Can't the Holy Father Just Make Liturgical Reform Happen?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NeelyAnn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The reform of the OF missal is not an attempt to get rid of the EF. It is an attempt to correct errors in translation from Latin into English. The erros did not occur in every language. The Latin languages do not have the errors: Portugese, Spanish, Italian, Romanian and French. The errors are in the English translation. The other goal is to clarify the rules in the GIRM. Some of the rules in the GIRM are not well translated and they sound abiguous.

As to legislating reform, a lot depends what perspective you come from. For some people reform means making the Extraordinary Form the ordinary. This is not what Pope Benedict wants to do. This was very clear in Summorum Pontificum. Had he wanted to eliminate the Pauline edition of the mass or make it rare, he would not have called it the Ordinary Form.

In canonical langauge words such as ordinary and extraordinary do not have the same meaning as we find in Webster’s Dictionary. Ordinary means what is usual and customary. When the Holy Father refers to the Pauline mass as the Ordinary Form, he is referring to is as that form of the mass which is to be considered usual and customary for the Latin Rite. The Trdientine mass is to be the extraordinary, meaning that it is not to be the dominant form of the Latin Rite. Nonetheless, it is to be the other form of the Latin Rite. It is not his intention to pit one form against the other or to have Catholics do so either.

Since it is not his intent to delete the OF, he does not decree such a statement. His intent is to correct the errors and abuses so that the celebration of the OF is consistent with the faith of the Church.

I’ve only seen the proposed translations, not the proposed changes for the GIRM. My suspicion is that the changes in the GIRM are still going to allow certain flexibility according to local customs and the discretion of the local bishops and the conferences of bishops.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
thank you for the info.
i am not accusing the holy father of doing anything wrong. now and days we have to be careful on who is who and doing what. when things get to us, it is pretty distorted. no telling of what some is doing in the Church anymore. take VII for example. look what we have got from it. it is not the intention of the holy father, but what the liberals will do with it.

Blessings.
 
Funny coming from a philosophy guy, but I have no patience for all this subtlety. I know it works… heck, the Alinskyite leftists in the USA have managed to blow our own culture and morality to smithereens and nobody even heard the dynamite. You do this by making small changes over time.

But I’d much rather HH adopt a more “Texan” approach… let’s just shove it down everybody’s throats, OK? It’s not pretty but it gets results. If you don’t think so, look at Vatican II… that was shoved down everybody’s throats and it certainly got results. 😦

I think flip-flopping the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form would be a good start. And/or just require that the noon Sunday Mass be the TLM.
 
Funny coming from a philosophy guy, but I have no patience for all this subtlety. I know it works… heck, the Alinskyite leftists in the USA have managed to blow our own culture and morality to smithereens and nobody even heard the dynamite. You do this by making small changes over time.

But I’d much rather HH adopt a more “Texan” approach… let’s just shove it down everybody’s throats, OK? It’s not pretty but it gets results. If you don’t think so, look at Vatican II… that was shoved down everybody’s throats and it certainly got results. 😦

I think flip-flopping the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form would be a good start. And/or just require that the noon Sunday Mass be the TLM.
And what results did shoving it down everyone’s throat get?? Were they positive?

Look… just asking people why they love the extraordinary form starts a firestorm on THIS website, where pretty much only faithful people go to read and post.

Imagine what making massive and immediate changes to the ordinary form would do in the parishes.

NO. The people have suffered enough.

Brick by brick, piece by piece, we MUST move slowly and pastorally. The people won’t understand the priests just “turning their backs on them” over night. MUCH MUCH MUCH catechesis needs to be done, and the changes implemented slowly. Patience.

And if we lack patience, and are really suffering in the midst of the Novus Ordo, the Pope has granted us Summorum Pontificum and there are Masses available for us so that we can “get fed” as the protestants say while the Pope reforms the liturgy and helps rebuild the Catholic identity that we have so painfully lost.
 
And what results did shoving it down everyone’s throat get?? Were they positive?
Was that the methodology or the content? It’s easy to respond quickly and say “both” or whatever. But really?

