Diocesan versus Religious or Missionary Priests

Tweet

Do the differences between Diocesan Priests and Religious or Missionary Priests can make ones better than the other ones? Can you get a better observation, any idea, opinion aside from what I'm about to write down below? Based from what I know, the diocesan priests are Secular Priests. They can own something but they live simply! The latin word for world is saeculum, and there's the derivation of the expression secular priests, those out in the the world, ministering to God's people. While the religious or missionary priests, on the other hand, have promised the three vows of "Poverty", "Chastity" and "Obedience". They can also own something as a community, stipends are surrendered to the superior via the treasurer; and monthly, they receive allowance and they also need to live simply. I think they live more simple than the other one! What do you think? Essentially, the three cononical vows (poverty, chastity, and obedience) makes a religious different from a secular because the latter never take the three vows. But of course they do make a promise to their bishop to obey him as their spiritual leader for a particular diocese, and they also make a promise to remain celibate. While the religious priests are always under their superiors which I think a little too way harder than the other one. When they are being assigned to a far flung areas like in some villages in the provinces of Mindanao island in the Philippines where Abu Sayyaf, Abu Sabaya, Abu etcetera are there, they could be kidnapped, butchered and what not? You may want to share on this topic?