Franciscan tradition or liturgical abuse?

[JReducation]

I believe this is going to be a problem for the laity with the different Franciscan Orders now that the papal enclosure is no longer in existence for Franciscan men. In the past, the laity did not have access to the friary mass. It was celebrated within the enclosure. At the General Chapter of 2009 in Assisi it was decided that the papal enclosure would be suppressed, since the Franciscan men are not monks. This is part of the process of returning to the roots. Now, the laity can be invited to attend mass at any friary chapel. Prior to this, they could only attend mass at a friary chapel, if the chapel was located outside of the enclosure and provided that the chapel had an entrance from the street. Now, the laity can walk through the house, if the friars vote on it, to attend mass and Liturgy of the Hours with the friars. The laity is going to be seeing old customs that they had never seen before, because they are not practiced in parishes, even our own parishes.

I could be mistaken on this, but I believe that other mendicants are also abolishing the papal enclosure at their General Chapters. For example, if you attend a mass at a Carmelite Priory, you will now be able to see that priests are not allowed to celebrate daily mass. Only one priest can celebrate and the other priests attend the mass and no one can celebrate a private mass without the Prior’s permission.

None of these rules apply in parishes. They are internal rules contained only in the Constitutions of the Orders for the sole purpose of the community.

I’m remembering something that is slightly different, but that caused some eyebrows to rise among some lay people who visited our own chapel. Lay people did not know that we have no kneelers and have never had kneelers in our chapels. The reason is that we stand during the Eucharistic Prayer. We have been standing for centuries. We never kneel during the Liturgy of the Hours, because there is no part of the Liturgy of the Hours that requires kneeling. We only kneel for private prayer. Obviously, then we kneel on the floor.

Some people did not know that the superior of the house presides over the Liturgy of the Hours, even if he’s not a priest. He sits in the presider’s chair on the sanctuary. Since we’re not monks, we have never had a formal choir. The chapel is used for all prayer functions. Also, when the superior of the house is present at a community mass, he has the right to sit in a presidential chair on the side of the altar, if he’s not ordained. In parish churches, this chair is reserved for the bishop, if they have it at all.

There are going to be many surprises with the opening up of friaries. I’m not so sure that I believe it’s a good idea to open the friary chapel to the laity. I think that it may confuse some people. Though I like having the laity visit our houses and share with us. It’s always fun and the laity seems to get a lot out of seeing us in community. It’s also a good way of promoting vocations to all of our orders. I guess everything has pros and cons to it.

But my suggestion to anyone visiting a religious house of an exempt religious order is to be prepared to see things that you’re not used to seeing in a parish and not to see other things that you would normally see in a parish. I’m reminded of the first time I visited a Capuchin friary. I had never seen people kiss the floor when they entered the chapel and I almost tripped over a friar who suddenly went down. Nor did I know that you were not supposed to wear shoes in the friary chapel or that Franciscans don’t bow at the gloria. I thought that was a given.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

This is a PS to the post regarding Francis being a deacon. St. Francis is listed on the liturgical calendar as a deacon, but no one knows for sure if he was actually ordained a deacon or not. There are no records of it anywhere. Nor are there any recorded histories that indicate that St. Francis ever exercised the diaconal ministry. The only thing that historians can find in the ancient writings is that he preached in churches. But that’s not conclusive enough, because many penitential movements had faculties to preach. We’re (Franciscans) are not sure if he was actually ordained by Pope Honorius or if Pope Honorius simply gave him faculties to preach in churches and thus he came to be referred to as a deacon. As far as history tells us, Francis and the early friars never served in parishes. The first Franciscans to serve in parishes came with the second generation of friars. That would have been around the time that Bonaventure was Minister General, in the 1250s. Francis died in 1226. During Francis’ time parishes were in the hands of either secular priests or canons regular.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, they do that at my church, too. The EMs take a piece, eat it, pass the cup, then the musicians take a piece and eat it, etc, then the priest and EMs distribute to us.