Sometimes what people need is a boot to the posterior. That’s not always what they need, of course. But with all the abuses and lukewarmness, maybe now is the time to lay down the law.
 
Br Jr do you have any information about the changes to the grim? What they will be or how they will be implemented?

I did read when we say the Our Father our hands are to be at our side and not extended
 
Was that the methodology or the content? It’s easy to respond quickly and say “both” or whatever. But really?

Sometimes what people need is a boot to the posterior. That’s not always what they need, of course. But with all the abuses and lukewarmness, maybe now is the time to lay down the law.
There are two important reasons why the Apostolic See will not and cannot operate in such an authoritative manner.

First, Pope Benedict is very Franciscan and Augustinian. Both of these theological traditions are very strong on the importance of subsidiarity. Problems must be resolved at the local level, not from above. The models of pastoral care proposed by Bonaventure and Augustine are models of ministry, not authority. The true superior is to be the servant and must govern with great humility and bring others along with great love and patience. He must also bring others along with reason, not authority. Our Holy Father is very much a theological son of the Franciscan and Augustinian schools. You correct errors through example and through dialogue. Discussion and dialogue build trust and trust builds communion.

Second, how we celebrate liturgy is a matter of discipline, not a matter of dogma. The dogma is the sacrament itself. That is not the question on the table. There is no question in the mind of the Holy Father concerning the validity of the OF and the EF. What concerns the Apostolic See is that the celebration of the liturgy must be done in such a way that it reflects the theology of the Church. If the Apostolic See were to say that the EF is the only valid way to celebrate the liturgy, that would be heresy. We cannot deny the validity of the liturgy as it is celebrated by Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Therefore, we cannot single out one form of the liturgy as the only acceptable form. The repercussions within the Church, especially with the Eastern Catholics and the repercussions between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches would be catastrophic.

The Church has to protect tradition, doctrine and dogma. Therefore, it cannot make blanket statements about the liturgy that deny the validity of other forms of liturgy. That would violate tradition, doctrine and dogma. She has to proceed very gently in correcting errors, without denying the diversity that exists in liturgical traditions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Br Jr do you have any information about the changes to the grim? What they will be or how they will be implemented?

I did read when we say the Our Father our hands are to be at our side and not extended
I have not seen the draft for the revised GIRM. I have only heard rumors. I have not heard the one about the position of the arms during the Lord’s Prayer. I did see a program by Fr. Corapi who was speaking about this and other practices that have been adopted by the Charismatic movement. He was explaining that these are not bad practices, because they do not deny the reality before us and that often people condemn such practices because they do not understand them. My guess is that he knows something that I don’t about this questoin.

What I know about the GIRM is that the changes that are proposed (and I don’t know what those are) do not affect the celebration of mass in monastic houses and retreat houses. These will continue to be allowed certain practices that are not allowed in parishes, one of them being that the community stands around the altar during the Eucharistic prayer. That would only apply to those monastic houses that have that custom and retreat houses because they are not parish churches.

Currently, the GIRM says that if there is more than one priest present, they should concelebrate as a sign of the one priesthood. In other words, a priest should not sit in the congregation, unless he has celebrated the number of masses allowed by canon law. In religious houses of men, especially mendicants and monks, this rule does not apply. If among the brothers there are several priests, only one celebrates the mass and the others attend the mass. They do not celebrate mass privately. The focus is on the brotherhood of the religious community. It is up to the religious community to decide what ordained brother may celebrate mass and when. Each religious order and religious congregation has different statutes; therefore, this can vary from a Carmelite priory to a Jesuit house.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Funny coming from a philosophy guy, but I have no patience for all this subtlety. I know it works… heck, the Alinskyite leftists in the USA have managed to blow our own culture and morality to smithereens and nobody even heard the dynamite. You do this by making small changes over time.

