priesthood in the Dominican Order be understood? Dominican
priesthood is the priesthood of an apostolic religious order and should be understood
as such. But as John O’Malley has argued in a recent article, the traditional categories
used to describe religious priesthood are inadequate and lead to a confusion harmful to
religious life. Though the confusion is deeply rooted, O’Malley sees it still present in
Second Vatican Council’s decree on priests, Presbyterorum Ordinis, a document
which assumes that all priests are presiding over local communities of the faithful and
exercising a primarily sacramental ministry, in hierarchical union with the bishops. (1)
The problem that O’Malley has singled out is that the model chosen as paradigmatic of
priesthood is that of the diocesan clergy. But priesthood in the church admits a variety
of types and forms. The priesthood of a parish priest or pastor is very different from
that of a monk or a religious priest belonging to an apostolic order. This is especially
true of the kind of priesthood St. Dominic intended for those who joined him in his
ministry and became part of his community.
The Catholic understanding of priesthood combines into one office two religious roles
which the history of religion has seen as conceptually distinct, that of priest or cult
official and that of prophet. (2) The priestly role is one of presiding over the ritual
expression of a community’s religious experience. In this way, the priest leads the
community in addressing itself to God. The prophet is the one through whom God’s
word is addressed to the community.
This conceptual distinction of roles has been useful for purposes of religious study and
description, though it may overlook a deeper coincidence in the biblical tradition on an
existential level. But in the Christian tradition, from the time of the early Christian
prophets and teachers, the cultic has been rooted in the prophetic. Those who came to
be called priests (the English word is derived from the Latin presbyter) preside at the
Eucharist because they have instructed the community through the word and exercised
a presiding role within it. In terms of Catholic theology, they have been authorized to
preach in the name of the church. Thus the church’s pastoral office cannot be reduced
to a purely cultic function.
Yet as Michael Buckley has suggested, the actual way priesthood is lived out in the
concrete life of the church has sometimes tended more toward a cultic expression of
priesthood and at other times tended more toward a prophetic expression of
In an article prepared for scholastics preparing for ordination in the Society of Jesus,
Buckley sketched the differences between a cultic and a prophetic priesthood. A cultic
priesthood is characterized by an emphasis on sacramental ministry and the liturgical
prayer of the choral office. It describes the responsibility of the ordained monk whose
life is devoted to the opus Dei, the cathedral canon who has responsibility for the
liturgical and sacramental ministry of a major church, as well as the parish pastor or
priest who presides over the liturgical and sacramental life of a local congregation.
A prophetic priesthood is a priesthood given to the ministry of the word in its fullest
sense. It is primarily kerygmatic rather than liturgical, although it does not exclude the
liturgical. Unlike priests whose ministry is focused on the leadership of stable local
communities, those exercising a prophetic priesthood must be available for mission. In
A prophetic priesthood, one which was concerned to speak out the word of
God in any way that it could be heard, assimilated, and incarnated within the
social life of human beings, a priesthood which spoke with the religious
experience of human beings and — as did the prophets of the Old Testament —
coupled this care for authentic belief with a concern for those in social misery:
the ministry of the word, the ministries of interiority, the ministry to social
For Buckley, the Society of Jesus is characterized by such a prophetic priesthood. The
Jesuits, as a clerical order, represented a new form of the ancient presbyterium; they
were a group of priests with a primarily prophetic mission.
Ignatius’ community was unique for its time, because it was established without the
obligation of the choral office. Because Ignatius wanted Jesuits to be mobile, with the
availability symbolized by the fourth vow of special obedience to the pope for mission,
certain ministries were originally excluded. In the words of the constitutions:
Because the members of the Society ought to be ready at any hour to go to
some or other parts of the world where they may be sent by the sovereign
pontiff or their own superiors, they ought not to take a curacy of souls, and
still less ought they to take charge of religious women or any other women
whatever to be their confessors regularly or to direct them. (4)
Though Jesuit spirituality was profoundly eucharistic, Ignatius did not insist that each
Jesuit celebrate daily, nor did he do so himself. But Jesuits were to attend Mass daily.