This is a reprobated practice. Redemptionis Sacramentum notes that:

95.] A lay member of Christ’s faithful "who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist may receive it again on the same day only within a Eucharistic Celebration in which he or she is participating, with due regard for the prescriptions of Can. 921 § 2."182

I would strongly suggest that you talk to your pastor about this.

 

[MusicMan]

Call me confused, but what does the quotation from RS have to do with the matter at hand?

 

[benedictgal]

Call me confused, but what does the quotation from RS have to do with the matter at hand?

I was responding to a poster who said that they were doing something similar in his parish.

 

[MusicMan]

Right, but rubrics regarding the number of times you can receive Communion in one day have no bearing on “taking” versus “receiving.”

Did you misquote?

 

[benedictgal]

This is a reprobated practice. Redemptionis Sacramentum notes that:

I would strongly suggest that you talk to your pastor about this.

This is the correct citation:

[94.] It is not licit for the faithful “to take … by themselves … and, still less, to hand … from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.181 Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.

I quoted the wrong citation. Thanks to musicman for pointing this out.

 

[JReducation]

This is the correct citation:

I quoted the wrong citation. Thanks to musicman for pointing this out.

This is what I was explaining in a previous post that may not be done in a parish. The OP was asking about what is done in a friary. I was trying to explain that what you see in a friary, priory, abbey or monastery is not the norm for parishes. You have to follow what has been set as the norm for parishes, when in a parish, even if the above named religious houses have different customs and different permissions granted to them for a vareity of reasons. The reasons are usually order specific.

That’s why I’m not so sure that it is such a good idea to open up to the laity what were once enclosed religious houses and chapels. It confuses people and muddies the waters, when it’s not necessary.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[AJV]

I’m remembering something that is slightly different, but that caused some eyebrows to rise among some lay people who visited our own chapel. Lay people did not know that we have no kneelers and have never had kneelers in our chapels. The reason is that we stand during the Eucharistic Prayer. We have been standing for centuries. We never kneel during the Liturgy of the Hours, because there is no part of the Liturgy of the Hours that requires kneeling. We only kneel for private prayer. Obviously, then we kneel on the floor.

Brother,

I don’t mean to go on contradicting you, but such a tradition/custom as is present in many friaries is not a custom that has been there for centuries. The liturgical books of all the three major branches of the Franciscans all indicate more or less the same postures for conventual Masses. The friars did kneel for parts of the Canon and entire parts on penitential days. This was reduced in the missals/propriums of the major Franciscan families in '63 and '64 following an earlier parallel change of the Roman rubrics. Likewise for parts of the eaarlier Divine Office where kneeling was ordered.

 

[sing4joy]

I have come to realize there are some priests who jumped into supposed Vatican II practices before checking the water for dangers. We had a religious priest who helped out on weekends who always said “and the LORD is with you” Worse to me though, was he always had the entire congregation pray “To Him, with him in Him…” His order has left our diocese and I think I’m one of only a few who are glad they did.

And what about people who change “Father” to God"? May the Lord accept the sacrifice from your hands for the praise and glory of God’s rather than His and who change liturgy and scripture readings to be “inclusive” Or make the Our Father gender-neutral or or gender-inclusive :crying:

I thought Liturgy was not supposed to be edited by priests or laity, even if they think it is more fair or PC?

 

[JReducation]

Brother,

I don’t mean to go on contradicting you, but such a tradition/custom as is present in many friaries is not a custom that has been there for centuries. The liturgical books of all the three major branches of the Franciscans all indicate more or less the same postures for conventual Masses. The friars did kneel for parts of the Canon and entire parts on penitential days. This was reduced in the missals/propriums of the major Franciscan families in '63 and '64 following an earlier parallel change of the Roman rubrics. Likewise for parts of the eaarlier Divine Office where kneeling was ordered.