But I’d much rather HH adopt a more “Texan” approach… let’s just shove it down everybody’s throats, OK? It’s not pretty but it gets results. If you don’t think so, look at Vatican II… that was shoved down everybody’s throats and it certainly got results. 😦

I think flip-flopping the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form would be a good start. And/or just require that the noon Sunday Mass be the TLM.
OK, let’s bring some perspective to this. Out of 117,000 parishes world wide that report, about one in 250 regularly offer the Mass in Latin (cf. Mass Times Trust). That is world wide, not the United States, or the United States and Europe.

There are nowhere the number of priests who even know the rubrics of the EF, or for that matter, even a passing grade in Latin (many of them never having taken any of it). So for starters, that is not going to happen.

Further, while there is resistance in some bishops (and in some, no resistance) to having the EF said, statistics like that imply that there simply is little real widespread interest in the EF.

That is not to say that the EF, where it is appreciated, does not have ardent followers. and it is not to say that there are not areas where the EF would be graciously and greatly welcomed, if it were to be made available. But the vast majority of people under the age of 50 have no exposure to it at all; and someone age 55 would only have (generally) had exposure from the age of birth to 5 years old.

The short of it is that the vast majority of people know so little about it that it is of no significance to them - and that includes those with opinions against it but no experience of it.

And that is world wide - not just your local diocese.

Further, reading of Benedict 16’s comments on the liturgy will show that not only does he say that the changes between the OF and the EF were not organic, but he will also say that the EF was not cast in stone, and he agrees with the decision of the Council that the EF was in need of change; change that was not made organically (implying that there is work to be done with and to both forms).
 
OK, let’s bring some perspective to this. Out of 117,000 parishes world wide that report, about one in 250 regularly offer the Mass in Latin (cf. Mass Times Trust). That is world wide, not the United States, or the United States and Europe.

There are nowhere the number of priests who even know the rubrics of the EF, or for that matter, even a passing grade in Latin (many of them never having taken any of it). So for starters, that is not going to happen.

Further, while there is resistance in some bishops (and in some, no resistance) to having the EF said, statistics like that imply that there simply is little real widespread interest in the EF.

That is not to say that the EF, where it is appreciated, does not have ardent followers. and it is not to say that there are not areas where the EF would be graciously and greatly welcomed, if it were to be made available. But the vast majority of people under the age of 50 have no exposure to it at all; and someone age 55 would only have (generally) had exposure from the age of birth to 5 years old.

The short of it is that the vast majority of people know so little about it that it is of no significance to them - and that includes those with opinions against it but no experience of it.

And that is world wide - not just your local diocese.

Further, reading of Benedict 16’s comments on the liturgy will show that not only does he say that the changes between the OF and the EF were not organic, but he will also say that the EF was not cast in stone, and he agrees with the decision of the Council that the EF was in need of change; change that was not made organically (implying that there is work to be done with and to both forms).
Very well explained.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Was that the methodology or the content? It’s easy to respond quickly and say “both” or whatever. But really?

Sometimes what people need is a boot to the posterior. That’s not always what they need, of course. But with all the abuses and lukewarmness, maybe now is the time to lay down the law.
As to methodology or content, perhaps a look at current attendance statistics might help.

One would assume that the people who had the EF prior to the OF being promulgated would be the ones most eager for it to come back.

However, as to regular Mass attendancve on Sunday, the most faithful group is the pre Vatican 2 group - the one who should be most likely to not appear at the Of if they were angry, or harboring a grudge against the OF or its introduction; and the two groups least likely to make it to Mass Sunday - 31 to 43 (22% and 18 to 30 (21% attendance) are the younger ones. Further, there are repeated comments that the younger ones are the most numerous in the EF Masses where they are available. And as to the implication that the oldest group fled “en masse”, no statistics support that as loss of attendance has been gradual.

Yes, the change was abrupt and without any real catechesis in most places. That in part was due to the fact that msot priests and bishops had little or no handle on the changes themselves (which is not to say that there were no reasons backing the changes, but that they were not widely known).

In any event, B 16 has commented a number of times about the abruptness, and he has made no showing whatever of any interest in making a massive change back. Everything is incremental and gradual.
 
