Franciscans and the Roman Rite

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

I once read somewhere that the Franciscans helped to spread the Roman Rite because of St. Francis’ great desire to be as much in communion with the See of Peter as possible, and that the Roman Rite was, before that, “confined” to Rome and its environs. Is there any truth to this?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I once read somewhere that the Franciscans helped to spread the Roman Rite because of St. Francis’ great desire to be as much in communion with the See of Peter as possible, and that the Roman Rite was, before that, “confined” to Rome and its environs. Is there any truth to this?

I know they helped evangelize. But from what I read from Bro. JR’s post a few weeks back is that St. Francis told his brothers to avoid Orthodox eparchies(diocese) because they have made a vow to be obedient to the Bishops. Since the Orthodox are valid Bishops, by their oath they are to follow them in their territory. And given the state of the Churches back then, its prudent for them to just avoid them.

So at that time to be Catholic is to be Roman Catholic. They couldn’t have spread any other Rite. Technically the Maronites were never out of communion, but I think this was the period they were out of communication.

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

I know they helped evangelize. But from what I read from Bro. JR’s post a few weeks back is that St. Francis told his brothers to avoid Orthodox eparchies(diocese) because they have made a vow to be obedient to the Bishops. Since the Orthodox are valid Bishops, by their oath they are to follow them in their territory. And given the state of the Churches back then, its prudent for them to just avoid them.

So at that time to be Catholic is to be Roman Catholic. They couldn’t have spread any other Rite. Technically the Maronites were never out of communion, but I think this was the period they were out of communication.

There were other liturgical rites, as there still exist some(Ambrosian, Gallican, Bragan,…), within the Roman Church. So yes, they could have “spread another rite”; in this case, one that was not indigenous to where they were evangelising.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There were other liturgical rites, as there still exist some(Ambrosian, Gallican, Bragan,…), within the Roman Church. So yes, they could have “spread another rite”; in this case, one that was not indigenous to where they were evangelising.

True, but I think the Franciscans were more interested in evangelizing rather than spreading a particular rite.

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

True, but I think the Franciscans were more interested in evangelizing rather than spreading a particular rite.

I didn’t mean that they actively took it upon themselves to spread the rite; but that, as they used it and the Order spread, so did the rite with them.

 

[laszlo]

Here is an interesting Franciscan source for the topic

franciscan-archive.org/liturgicale.html

They intended to preserve the Ancient Roman rite, which was used only of the feast of Chair of St Peter in the diocese of Rome.

On account of the Rule of St. Francis, the Order of Friars Minor published the first Missale in 1245 — which was entitled the Missale Regulare — so that all the priests of the Order could easily fulfill their duties, without having to carry about these several liturgical books. Pope Innocent IV attempted to reform the liturgy of the Roman Church in the same year, a reform which was widely unpopular with the clergy of the Diocese of Rome by 1265 A.D…

Interesting point that the disobedience to rubrics is human and not protestant or modernist thing; it was present much before the protestantism, part of the real life of the Church

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

Here is an interesting Franciscan source for the topic

franciscan-archive.org/liturgicale.html

They intended to preserve the Ancient Roman rite, which was used only of the feast of Chair of St Peter in the diocese of Rome.

Interesting point that the disobedience to rubrics is human and not protestant or modernist thing; it was present much before the protestantism, part of the real life of the Church

Ah, many thanks! this is exactly what I was looking for! Our Una Voce group has two patron saints: one for each rite we are promoting. We chose St. Anthonly of Padua as patron for the EF because he is Portuguese as well as the fact that the Franciscans relation with the Roman Rite.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I didn’t mean that they actively took it upon themselves to spread the rite; but that, as they used it and the Order spread, so did the rite with them.

Since Franciscans by virture of being one is submissing to the Bishop of the diocese they are in, they would use the liturgical rite of that Bishop if they were to celebrate a Mass publicly.

Bro JR can correct me later on when he gets on the forum, but this is how I understand what they do.

 

[JReducation]

Here is much of the story. One of the Capuchin Franciscan Friars (Fr. Joseph Tuscan, OFM, Cap) and I collaborated on this, quite by accident. We found each other’s work and agreed to put it together. There is a pretty good bibliography on the subjecte

“St. Francis Saved The Old Mass”

As far as the question on obedience is concerned, this is how it played out.

First, you must remember that the Franciscan Family is not an order of priests. It is a an order of brothers and sisters. Among these brothers, there are some who are what we call ordained friars or clerical friars or simply priests for short, but never Franciscan Fathers. That’s a layman’s mistake. Why is this important?