I have to reword my statement, because I’m being taken literally here and that’s no one else’s fault except my own. When I’m saying centuries, I’m say a very long time. I would say about a generation. Which coincides with the dates that you have provided. When I entered, it was already well established that we did not kneel in our conventual masses. I entered in 2000.

However, since we’re on that subject, I must also add that we do have a great reverence for the liturgy and there is a reason for the standing. I should have explained that as well, so as not to scandalize anyone. What was handed down to us from generation to generation, since the founding of the order is the importance of brotherhood and the unity of the brotherhood. This has been so important to us that the idea of calling any brother “Father” was foreign to us, even if they were ordained. It became very popular in the USA and is now going in reverse again. Many of our ordained brothers do not like being called Father. The title is reserved for Francis.

Another small detail for us, but important for many lay people is at a profession mass the superor sits on the presidential chair, even if he’s not a priest. The priest steps aside when the to be professed brother comes and kneels before the superior in front of the main altar. The superior then rises and gives a blessing to the newly professed. People often wonder why the superior is giving the blessing and not the priest. And the superior says the words, “I, in the name of the Church receive your vows and promise you eternal life if you fulfill what you have promised.”

There is one more thing that our brothers do, they do expose the Blessed Sacrament and put it away for community adoration. It does not matter if there is a priest or deacon present. It is done by the superior of the house. It is done as one of his duties, to lead his brothers in prayer. In enclosed Poor Clare monasteries, the Abbess may do it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ocarm]

Each has its own customs. That’s a better word than tradition. For example, if a priest is a Carmelite, he may not concelebrate in a Carmelite house. In a Carmelite house all priests are treated as lay men when it comes to mass. Only one can celbrate the mass. Every friars, ordained and lay, must be part of the congregation. They may not celebrate mass in private to make up for it. The focus is on the fraternity.

Hello Brother JR,

I was intrigued to read this, inasmuch as despite being a Carmelite I am unfamiliar with this practice. This could be explained in a number of ways, of course:

1. You are referring to practice amongst the Discalced Carmelites (OCD), whereas I am a friar of the Ancient Observance (O. Carm).
2. The practice is specific to the custom or constitutions of particular provinces, and not followed in my own province (British).
3. I’m just not very well informed on these matters. (Very likely )
4. You are mistaken. (Not at all likely, given your exceptional track record here on CAF ).

Seriously, I’d be interested to hear more and follow up any references you might have.

More generally, the distribution of the host by and between members of the order, and this might include professed tertiaries and honoured guests, certainly does take place. I have a sense (although not a certainty) that this has the stature of an established custom, possibly even a centenary custom, and so would be entirely permissible in canon law terms.

Kind regards from one lay brother to another.

Many thanks

 

[Love_is_Patient]

Yes this is a Franciscan tradition for masses celebrated in a friary. It’s not done for masses celebrated in a parish. If there were seculars there, the reason should have been explained to avoid questions such as this.

In the Franciscan family, our priests have never enjoyed a place of “primacy”. I can’t find a better word right now. The idea is this:

1. We love and respect our priests becaues only through them do we receive and see any visble sign of Christ’s presence and through them we also receive absolution from our sins.
2. A priest who becomes a brother is one among many brothers.
3. We are a community of brothers, not priests. Priests who join the Franciscan family do so to be brothers and join for the salvation of their souls.
4. A the liturgy, all of the brothers are led by a brother priest who proclaims the Gospel and offers the sacrifice (we rarely have deacons, since they are banned by the constitution).
5. In order to emphasize the lay character of the Franciscan Order, the brothers may not make distinctions between the ordained and the lay brothers.
6. To emphasize the unity of the brothers as sons of St. Francis all of the brothers must celebrate the liturgy as a fraternity.