What I know about the GIRM is that the changes that are proposed (and I don’t know what those are) do not affect the celebration of mass in monastic houses and retreat houses. These will continue to be allowed certain practices that are not allowed in parishes, one of them being that the community stands around the altar during the Eucharistic prayer. That would only apply to those monastic houses that have that custom and retreat houses because they are not parish churches.
Aha. That explains what the local Trappists do out here. They also concelebrate one Mass on Sunday.
 
Am I in the minority who thinks it doesn’t need to be an “all or nothing” situation? That we can have these Masses co-exist at Parishes? Such as a Parish having;
  • Latin Mass w/ Traditional Music.
  • English Mass w/ Traditional Music.
  • English Mass w/ Contempory Music.
  • Latin Mass w/ Contempory Music.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see why a Parish can’t offer those, provided it follows the GIRM and everything is approved by the Bishop.
 
Am I in the minority who thinks it doesn’t need to be an “all or nothing” situation? That we can have these Masses co-exist at Parishes? Such as a Parish having;
  • Latin Mass w/ Traditional Music.
  • English Mass w/ Traditional Music.
  • English Mass w/ Contempory Music.
  • Latin Mass w/ Contempory Music.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see why a Parish can’t offer those, provided it follows the GIRM and everything is approved by the Bishop.
“Can?”

Yes, possibly with the exception of a Latin Mass with contemporary music. Some people (if not many) would consider this to be an oxymoron.

“Will they?”

Most likely, not very many.

Latin does not seem to have much popularity, with the possible exception of those parishes (few in number) which have the Ef, and those parishes (also few in number) which have the OF in Latin. And by this, I am assuming we are speaking of the Mass being said in Latin, not having a few prayers such as the Sanctus, Creed, Agnus Dei etc in Latin and the rest of the Mass in the vernacular. and there don’t seem to be that many Masses said in English where some of the prayers are in Latin.

Certainly, it would appear from reading the documents of V2 that the bishops did not presume that we would go to an all vernacular Mass; and certainly some Latin in the vernacular Mass has been encouraged by Rome. The encouragement doesn’t seem to have much success.

Whether it is the priests in the parishes, the parishes themselves, or simple inertia there seems to be little interest in having Masses - either in the OF or the EF - in Latin. So the likelyhood of a parish providing different languages (beyond, say, Spanish and Vietnamese) for different Masses on Sunday seems to be in a scale of very low to exremely low. Yes, it can be done. No, it is highly unlikely to be done.
 
Latin does not seem to have much popularity, with the possible exception of those parishes (few in number) which have the Ef, and those parishes (also few in number) which have the OF in Latin.
You keep saying this. I do not think that it is true. Check here:
latinmassschedule.com/
and you will see that there are many places where the TLM is offered.

And I think that the numbers are growing. Certainly, in Rome the numbers are growing as well.

The TLM has endured despite numerous attempts by rogue prelates to suppress it, and when people are exposed to it they fall in love with it.

The tide is turning. Some day it will be as it was in the days of old: sacrilege will not be a daily occurence and God will be worshipped with great reverence. Obviously the liturgy is only one part of that.
 
You keep saying this. I do not think that it is true. Check here:
latinmassschedule.com/
and you will see that there are many places where the TLM is offered.

And I think that the numbers are growing. Certainly, in Rome the numbers are growing as well.

The TLM has endured despite numerous attempts by rogue prelates to suppress it, and when people are exposed to it they fall in love with it.

The tide is turning. Some day it will be as it was in the days of old: sacrilege will not be a daily occurence and God will be worshipped with great reverence. Obviously the liturgy is only one part of that.
At the risk of repeating one of my posts: according to Mass Times (which tracks Latin Masses), approximately one out of every two hundred fifty pparishes world wide which are reporting (thats out of one hundred seventeen thousand) have a Mass in Latin. That amounts to approximately four tenths of one percent of the parishes worldwide that are reporting.

.4% is not what I would call many places; I am not sure that even saying a few places is very accurate. I did a follow up on the Chicago Archdiocese, and they had 12 Latin Masses (EF). That sounds like a lot until you put it into perspective; there are something like 336 (or higher) parishes, so that comes out to 3.57% (or less). I would not call that “many” either.

Latin Mass Schedule can show what looks like a lot. That is, until you actually put it into perspective. There certainly is more than there were before SP came out; but then there were hardly any. 12 is a lot in the Chicago Archdiocese - a lot but compared to what? What was there before? If there were three before, 12 is a 300% increase. That sounds like a whole lot. Until you take a snapshot of the whole Archdiocese, that is, and find that it is a whopping 3.57% of all the parishes.

I have been accused of all sorts of things; none of them having anything to do with reality. There is a lot of enthusiasm among a very small number of people who are actually attending a Latin Mass. I do not deny the enthusiasm in the least nor wish in any way to denigrate it. But when people become enthusiastic for something, they tend to lose perspective of others, and presume that everyone else, or almost everyone else, or the majority, or a significant number will feel likewise.

The reality is that some will. I don’t question that bishops have not been enthusiastic supporters of the EF (some are; some are neutral, and some are against it). I also don’t question that a lot of priests are not enthusiastic supporters. And if you have a parish with a thousand families, and 10 or 15 people want to have the EF, the odds are not very good; to begin with the odds are that the priest is not trained in the rubrics, and relatively good odds he does not know Latin. And if he is not proactive to those who want the EF, he probably is going to ignore the issue.

Yes, people fall in love with the EF when they see it and experience it. And yes, when it is not available, they do not have that opportunity. I don’t question any of that; and yes, the EF is spreading. But the reality is that it is a minscule amount of the Masses said; that is just reality. It is not a comment for or against; it is just a reality check.

It is growing, but compared to what? It may seem fast if one lacks perspective.

I cannot speak to what goes on in your diocese; here there is not daily sacrilege. And I seriously doubt that there is dauily sacrilege in most dioceses.
 
.4% is not what I would call many places; I am not sure that even saying a few places is very accurate. I did a follow up on the Chicago Archdiocese, and they had 12 Latin Masses (EF). That sounds like a lot until you put it into perspective; there are something like 336 (or higher) parishes, so that comes out to 3.57% (or less). I would not call that “many” either.
What encourages those of us who would like to see the Latin Mass become dominant again is to recall that when Jesus started the Church there were only 12 apostles. 😉
 
I believe that we have to keep our language clear here. The Latin Mass actually refers to the mass of the Roman Rite. The EF and the OF are both forms of the Latin Mass.

Second, one may have a preference for a mass in Latin in either form. That’s another option. And one may have a preference for the EF, that’s the third option. The other option being mass in the vernacular.

That being said, I don’t believe that the Holy Father wants to get rid of the Ordinary Form as some people think. There are people who see Summorum Pontificum as the first step toward eliminating the Ordinary Form. But that’s not what Summorum Pontificum says. It says just the opposite. It calls the Ordinary Form just that, the usual and customary form of the mass. The other form is the Extraordinary. What the document did was to explain the every diocesan priest has the right to celebrate the Extraordinary Form if he can learn how to do so appropriately.

There is also a mistake made by many lay people. The Holy Father did not say that every priest could celebrate the Extraodinary Form without permission, only diocesan priests can do that. If a priest is both a priest and a religious, his religious vows take presedence and he must follow the rules set by his superior and by his religious community. He cannot celebrate the Extraordinary Form whenever he wishes. The reason is that priests who are religious cannot celebrate mass whenever they wish. Religious communities have rules that govern the celebration of the mass. In some communities where there are religious who are priests there are very strict rules that say that only one ordained member of the community can celebrate mass on a given day and that all the other ordained members are to attend the mass as brothers.

In some religious communities where there are several ordained members the rule is that they must concelebrate to preserve the unity of the religious community. Concelebration is not done in the EF.

If you can do both: celebrate the liturgy reverently and preserve the religious charism of the order, then you have a moral obligation to celebrate the OF, because it is the higher good in that situation. Even when a man is a priest, if he is a religious, he can never place the good of his religious order second to his desire to celebrate the mass in the EF, if that is a problem in his community.

The OF was a blessing to many religius communities of men, because many have more than one member who is a priest. This provided an opportunity for all the ordained to concelebrate. They were able to celebrate the mass a one body rather than having only one brother celebrate mass and the others attend.

For other communities the OF did not make a dent, because the emphasis is placed on brotherhood, not on priesthood. Therefore, only one can celebrate for everyone else. It makes no difference whethere the mass is in EF or OF, you will only have one ordained religious celebrating. Then there are religious communities that forbid the ordination of too many men. These religious communities restrict ordination to only one or two of their brothers, just to have someone who will celebrate mass for them, not for the laity at large. In these cases, it will not make a difference whether you go OF or EF.

The point then is that the OF is not going anywhere, because it meets a need in the Church. It is something that the religious orders of men had hoped would happen for a very long time. What we are going to see is a revision of the missal and maybe some revisions of the GIRM so that the celebration can meet the needs of the laity and religious.

I believe that it is important to remind many posters on these forums not to forget the many religious orders and religious congregations of men when they are wishfully posting that the OF will disappear into space. I think it’s important to remind some people that the OF does serve a need in religious orders and religious congregations of men, especially those that have many priests. Those that have few or no priests, are less affected by the form.

In my own Franciscan family, we are over 500,000 friars from different branches of the order. About 40% of these brothers are ordained. These numbers went up when concelebration was introduced. The OF provided the possibility of protecting the concept of “Religious Brother” while allowing some of these brothers to exercise priestly ministry. These numbers of ordained brothers would go down if there were no need or no use for them in the order. We would go back to the numbers that we had prior to Vatican II when we had less than 25% ordained. Why was that? Because we did not need them, since the order was not founded as an order of priests, but an order of brothers. It was kind of sad that we had to send our ordained to serve in parishes so they could exercise their priestly vocation, because there was nothing for them to do in the friary. Today, we can keep them in the friary, instead of sending them to parishes. This is important to our identity and to that of many other religious families that are not founded to be parish priests.

I would ask, that in charity, we remember those religious men who are not members of priestly societies or priestly congregations, but have a vocation tot he priesthood as well as to the religious life. The only way that they can do both is to have the OF. Otherwise, their numbers will be cut back or they will end up living and working away from their religious houses, which is something that they don’t want to do and should never be asked to do.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
And what results did shoving it down everyone’s throat get?? Were they positive?

Look… just asking people why they love the extraordinary form starts a firestorm on THIS website, where pretty much only faithful people go to read and post.

Imagine what making massive and immediate changes to the ordinary form would do in the parishes.

NO. The people have suffered enough.

Brick by brick, piece by piece, we MUST move slowly and pastorally. The people won’t understand the priests just “turning their backs on them” over night. MUCH MUCH MUCH catechesis needs to be done, and the changes implemented slowly. Patience.

And if we lack patience, and are really suffering in the midst of the Novus Ordo, the Pope has granted us Summorum Pontificum and there are Masses available for us so that we can “get fed” as the protestants say while the Pope reforms the liturgy and helps rebuild the Catholic identity that we have so painfully lost.
In other words will be all dead when the OF we are striving form takes place. Sad news!.
 
I would ask, that in charity, we remember those religious men who are not members of priestly societies or priestly congregations, but have a vocation tot he priesthood as well as to the religious life. The only way that they can do both is to have the OF. Otherwise, their numbers will be cut back or they will end up living and working away from their religious houses, which is something that they don’t want to do and should never be asked to do.
Yeah, I’ll remember that the next time I see women in pantsuits passing out the Most Sacred Body of Our Lord like coat check tokens. That will make it all better.
 
Yeah, I’ll remember that the next time I see women in pantsuits passing out the Most Sacred Body of Our Lord like coat check tokens. That will make it all better.
We shouldn’t confuse two different issues here. The one that you mention above has nothing to do with preserving religious life as it should be. The situation that you mention can be corrected without getting rid of the Ordinary Form. But if we eliminate the ordinary form, we deeply affect the religious life. There is a way that we can have both the reverence that you seek and cotinue to ordain more religious men, rather than less.