In the Jesuit tradition, until concelebration became common, a Jesuit on the day of his
last vows generally did not say Mass, but attended and received Communion from the
one receiving his vows.
This prophetic priesthood we have been considering has much in common with the
mid-twelfth century evangelical movement known as the vita apostolica. It could just
as easily describe how Dominic understood the priesthood to which he and his
companions were called. But I wonder if priesthood within the subsequent Dominican
tradition, as in other orders, has not developed in a more cultic direction.
The Second Vatican Council called the different religious communities in the church to
a renewal of their religious lives on the basis of two principles: first, “a continuous
return to the sources of all Christian life and to the original inspiration behind a given
community,” and second, “an adjustment of the community to the changed conditions
of the times.”(5) Like other religious orders, the Dominicans have made great efforts
toward carrying out the Council’s mandate.
But their effort to articulate the inspiration behind their community is complicated by
the need to move from the rather different positions of friars and nuns in the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries to a contemporary appreciation of the full participation of
each in the charism of what is now often referred to as the Dominican family.
The debate has been lively. Edward Schillebeeckx has characterized the Dominican
charism in terms of Dominic’s openness to the vita apostolica; he founded an order
able to combine the spiritual heritage of the past with an adaptation to new religious
needs. (6) According to Leonard Boyle, Honorius, III established the Dominicans in
1217 as an “Order of Preachers-in-General,” adding to the preaching mission four
years later a general mission of hearing confessions. (7) Simon Tugwell, in a seminal
study, The Way of the Preacher, identified it as the gratia praedicationis, the grace of
preaching. (8) Jeremy Miller, apparently sensing that Tugwell’s emphasis on preaching,
particularly verbal proclamation, was not sufficiently inclusive of the variety of
Dominicans, women and men, as well as their works, both artistic and intellectual,
argued for a broader approach. He outlined the Dominican “leitmotif” as veritas, first
contemplated, then communicated; he summarized the Dominican charism as a
principle of adventurousness.(9) Some have offered the suggestion that the Order
“would do better to begin thinking of a charism for friars, another for nuns, etc.”(10)
But this has been rejected by general chapters of the order. (11)
Whatever should be said about the charism of the Dominican family in the life of the
contemporary church, our focus here is much more restricted: What kind of priesthood
did Dominic envision for his companions and how is priesthood understood in his
Unlike the movement which became the Franciscan first order, the Dominican first
order was clerical from the beginning. Dominic was a priest, a cathedral canon, but a
rather untypical one. What was formative for him was his itinerant ministry with his
bishop, Diego of Osma, in their struggle against the Albigensians in southern France.
The Dominican order grew out of the group of missionaries who joined Dominic.
Influenced by the vita apostolica, they lived an itinerant life, owning only what they
could carry with them, and begging for their support, an for the sake of the
proclamation of the Gospel.
Simon Tugwell relays a story, originally told by an early Dominican preacher. When
Dominic requested that Pope Innocent III recognize his new community as an Order
of Preachers (Ordo Praedicatorum), the pope wondered to himself why this man
wanted to found an order consisting entirely of bishops. The pope was confused
because it was still assumed that bishops were the only official preachers. (12)
Whether the story is true or not, it is particularly instructive. Preaching in the
thirteenth century was not seen as the ordinary role of priests; they assisted the bishop
by carrying out a sacramental ministry in local churches, but the bishop was the official
preacher. Priests were primarily cultic ministers.
DOMINICAN PRIESTHOOD AS PROPHETIC
But Dominic, in identifying his largely clerical community as an order of preachers,
was opting for a prophetic priesthood, in the sense in which we used the term earlier.