Now, given these core values of Franciscan spirituality, it became a common practice for the brother who is celebrating the mass to walk around the sanctuary and hold out the patten or hand the host to each brother just before communion and for all the brothers to receive communion seconds after the brother who is celebrating the mass.

Usually, the onlly brothers who open the tabernacle during a mass is either the brother priest who is celebrating the mass or the superior of the house, who may be a lay brother. He outranks all the other brothers. He is the canonical successor fo our holy Father Francis and our Mother St. Clare. It was common practice for Francis and Clare to open the tabernacle to bring communion to the sick brothers or sisters or to expose the Blessed Sacrament, even though both Francis and Clare were lay.

Do not confuse lay with secular. They were were religious, not seculars. But they were lay, not ordaiend.

But again, this should have been explained or maybe it was explained at some point. This may not be done at a parish mass. Parishes are not the property of the Order. They are the property of the diocese and they must follow the rules of the diocese, unless the bishop gives them special permission. For example, in a parish you can have a priest who is the parish adminsitrator, but not a pastor, because he’s not the superior. When the superior is a lay brother, the priest responsible for the parish cannot be a pastor. That creates two authorities that can easily come into conflict.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks! That’s very helpful.

Love is Patient

 

[JReducation]

Hello Brother JR,

I was intrigued to read this, inasmuch as despite being a Carmelite I am unfamiliar with this practice. This could be explained in a number of ways, of course:

You may be absolutely right here. I’m not a Carmelite, so I don’t know your constitutions. I know the Carmelites at the house of studies in Washington, DC. I’m not sure what province that is. They are a very orthodox group of guys. I know that they have this practice in their own province. I thought it was a universal Carmelite practice. Mea Culpa.

More generally, the distribution of the host by and between members of the order, and this might include professed tertiaries and honoured guests, certainly does take place. I have a sense (although not a certainty) that this has the stature of an established custom, possibly even a centenary custom, and so would be entirely permissible in canon law terms.

We never had open chapels until very recently. Most of our chapels were within the enclosure and we had papal enclosures until this year. There are Franciscan houses that have chapels that can be accessed from outside the cloister and I know that they welcome the laity to attend mass. However, this practice of distributing communion in this manner was only for the friars, not for the visitors. This is what the OP was commenting. He/she saw this for the first time at one of our friaries. I’m not sure if the OP had ever attended mass at another Franciscan Friary.

If people observe the mass on EWTN, which is also a Franciscan chapel, they do not do this. In fact, the friars are not in attedance at this mass unless they are serving or celebrating the mass. That’s because the friars have a separate conventual mass for the friars only. The Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word still keep their friary mass hidden, as do some other Franciscan branches, such as the Franciscans of the Renewal and the Franciscans of the Primitive Observance.

In my own Franciscan community we do not have a practice of a conventual mass, ecause we do not have enough priests. We have one priest for 35 friars. We only ordain those friars as necessary for our own internal needs. The Little Brothers of St. Francis also have no ordained friars. The Capuchins have ordained friars that they assign to parishes, but they are in a minority, about 1/3 of the order. The Franciscans of the Ancient Observance or simply called the Franciscans, have the largest number of ordained friars, more than half of the order. The Conventuals also have a small number of ordained friars compared to their entire order, about 1/2. The tendency among Franciscans is to return to the roots of an order that is built around brotherhood and less around parishes. The number of friars in parishes is dying by attrition. It’s creating a serious problem for the laity, because it’s creating a shortage of priests. At one time the Franciscan family had the largest number of priests in the world. That is no longer the case. We still number about 1.7 million friars around the world, but less than half are permitted to be ordained, even though many do ask.

What happens at a conventual mass is the old practice of brotherhood with a friar priest preciding at mass is growing more common place. As the conventual mass is opened to the laity, the laity don’t know what to make of these ancient customs.

I have to clarify here too, some communities had dropped these customs with the clericalization of the Franciscan family. It is now, with the de-clericalization of the Franciscan family that they are being recovered by some congregations of the order and by some provinces.