It’s important because the rule says that the brothers (ordained or not) may not preach in any diocese where the bishop does not grant them permission. Preaching includes everything, not just the mass. The brothers may not do any ministry in a diocese where they are not authorized by the bishop, because the brothers preach by their life and work, not just at mass.

How does this affect the mass? The brothers were itinerant, going from diocese to diocese. Most of their preaching was rather informal. Those who were priests preached at mass and the others preached on the corners or where ever they could find an attentive crowd. The problem was the number of books required to celebrate mass. The brothers were poor. They could not afford the books and they were nomads, they could not carry these things around with them. That’s how the first Seraphic Missal came into existence under the title Misale Regulare. It was the Latin Rite used in Rome. As you read in the link, they had received an old missal from the pope. They copied it over and over again so that each brother who was a priest had one. As the order grew, the Misale Regulare went further and further.

Here is the crux of the matter. The Holy Father approved the Misale Regulare. Therefore, the bishops could not forbid its use. They steered clear of the Orthodox so as not to have a conflict with their bishops. Even though they are not Catholic, they remain bishops. Even then, the Catholic Church acknowledged the validity of their orders and the validity of their authority over their territories. That has never changed.

Today, the Franciscan family has its own missal called the Roman-Franciscan Missal. The older version in the EF is called the Seraphic Missal. The challenge that we face today is that the two calendars do not match. The order has to follow the current liturgical calendar. Those places where friars celebrate the EF are trying to work out this minor glitch.

It has to be worked out, because you can’t have one religious family on two calendars. It makes the life of prayer for the community almost impossible. Imagine a house with three friars, two are saying the Divine Office from one calendar and the other from the older calendar. The Divine Office and the mass are to be said as one brotherhood. It must be the same throughout all the Franciscan branches. You can have two forms of the one rite. But you can’t have one guy celebrating the feast of St. Pio and another guy celebrating the feast of St. Mary of the Desert (I just made those up as an example). Whether you use EF or OF, it it’s the feast of St. Pio, you celebrate the mass for St. Pio and so forth.

There is a Franciscan Liturgical Commission that works on these details. With the changes coming to the Roman Missal, we’ll have to see how that affects the missals of the orders. My guess is that the new wording will be incorported into the missals of the orders as well.

DANG!!! That’s a lot of publishing. There are about six or seven missals for different orders.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

Here is much of the story. One of the Capuchin Franciscan Friars (Fr. Joseph Tuscan, OFM, Cap) and I collaborated on this, quite by accident. We found each other’s work and agreed to put it together. There is a pretty good bibliography on the subjecte

“St. Francis Saved The Old Mass”

As far as the question on obedience is concerned, this is how it played out.

First, you must remember that the Franciscan Family is not an order of priests. It is a an order of brothers and sisters. Among these brothers, there are some who are what we call ordained friars or clerical friars or simply priests for short, but never Franciscan Fathers. That’s a layman’s mistake. Why is this important?

It’s important because the rule says that the brothers (ordained or not) may not preach in any diocese where the bishop does not grant them permission. Preaching includes everything, not just the mass. The brothers may not do any ministry in a diocese where they are not authorized by the bishop, because the brothers preach by their life and work, not just at mass.

How does this affect the mass? The brothers were itinerant, going from diocese to diocese. Most of their preaching was rather informal. Those who were priests preached at mass and the others preached on the corners or where ever they could find an attentive crowd. The problem was the number of books required to celebrate mass. The brothers were poor. They could not afford the books and they were nomads, they could not carry these things around with them. That’s how the first Seraphic Missal came into existence under the title Misale Regulare. It was the Latin Rite used in Rome. As you read in the link, they had received an old missal from the pope. They copied it over and over again so that each brother who was a priest had one. As the order grew, the Misale Regulare went further and further.

Here is the crux of the matter. The Holy Father approved the Misale Regulare. Therefore, the bishops could not forbid its use. They steered clear of the Orthodox so as not to have a conflict with their bishops. Even though they are not Catholic, they remain bishops. Even then, the Catholic Church acknowledged the validity of their orders and the validity of their authority over their territories. That has never changed.

Today, the Franciscan family has its own missal called the Roman-Franciscan Missal. The older version in the EF is called the Seraphic Missal. The challenge that we face today is that the two calendars do not match. The order has to follow the current liturgical calendar. Those places where friars celebrate the EF are trying to work out this minor glitch.

It has to be worked out, because you can’t have one religious family on two calendars. It makes the life of prayer for the community almost impossible. Imagine a house with three friars, two are saying the Divine Office from one calendar and the other from the older calendar. The Divine Office and the mass are to be said as one brotherhood. It must be the same throughout all the Franciscan branches. You can have two forms of the one rite. But you can’t have one guy celebrating the feast of St. Pio and another guy celebrating the feast of St. Mary of the Desert (I just made those up as an example). Whether you use EF or OF, it it’s the feast of St. Pio, you celebrate the mass for St. Pio and so forth.

There is a Franciscan Liturgical Commission that works on these details. With the changes coming to the Roman Missal, we’ll have to see how that affects the missals of the orders. My guess is that the new wording will be incorported into the missals of the orders as well.

DANG!!! That’s a lot of publishing. There are about six or seven missals for different orders.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Many thanks!

 

[AJV]

I once read somewhere that the Franciscans helped to spread the Roman Rite because of St. Francis’ great desire to be as much in communion with the See of Peter as possible, and that the Roman Rite was, before that, “confined” to Rome and its environs. Is there any truth to this?

They did not spread the Roman Rite per se, but the liturgy as used by the Roman Curia. Within Rome itself, there were 2-3 types of liturgies - the curial, and the use in the basilicas and the churches. The curial eventually supplanted the use within the city of Rome, and thanks to both the Franciscans and the constant dissemination of curial liturgical books to other dioceses of Europe as a pattern, it eventually spread throughout the West. If you would like to read up on this, there is quite detailed information in the books by SPJ Van Dijk who also has written one complete book on the role of the Franciscans.

 

[AJV]

They steered clear of the Orthodox so as not to have a conflict with their bishops. Even though they are not Catholic, they remain bishops. Even then, the Catholic Church acknowledged the validity of their orders and the validity of their authority over their territories. That has never changed.

The Church, until the Second Vatican Council, rarely acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Orthodox bishops, and when they did, only implicitly and for certain cases. In fact, the growing dominant view for the 5-6 centuries preceding the Second Vatican Council denied any jurisdiction to them.

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

They did not spread the Roman Rite per se, but the liturgy as used by the Roman Curia. Within Rome itself, there were 2-3 types of liturgies - the curial, and the use in the basilicas and the churches. The curial eventually supplanted the use within the city of Rome, and thanks to both the Franciscans and the constant dissemination of curial liturgical books to other dioceses of Europe as a pattern, it eventually spread throughout the West. If you would like to read up on this, there is quite detailed information in the books by SPJ Van Dijk who also has written one complete book on the role of the Franciscans.

Which would you recommend?

 

[JReducation]

The Church, until the Second Vatican Council, rarely acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Orthodox bishops, and when they did, only implicitly and for certain cases. In fact, the growing dominant view for the 5-6 centuries preceding the Second Vatican Council denied any jurisdiction to them.

This was not the mandate of the General Chapter of Mats, precided by the Seraphic Father and later the General Chatper precided by Bonaventure. On both occasions, the vailidity of their orders was recognizzed; therefore, the friars were not to go into their territories unless they were invited to do so, which never happened. But that’s another thread.

What is true is that there were places where the Orthodox and the Catholics overlapped, such as Jerusalem. The Franciscans had an alliance with the Sultan that allowed them to open the Custody of the Holy Land. Since there was a Catholic presence there, the friars went under its protection. For example, they never went to Russia nor to Byzantium until the Cathlic dioceses were established and they were invited by the bishops.

We have always observed respect for the Orthodox hierarchy, not because they have canonical jurisdiction over us, but because they are successors of the Apostles, along with our bishops.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[AJV]

In order of importance:

The origins of the modern Roman liturgy: the liturgy of the papal court and the Franciscan Order in the thirteenth century
Sources of the modern Roman liturgy : the ordinals by Haymo of Faversham and related documents
The ordinal of the papal court from Innocent III to Boniface VIII and related documents

(Haymo of Faversham was a General of the Order - great impact on the breviary as used today)

 

[AJV]

This was not the mandate of the General Chapter of Mats, precided by the Seraphic Father and later the General Chatper precided by Bonaventure. On both occasions, the vailidity of their orders was recognizzed; therefore, the friars were not to go into their territories unless they were invited to do so, which never happened. But that’s another thread.

I am not contesting that the Church has always recognized the validity of their orders, but I am contesting that the Church has recognized their jurisdiction. As I tried to explain on another part of the forum, the linking of Apostolic Succession with validity of Order and recognizing the Orthodox bishops as participating to some degree in the succession from the Apostles ihas grown after Vatican II - the dominant canonical and theological view before Vatican II denied it.