One thing that is not always made known to most people is that many religious orders suffered a great deal prior to the Ordinary Form.

We had many men who felt called to the priesthood and to the mendicant or monastic life. Once ordained, there was not much for them to do in friaries and monasteries. Many of these men were assigned to parishes in the hope that they could fulfill both callings.

While there they did good work for the parish, but they lost their religious identity, because they were away from their religious communities. When they were recalled to their religious houses they no longer fit into the rythm of life. They had become very accustomed to being independent, to having material things, to coming and going without having to ask for permission, to praying on their own schedule, to spending time with the laity, to having their own cars, money and independence. You get to see your brothers and your superiors a few times a year.

When they returned to their religious houses the idea of washing clothes rather than serve in a parish was difficult for them. Having to ask for permission to leave the house or purchase toothpaste was foreign to them again. They found routines like a community schedule, community recreation, community chapter, silence, solitude, Liturgy of the Hours round the clock difficult to follow. Things that are part of religious life such as not having a cell phone, their own computer, their own car or asking for permission to use a car were foreign to these men. They had become diocesan priests with a religious title.

Many of these men left their religious orders, because they were miserable. Those who stayed were unhappy and lost. Those who left religious life did not remain in the priesthood, because their original call had been to religious life.

When the Ordinary Form came into existence the need to send religious men out to parishes was no longer there. Religous orders could pull out of parishes. They could become priests and remain in their religious communities serving as cooks, houseboys, administrators. Others work in soup kitchens, walk the streets, counsel women in pregnancy centers. And others work with youth on the streets around their religious houses. Many spend their days and nights in homeless shelters, under bridges with the homeless or with drug addicts and prostitutes. But most importantly, they remain within the confines of their priories, friaries and monasteries living according to the vision and mission of their founders.

It is easier to be both a priest and a religious. They can celebrate the Eucharist as a community of brothers in the morning and spend their day living as beggers, contemplatives and manual laborers, which is what enriches the religious life of the Church. They can travel around the country giving lectures, preaching retreats or teaching.

These men love living the conventual life of a contemplative religious while begging, teaching, preaching, doing dishes, digging ditches, or whatever other work they are ordered to do. Is this not worth preserving to you?

There is no reason why you cannot have a reverent Ordinary Form mass and have the conventual life alive and well in the Church, as well as have the Extraordinary Form. Look at the friars on EWTN. They say one mass and spend the rest of their day doing manual labor, alone before the Blessed Sacrament, putting together programs for EWTN, guiding tours at the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament, and serving their brothers in their community.

Have you ever been to a mass at a friary of the Franciscans of the Renewal? It’s a beautiful mass with all the brothers celebrating around the altar, cleric and non-cleric. From there they leave to spend the day on the streets.

Have you ever seen or met the Franciscans of the Primitive Observance? They never set foot in a parish nor do any of the functions of a parish priest. They do not run schools, hospitals, dispensaries or other institutions. But they have a beautiful OF mass and spend their day begging for their food, talking to people on the streets, running errands for their neighbors, cleaning people’s homes, taking care of a sick neighbor or even walking from Boston to Costa Rica. They can do this because it’s easy to throw a mass kit into a back-pack with one ordained friar and several other non-clerical friars, then hitch-hike to Costa Rica to live like the poor among the poor as their father Francis wanted them to do. Is this not worth preserving?

Look at the Trappists. They now have the opportunity to have more ordained monks, because they can gather as one body to concelebrate a mass. Prior to concelebration, they had few ordained monks. They didn’t need more than a few priests to hear their confessions and to celebrate one community mass. Monks who were priests got to celebrate mass for their community once or twice a wee, if they were lucky. In large monasteries, it could be once or twice a month or several times a year. Now they can concelebrate daily.

The Ordinary Form meets a great need in the Church, as does the Extraordinary Form. In his wisdom, the Holy Father has sought to protect both and preserve both.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top