In addition, just like in your order, which is much older than our own, there are practices that were never committed to paper and pen. They were simply handed down by word of mouth and put into practice. I wish to mention this, because some lay people always ask us to show them where it says that we can do such and such. Often the answer is, NOWHERE. It’s just the way we’ve done things for a very long time or it’s just what was handed down to us by previoius generations of friars. As you well know, much is handed down to us through the novitiate and little is often found on paper. Our anscestors were not always big into writing, but big into practices.

I’ll close with one example. Nowhere in the Franciscan Order are you going to find priests mentioned in the official documents. However, they have always been an essential part of the order and the tradition from its earliest days. Traditional religious life was about the consecrated life, not about the priesthood. So priests entered orders to be religious and the writings and formation was about the vowed life and the rule.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ocarm]

I know the Carmelites at the house of studies in Washington, DC. I’m not sure what province that is. They are a very orthodox group of guys. I know that they have this practice in their own province. I thought it was a universal Carmelite practice.

Forgive me for the ongoing interrogation (!), but do you mean Whitefriars Hall on Webster Street in DC, or the Discalced monastery at Lincoln Road? If its the former, I know some of the students there and would be interested to talk about this with them.

We never had open chapels until very recently. Most of our chapels were within the enclosure and we had papal enclosures until this year. There are Franciscan houses that have chapels that can be accessed from outside the cloister and I know that they welcome the laity to attend mass. However, this practice of distributing communion in this manner was only for the friars, not for the visitors.

Some of our chapels here in the UK are open to the public, and some are not, and the practice of distributing communion to each other is reserved for the closed chapels - as you say, so as not to create difficulties with the local bishop in terms of not meeting the liturgical norms, hence the use of the standard arrangements for distribution having precedence at public masses. But we do include visitors in the practice - for instance, at one of our houses sisters from the convent next door attend mass every day in the priory chapel, and sometimes we might also have guests on retreat.

What happens at a conventual mass is the old practice of brotherhood with a friar priest preciding at mass is growing more common place. As the conventual mass is opened to the laity, the laity don’t know what to make of these ancient customs.

Indeed, it seems to me that the following of custom is sometimes misunderstood as being simply aberrant rather than often fully in keeping with canon law.

In addition, just like in your order, which is much older than our own, there are practices that were never committed to paper and pen. They were simply handed down by word of mouth and put into practice.

Which is, of course, why the issue of custom is covered at length in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. People who are interested might wish to look at canon 5 (see vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2.HTM) and canons 22-28 (see vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4.HTM).

I’m sure, Brother JR, that you’re much better informed on canon law than I am, by the way, so please correct me if I’m mistaken in what I’m saying! Many thanks for your responses on this issue, which is of some considerable interest to me.

 

[JReducation]

Forgive me for the ongoing interrogation (!), but do you mean Whitefriars Hall on Webster Street in DC, or the Discalced monastery at Lincoln Road? If its the former, I know some of the students there and would be interested to talk about this with them.

Some of our chapels here in the UK are open to the public, and some are not, and the practice of distributing communion to each other is reserved for the closed chapels - as you say, so as not to create difficulties with the local bishop in terms of not meeting the liturgical norms, hence the use of the standard arrangements for distribution having precedence at public masses. But we do include visitors in the practice - for instance, at one of our houses sisters from the convent next door attend mass every day in the priory chapel, and sometimes we might also have guests on retreat.

Indeed, it seems to me that the following of custom is sometimes misunderstood as being simply aberrant rather than often fully in keeping with canon law.

Which is, of course, why the issue of custom is covered at length in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. People who are interested might wish to look at canon 5 (see vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2.HTM) and canons 22-28 (see vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4.HTM).

I’m sure, Brother JR, that you’re much better informed on canon law than I am, by the way, so please correct me if I’m mistaken in what I’m saying! Many thanks for your responses on this issue, which is of some considerable interest to me.