The ministry of his followers was not to be modeled on that of the regular clergy who
had authority over local communities as well as financial claims upon them. The
priesthood he intended was something new, a specifically active or apostolic form of
clerical religious life focused on a preaching ministry. The preaching mission given his
order by Honorius III in 1217 was unprecedented, as was the general mission of
hearing confessions entrusted to the order in 1221. The preaching mission was derived
from the exempt character of the order’s priests as evangelical assistants to the bishops
and the pope, rather than from the responsibility of bishops and pastors to preach or to
see that sermons were preached in their churches.
At the same time, Dominican priestly life was to be rooted in liturgy and
contemplation. But since the traditional form of such a communal life, even for canons
was essentially monastic, there was a monastic dimension to Dominican life from the
beginning, although mitigated by Dominic’s emphasis on the priority of preaching. The
tension between a cultic and a prophetic priesthood can be seen here, in the emphasis
on a preaching ministry rooted in the contemplative, liturgical life of the community.
But the cultic was subordinated to the prophetic.
Dominic had adopted for the members of his community the apostolic life, based on
Luke 10. What was needed was clear preaching of the Gospel. Their structures and
lifestyle, including their emphasis on poverty, developed from the pragmatic task to be
done. Everything was subordinated to this. The nuns and lay brothers apparently
shared in this task by providing a material and spiritual base for the preachers. But they
too ministered the word by sharing their own interior life. Catherine of Siena is
reported to have told her confessor repeatedly that her greatest consolation was
talking about God with others. (13)
Dominican spirituality followed from the mission. Because of the community’s
apostolic orientation, regular observance was always secondary. Dominic sent his
followers far and wide, to preach and later to study. The constitutions were
understood as human law, not binding under pain of sin. Superiors could give
dispensations from traditional monastic observances, including choir, which interfered
with preaching or study. Though the order had to struggle in its early days to defend
its preaching ministry, separated from the responsibilities of pastoring local
communities, it won the right to be acknowledged as an order of preachers, just as
Dominic intended it to be.
CULTIC FACTORS IN DOMINICAN PRIESTHOOD
However, a number of factors in subsequent Dominican history had the effect of
changing this originally prophetic or kerygmatic priesthood into a more cultic one.
They include a gradual ‘monastification’ of the order, an increasing responsibility for
stable local communities, the dominance of the theology of Aquinas, and the triumph
of the private Mass. We will consider briefly each of these factors.
1. MONASTIFICATION Founded as an apostolic community, the Dominicans
combined elements of the monastic and canonical past with the new evangelical
movement of the late twelfth century. The mission of the community determined its
lifestyle and spirituality. But the process of institutionalization that the community
went through in the several generations that followed Dominic’s gave it an increasingly
Schillebeeckx, who acknowledges the formative heritage of the earlier tradition, still
speaks of the “dangerous recollection of the monastic and canonical past” (242).
Tugwell, in The Way of the Preacher, notes that the growing body of legislation
treated a Dominican house, originally known as a praedicatio or “preaching
community,” as a religious community which prepared a person for preaching through
a religious formation (82-83). But this was to return to the monastic image of the bowl
which must first be filled through contemplation, rather than the funnel which
immediately channels the grace received. Miller correctly interprets Tugwell’s book as
a caution against this monastic interpretation of the Dominican charism (244-245).
Much of this institutionalization took place during the administration of Humbert of
Romans, who became the fifth master general of the order in 1254. Humbert’s
influence in defining the order is second only to that of Dominic. Humbert also insisted
on preaching as the apostolic end of the order. His legislation helped to stabilize the
community and organize its religious life, but there was the inevitable loss of the
creative dynamism of the early days. He gave the Dominicans a liturgy that was
simplified and streamlined, well adapted for a community with a worldwide apostolic
mission, but it was still built around the choral office and so remained conventual or
monastic. Three hundred years later Ignatius went further when he established an
apostolic community without the obligation of choir. The Dominican liturgical rite,
distinct from the Roman ritual, reflected monastic usages. Maintained until after the
Second Vatican Council, it also contributed to a more cultic understanding of
2. RESPONSIBILITY FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES Not well versed in the history
of the Dominican order, I put this forward rather tentatively. Dominic intended his
community to be a highly mobile group of preachers; they were not to be tied down to
traditional ministries. Thus he “left his Order, at least at first with a definite instinct
against the official cure of souls.”(14) According to Humbert, preaching was to take
precedence over other spiritual exercises, including the Mass, confessions, the
celebration of the sacraments and the Divine Office.(15) But from the beginning the
order found itself with responsibility for local communities.
In the thirteenth century, the order resisted taking on pastoral responsibility for
religious women; the general chapter of 1228 specifically forbade it. But under
Humbert this changed; he drew up a uniform set of constitutions for convents of
women who wanted to be incorporated into the order, thus establishing the legislation
which would enable Dominican priests to serve as chaplains to Dominican nuns. (16)
Other pastoral commitments which tied Dominicans to congregations and communities
were added as well. They built and staffed large churches, especially designed for
preaching. It would be interesting to know what percentage of Dominican priests
today are involved in pastoral care of parishes. The situation today has been
compounded by the shortage of priests in the contemporary church which necessitates
the involvement of more and more religious priests in a ministry which is pre-dominantly cultic and sacramental. But this is an emergency situation which runs the
risk of endangering an order’s particular charism.
The Dominicans can no more be criticized for taking on the care for those drawn to
them by their zeal or entrusted to them by pastoral need than can the Jesuits for
becoming involved in the work of education. But both of these developments
represent commitments not intended originally by their founders. What is significant
for our interest here is that the growing responsibility for local communities, with the
sacramental ministries it entailed, meant that the originally prophetic priesthood of the
order was becoming increasingly cultic in its contours as it was lived out.
3. DOMINANCE OF THOMISM It is ironic that the man who was to become the
theologian par excellence of the “Order of Preachers” does not mention preaching in
defining priesthood. Like other medieval theologians, Thomas defined priesthood in
terms of sacramental power. Behind this concept ties the distinction between the
power of ordination and the power of jurisdiction, developed by the canon lawyers in
the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This emphasis on the “sacred power” (sacra
potestas) of the priest stressed his cultic role rather than his relation to a particular
ecclesial community: (17) According to Thomas,
the power of orders is established for the dispensation of the sacraments ….
[and] is principally ordered to consecrating the body of Christ and dispensing it
to the faithful, and to cleansing the faithful from their sins. (18)
Aquinas did not ignore the ministry of preaching; he treats it along with confession and
study in his articles on religious life in the Summa Theologiae.(19) He assumes that
preaching is the responsibility of orders like his own, although subject to the authority
of the pope and respectful of the bishop’s authority in his diocese.
But his failure to mention preaching in the context of the priesthood was to have
unfortunate consequences in the subsequent history of Roman Catholic theology. His
theology of the priesthood was confirmed by the Council of Trent and through the
subsequent manualist tradition was passed down to our own time. Those preparing for
the Catholic priesthood prior to the Second Vatican Council learned their theology
from these manuals. Unlike the Reformation traditions which focused on the pastoral
office as a preaching office (Predigtamt) or ministry (Dienst), Roman Catholic
theology continued to focus on the priesthood in terms of the sacred power the priest
possessed which enabled him to consecrate or “confect” the Eucharist. The priest was
thus a sacred person, exercising a cultic priesthood. (20)
That Thomas’ own order was negatively affected by this inadequate theology of
priesthood seems clear. The order had linked preaching with being a Dominican from
the beginning, but it did not explicitly link it to priesthood in its legislation until 1571.
(21) It would seem that the Dominican theology of preaching was better developed
than its theology of the ordained ministry.
4. THE TRIUMPH OF THE PRIVATE MASS Nowhere is the cultic concept of
priesthood more clearly seen than in the practice of celebrating mass without a
congregation. Schillebeeckx traces the origin of the private mass to the practice of the
veneration of relics in the sixth century, a practice requiring the presence of a priest
who would read the mass at the altar containing the reliquary. By the ninth century,
private masses and votive masses for particular intentions had become well established.
Besides reemphasizing the medieval theology which understood the priesthood in
terms of the power of consecration, the Council of Trent in its canons on the Mass
reaffirmed that the Mass was a propitiatory sacrifice offered for the living and the dead
(DS. 1753). Contrary to the Reformation view, the priest in Catholic theology
remained a sacred person who offered in persona Christi the church’s sacrifice, with or
without a congregation.
The Dominican Constitutions point to the conventual Mass as the center of the
community liturgy. (23) As in many communities with a monastic orientation,
Dominicans prior to the Second Vatican Council who participated in the conventual
mass would also celebrate another mass, often a private one. There is nothing uniquely
Dominican about this; for many religious priests, living in large communities, private
mass had long been the norm. One effect of this practice, certainly of long standing in
the life of the church, was to reinforce a cultic understanding of priesthood, for it was
in these quiet moments, early in the morning, that many religious priests found their
own priesthood most fully expressed.
But it is interesting to note that the absolutely private mass, without even the presence
of a server, was forbidden by church law until after the Second Vatican Council. (24)
This fact is an interesting one, seldom adverted to. It suggests that somewhere deep in
the subconsciousness of the church, the recognition that the Eucharist was the church’s
communal worship, not the private prayer of a priest, still perdured. Yet for many
religious priests today, the absolutely private mass has become the rule.
A PROPHETIC PRIESTHOOD TODAY?
It is not my intention here to attempt to suggest to Dominican priests what their
ministries should be. Many clerical religious institutes whose priesthood is conceived
prophetically are questioning today the forms which their own ministry should take.
Today there is an increasing emphasis on the ordained minister as liturgical leader of a
local community. The phenomenal growth of the of the comunidades ecclesiales de
base or base Christian communities in Latin America and elsewhere has raised the
question of ordaining the lay leaders who pastor them. (25) There is a prophetic
dimension to the ministry of these grassroots community leaders, who proclaim the
word to their communities and help them find consensus on its implications. On the
other hand, the fact that their ministry is localized within a particular community and
entails a pastoral care and liturgical/sacramental leadership not unlike that of most
parish priests means that their ministry, precisely as community leaders, has a strongly
cultic and administrative character.
There is still a need in the church for a priesthood more prophetic than cultic in its
orientation. It might be worthwhile to attempt to sketch the contours of such a
priesthood. A prophetic priesthood would be an evangelical or kerygmatic priesthood.
Structured by the requirements of preaching the word, it might involve some of the
1. MOBILITY Preaching the Gospel wherever Christ needs to be proclaimed requires
mobility. There are certain similarities in this regard between the Dominican and Jesuit
Orders at the periods of their origins because of their orientation to an apostolic life.
Dominic succeeded in realizing for the first time “a way in which the itinerant non-territorial, priestly apostolate could be institutionalized.” (26) The Formula of the
Institute for the Society of Jesus describes the Jesuit vocation as a willingness
to go without subterfuge or excuse, as far as in us lies, to whatsoever
provinces they may choose to send us — whether they are pleased to send us
among the Turks or any other infidels, even those who live in the regions called
the Indies, or any heretics whatever, or schismatics, or any of the faithful.(27)
Jerome Nadal, Ignatius’s secretary, described the Society of Jesus as most itself when
on the move, so that “the whole world becomes its house.” (28)
Today both orders have lost much of their mobility because of their commitments to
established works. Their founders did not originally intend them to be tied to places,
institutions, dioceses, or countries. Even less should they be wedded to a particular
social class or culture. A prophetic priesthood needs to be free to go where there is
2. EVANGELIZATION A priesthood structured by a commitment to the word of
God is essentially evangelical. Unfortunately the Catholic Church today has largely
given up the work of evangelization to Protestant evangelicals. In the United States
the Catholic Church has hardly begun to address the challenge of evangelization in an
affluent and secular culture. What Mary Catherine Hilkert has said about the directions
preaching the Gospel should take for Dominicans today applies equally to other
communities with a prophetic charism: “The growing strength of fundamentalism, the
political power being exerted by the new right in religion, and the vast areas of this
country which are classified as ‘unchurched’ all call for a response on the part of an
order founded specifically for the proclamation of the gospel.” (29)
Hilkert’s parallel between the United States today and France at the time of Dominic is
very much to the point. The Catholic Church both in the U.S. and in Latin America is
losing millions of Hispanics to evangelical and pentecostal churches. When challenged
about “‘proselytizing” or “sheep stealing,” evangelical representatives have responded,
with considerable truth, that these Hispanic Catholics “have been sacramentalized but
But Catholic representatives could equally well respond that these evangelical and
pentecostal churches too often offer an individualistic and privatized Christianity which
is not the full Gospel. Part of Dominic’s genius was his ability to find a place for the
evangelical movement of his day within the church. A prophetic priesthood could
serve Catholicism in a similar way today. The church needs effective evangelization,
one able to combine a faith both personal and ecclesial with a concern for justice. The
need for this among Hispanic Catholics is particularly acute.
3. SOCIAL JUSTICE The church in the late twentieth century has become
increasingly aware of the social dimensions of the Gospel and its proclamation. The
1971 Synod of Bishops stated explicitly: “Activity on behalf of justice is a constitutive
dimension of the preaching of the gospel.” (30) In the renewal of religious life which
followed the Second Vatican Council, a considerable number of religious communities
have sought to make a commitment to justice and solidarity with the poor an intrinsic
part of their mission. That commitment should also characterize a community whose
priesthood is prophetic in orientation. Furthermore, working for justice is one
particularly significant way that non-ordained members of a community can share with
the ordained in expressing in their own ministries the community’s charism for
preaching or in its prophetic priesthood.
4. THE INTELLECTUAL LIFE In spite of the fact that neither Dominic nor Ignatius
foresaw the commitment to the intellectual life which would come to characterize their
communities, both communities became involved in higher education and scholarship
even within their founders’ lifetimes. In both cases, this involvement was a direct result
of their efforts to provide a quality education for their own junior members. Dominic
sent his students to the two great universities of Europe, Paris and Bologna, and
Ignatius set up houses or “colleges” at the better universities of his day for his
scholastics. In each case, the lectures they provided soon drew other students who
sought to study in these convents or houses.
The constitutions of both orders reflect the high value their founders placed on solid
intellectual formation. Dominic provided dispensations from community observances
for the sake of study as well as preaching. Ignatius saw the development of any human
talent or gift as useful for the sake of the order’s mission. Because of this, his order
became synonymous with a lengthy intellectual formation. By the time of his death in
1556, the number of Jesuit colleges had already grown to forty-six.
A community whose priesthood is prophetic in orientation can neglect the intellectual
life only at the expense of its ministry of the word. If the Gospel is to penetrate and
illumine a complex, technological culture such as our own, it will take minds which are
not just highly trained, but insightful and cultivated. This demands an emphasis on
higher education and a commitment to the intellectual life. The alternative is a non-dialogical fundamentalism. A prophetic priesthood cannot afford to neglect the
intellectual life, even for the sake of its commitment to social justice. Particularly in
this area, anti-intellectualism can easily lead to an ideological blindness which is
destructive of genuine reconciliation.
The church’s ministerial office can admit of variations and subdivisions in its
Organization. Given the shortage of priests in the church today and the growing need
for local community leaders able to celebrate the Eucharist, the church of the future
will probably see more forms of priesthood, rather than fewer.
The religious orders, both monastic and apostolic, with their own forms of priesthood,
will continue to enrich the church with their witness and their ministries. But the
Gospel must be proclaimed and interpreted, not just in the context of parishes and
local communities, but to the church itself, to the complex cultures in which it lives,
and to those on society’s margins. Though no one can predict the future, it seems clear
that there will continue to be a need for congregations exercising a prophetic
priesthood, evangelical in orientation, free to move where needed, skilled at bringing
the word of God to bear in the full range of human endeavors. Such is the priesthood
envisioned by St. Dominic.
1. John W. O’Malley, “Priesthood, Ministry, and Religious Life: Some Historical
and Historiographical Considerations,” Theological Studies 49 (1988), 223-224.
2. Karl Rahner, “Priestly Existence,” Theological Investigations Vol. III
(Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1967), 239-262.
3. Michael J. Buckley, “Jesuit Priesthood: Its Meaning and Commitments,”
Studies in the Spirituality of Jesuits 8 (1976), 150.
4. Ignatius, Constitutions, 588; see The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus,
trans. by George E. Ganss (St. Louis: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1970), 262-263.
5. Perfectae caritatis, no 2, in Walter M. Abbott, (ed.) The Documents of
Vatican II (New York: America Press, 1966), 468.
6. Edward Schillebeeckx, “Dominican Spirituality,” in his God Among Us (New
York: Crossroad, 1983), 236-238.
7. Leonard E. Boyle, The Setting of the Summa Theologiae of Saint Thomas
(Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1982), 1.
8. Simon Tugwell, The Way of the Preacher (London: Darton, Longman &
Todd, 1979), 36.
9. Jeremy Miller, “Tugwell’s Way of the Preacher and a Proposal for Another
Way,” in Jeremy Miller and Simon Tugwell, “What Is the Dominican Charism: An
Exchange of Views,” Spirituality Today 34 (1982), 251.
10. See Leonard P. Hindsley, “Dominican Spirituality: Bowel or Funnel?”, Dominican
Ashram 3 (1984), 139.
11. Mary Catherine Hilkert, “The Dominican Charism: A Living Tradition of Grace,”
Spirituality Today 38 (1986), 158.
12. Simon Tugwell, “Introduction,” in his Early Dominicans (New York: Paulist
Press, 1982), 14.
13. Tugwell, Way of the Preacher, 23.
14. Tugwell, 17.
15. See Tugwell, Ways of Imperfection (Springfield, IL: Templegate, 1985), 140.
16. See Edward Tracy Brett, Humbert of Roman: His Life and Views of Thirteenth-Century Society (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984).
17. See Edward Schillebeeckx, The Church with a Human Face (New York:
Crossroad, 1985), 190-193.
18. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk. 4, chaps. 74, 75 (New York:
Image Books, 1957); 287,289.
19. Summa Theologiae, II-II, 188, 4, 5.
20. Cf. Thomas P. Rausch, “Priesthood Today: From Sacral to Ministerial Model,”
Irish Theological Quarterly 55 (1990), 206-214.
21. Tugwell, The Way of the Preacher, 71.
22. Edward Schillebeeckx, The Church with a Human Face, 151-161.
23. Book of Constitutions and Ordinations of the Order of Friars Preachers (Rome:
General Curia, 1984), 59. 1, p. 43.
24. Cf. Thomas P. Rausch, S.J., “Is the Private Mass Traditional?” Worship 64 (1990),
25. See Leonardo Boff, Ecclesiogenesis: the Base Communities Reinvent the Church
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1986), 63.
26. Tugwell, The Way of the Preacher, 19.
27. Ignatius, Constitutions, 4; Ganss, p. 68.
28. Cited by John O’Malley, “To Travel to Any Part of the World: Jeronimo Nadel and
the Jesuit Vocation,” Studies in the Spirituality of Jesuits 16 (1984), 7.
29. Mary Catherine Hilkert, “The Dominican Charism,” 155.
30. “Justice in the World,” Statement of the 1971 Synod of Bishops (Washington:
USCC, 1972), 34.