The friars that I know from Washington are from White Friars (O’Carm). I have never been to a mass at the OCDs. I know some of the older ones from my days at Catholic University. But that was years ago. We were young then. LOL

You know who on line is an O’Carm from that community is ByzCath. He posts a lot on these threads. He keeps me up to speed on the Carmelites.

Moving along to the OP of this thread. You are very right about traditions and customs being seen as aberrations by the outside observer. I think that what happens is that because the average lay person is not exposed to the application of the religious rules (Carmelite, Franciscan, Augustinian, etc) they don’t always know the customs that come with these rules. Most people are exposed to the GIRM and to papal documents.

What people don’t always know is that usually for every papal document that applies the laity and to diocesan and parish priests, the popes make five exceptions behind the scenes for the major orders of men to keep the traditions alive. I know that there was a big issue with the Franciscans of the TOR over the EF when they said that they would not celebrate it on their university campus.

People wanted the local bishop to intervene. What they do not understand is that the local bishops do not have jurisdiction on territory that belongs to the major religious orders of men. The provincial superior is the Ordinary over that territory, not the bishop. The provincial superiors are bound to follow the conferences of bishops, which is different from the local bishop on matters pertaining to their own territotry such as universities, friaries, priories, schools and other institutions that are the private property and domain of the orders.

On the other hand, I can undestand the concern too. Some religious have broken their communion with the local Church and have hidden behind the religious exemption. This was not the purpose of the exemptions. The purpose of the exemptions was to protect the orders from interference from the bishops and laity in their government and in their financial affairs, because in the past many monarchs and bishops manipulated the religious orders into doing their bidding. I am reminded of the the Carmelite Reform in Spain, where the nuns were at the beck and call of the nobility and could not live a contemplative life as the primitive rule said. We had a similar experience at the same time as the O’Carm. That’s how the OFM Cap came into existence, except that the abuses of the religious were in Italy instead of Spain. When I say abuses, I’m referring to the abuses by the laity and bishops.

That’s why I’m not so sure that the conventual mass should be open to the laity. I don’t want to go back to the day when outside forces try to dictate to the religious orders how to do things inside their enclosures. This can be a two edge sword. It is a good thing for the laity to be exposed to the spirituality of a religoius order. It is not a good thing when those who have their own agendas begin to dictate to the religious. I guess nothing in this world is perfect. Everything has two sides to it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Which is, of course, why the issue of custom is covered at length in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. People who are interested might wish to look at canon 5 (see vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2.HTM) and canons 22-28 (see vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4.HTM).

I’m sure, Brother JR, that you’re much better informed on canon law than I am, by the way, so please correct me if I’m mistaken in what I’m saying! Many thanks for your responses on this issue, which is of some considerable interest to me.

These canons are extreme important for the topic of this thread, because they protect the practice of antiquity often found in the ancient major orders. In other words, these practices are not abrogated by law unless they are specifically mentioned in legislation or in a decree from the Holy See. Such a statement must be made directly to the religious order and its general council.

I have a very good example of something that happened in the Archdiocese of NY many years ago. The Archbishop said that priests could only wear their cassocks on the parish grounds, not on the streets. Our friars transitioned from wearing a habit to a Roman Collar, believing that this applied to them too. The provincial superior challenged it and it was discovered that the prohibition did not apply to the old orders, because they had a tradition of wearing religious habit that was older than the Archdiocese itself. It could only apply to the new religious congregations of men.

There was another diocese that said only priests could wear a Roman Collar. It was challenged by the older religious orders, because in the USA religious brothers wear a Roman collar. It was found that because the religious orders had in place rules and statutes that declared all members of the religious community to be equal and to have the same mode of dress, the use of Roman collars by religious brothers could not be prohibited by the bishop. It is an intereference with a rule of the orders that precede his ruling by over 100 years.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF