G
giuseppeTO
Guest
So would you say that the religious orders that followed the Bishops into the Arian heresy were correct? Or would you expect that knowingly adhering to a heresy when commanded by one’s superior is justifiable?
- Status
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
St. Paul certainly does not agree with you on this point. If you are not going to qualify your statement by what is required dogmatically, then you are incorrect and we must, in fact, most certainly contradict any of the above when they transmit error outside of the protection of infallibility as defined by the church as St. Paul did with St. Peter.
The most solemnly taken vows of obedience do not excuse us from confronting error in council, superior, bishop, or pope, or " even an angel… "
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Just to note: there were no religious orders during the Arian period.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Sorry, I was speaking hypothetically.
P
pnewton
Guest
That would depend on many details, like when this happened. Prior to the dogma being defined, arianism was wrong, but not technically a heresy. Which order are you referring to?
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
I was speaking generically of monastic orders at the time of which there were few large orders but smaller hermits and monastics with followers, such as Pachomius and meant to refer to a belief settled by competent authority, as in the substance of Christ as addressed by the First Nicene Council and promulgated in the Creed.
My remark was to the good Brother’s comment that one must not (ever) raise our voice to contradict a superior unless it is a sin. With so many bishops initially subscribing to the Arian heresy, my question was whether one was morally bound to discern and question (or contradict in stronger terms) them, or merely obey?
P
pnewton
Guest
I think he did leave the possibility to disobey when something has been defined as sin or known to be sin. In light of that, prior to 325 AD, one would obey, which does not mean one could not object. Once dogma had been defined, one could not preach heresy, but one could still probably obey with silence.
I will await what Brother J R says and see how close I got to the Franciscan mindset.
J
JReducation
Guest
You took my statement completely out of context. The comment was in reference to the SSPX being more courageous than other religious orders and societies of apostolic life.
My full statement was
If you observe, the statement is referring to orders in solemn vows. And I’m qualifying that we are not less courageous than the SSPX, but that we simply cannot take positions such as they do, because it is not our place. Our founders wrote this into the rule and we vowed to obey the rule. St. Paul cannot ask us to disobey the rule. Even St. Paul does not trump the founder of a religious order, nor would any founder of a religious order deny a dogma taught by him.
The respect between them would be mutual. The founding father would respect the dogmas taught by Paul and Paul would respect the authority of the founding father. Nor would Paul encourage anyone to commit a sin in order to right a wrong. To violate a vow to right a wrong is contrary to the faith. If the rule says that a monk or a friar is to remain silent on such issues and to obey the pope and bishops, unless they command something that has been defined as sin, then the religious is bound to obey the rule.
To say that the religious can step outside of that parameter because in his opinion there is something wrong, is a sin of presumption and disobedience. You cannot presume that you’re understanding of the faith and of the teachings of the Church are correct and that those of the hierarchy are wrong, unless you see them teach something that has been identified and agreed upon as a sin. Benedict, Bruno, Francis, Teresa of Avila and Mother Teresa always insisted that their sons and daughters always give the benefit of the doubt to authority. Even if authority was wrong, God blesses obedience more than any other virtue.
In addition, as I said before, it is not our place to engage the hierarchy in these debates. Our place is to obey our superiors and to live according to the charism of our orders. Our orders were not founded for the purpose of engaging with the hierarchy or the defense of the faith. They were founded to be contemplatives who keep their eyes focussed on Christ, their founder, their charism, their brothers and sisters and the duties assigned to them.
For example, my duties are to teach theology and to run a religious house. Those duties do not involve policing how a priest celebrates the mass, unless he’s a priest who is under my command. My duties are very specific: teach theology and protect the brothers from the world. Outside of that, my other obligations are to observe silence for 12 hours every day, pray the Liturgy of the Hours 7 times a day, spend an hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament, recreate with my brothers. Eat three meals per day with them. Fast and abstain during the three Lents of the year. Devote my extra time to helping my brothers achieve the perfection of charity. Discipline my brothers when they fail to observe the rule as St. Francis wrote it and provide on-going formation for their life of prayer and virtue. This is enough for a single 24 hour period.
No where in that description does it include policing priests or bishops. In fact, the rule forbids policing superiors, priests and bishops. Francis threatens us with excommunication if we do so. He presented the Vicar of his own order for excommunication for speaking against him. Brother Elias had to do a great deal of penance and recanting before the excommunication was lifted and he was re-admitted into the Church and the order. But in the end, he died a very obedient and holy man.
The same can be said for the Benedictines, the Carthusians, the Discalced Carmelites and the Missionaries of Charity. In order to remain faithful to their life of prayer, to their charism, their ministry and to have time to enjoy the company of their brothes or sisters in community, they have to break away from all this other stuff. This does not make us less courageous… It simply makes us obedient to what we promised to observe all the days of our life.
The SSPX statutes do not require them to hold their tongue and to focus on the contemplative life on community life. It may not require them to place the good of their community before everything else, because the SSPX is a secular society. The common life is not an ordered life for them, as it is for mendicants and moanstics. In the hierarchy of charity, the mendicant and monastic must first protect his or her religious community and then everything else, just as a husband and wife first protect their family and then everything else. Since the SSPX do not belong to the family of consecrated religious, they are not bound to protect their way of life, because they do not have an ordered way of life.
Without our religious communities, religious are nothing. Our identity is lost. The enviornment in which we find God is compromised. Sanctity is forfeited.
I hope this is clearer.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
It is, thanks for clarification. On the point of the SSPX being courageous, I would offer that it is probably not correct to apply the level to which they may or may not challenge the hierarchy to that of any religious order. I would not particularly expect a contemplative order to offer anything above and beyond the obedience you have described. Indeed, there are Benedictine and Dominican Orders loosely associated with the SSPX and they have not done anything in the way of publicly resisting modernism, for example, except to live their rule within traditional boundaries.
There is most certainly a very courageous aspect to what the SSPX has done over the last 40 years regarding keeping the flame of the traditional Mass and sacraments alive from near-certain extinction, as well as challenging the excesses of modernistic interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, interpretations which at times have even contradicted papal direction. These efforts have, to date, only gained them ostracization, suspension a divinis, and charges of, well, you name it.
Where I would draw the line in this discussion would be in using superlatives like the SSPX is more courageous than some other entity. That serves no one, especially the many priests who preserved the faith independently and had little impact in their time for lack of numbers but whose prayers certainly contributed to the restoration of the Mass to the extent that it has happened and certainly to even the small corrections to the vernacular interpretations in the Mass that Pope Benedict has requested.
I
iluvburpees
Guest
Fr. Wickens and Fr. Gruner come to mind…
J
JReducation
Guest
The reason that I use the word courageous is because I was responding to a poster who was calling the SSPX more courageous than other priests and religious. I certainly do not see them as more courageous. I see some of their points as having validity. But I also see some of them as very arrogant and that’s unfortunate. I know that most of the priests in the Society are not arrogant. I have met many whom I like very much. But it’s always the loudest who gets heard. The loudest is not always the one who is right. He’s just that, the loudest.
I also see many very good and faithful religious among the monastic and medicant communities who are not devotees of the Extraordinary Form. Yet they are very devout and prayerful. They put a great deal into the celebration of the Ordinary Form and into the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours after they were reformatted.
Speaking about the mass and the Liturgy of the Hours, something else has to be understood here too. There are some religious families, such as mine, that are not impacted by certain changes in the liturgy of the mass or the liturgy of the hours, because what was new to some people, was very old to us. I’ll give one example. Until Vatican II, Franciscans were never allowed to use Gregorian Chant at mass or in the Divine Office. Francis forbade it in his rule and banned it from our houses. After Vatican II, Pope Paul VI granted us an indult to use Gregorian Chant. Some friars adopted it, because it was something very new (to us).
We never had communion rails, saints in our churches or chapels, or kneelers in our pews. If you wanted to kneel you used the floor. We have been receiving communion standing up since 1209. Francis mandated it to keep the equality between the brothers who were priests and the rest of the brothers. When communion standing up came into use in the USA, most of us didn’t even notice it. Our idea of a sacred space was the entire chapel or church, not just the sanctuary. What we did was to walk in barefoot and kiss the floor. We still do this to this day. The only friars who wear shoes in chapel or church are the Conventual Franciscans.
The tabernacle on the main altar was never an issue for us, because it was our order who introduced this practice into the Catholic Church. Francis brought this back from visiting the Eastern Catholics. As our friars spread all over Europe, they built churches and chapels with the tabernacle front and center. Prior to that, the Benedictines dominated the scene and they had a monastery church and a blessed scrament chapel called the choir. Franciscans never had a formal choir. We never understood the hoopla about the tabernacle here or there, because we were not allowed to move it by order of St. Francis.
Like this, many religious families have had other customs that some people believe are novel, but to us they are as old as Adam. Singing in the vernacular was always done by Franciscans and Discalced Carmelites. Francis and Teresa of Avila both introduced it into their orders. Kneeling and bowing like the Hindus do has always been done by the Missionaries of Charity, except when they are in a church where there is not enough room. Then they kneel using the European posture. Communion in the hand was old to the Franciscans, when it was a novelty to the rest of the world. We have never had the distinction between priest and the rest of the brothers. Those brothers who are priests have always had to accommodate to avoid any sign of clericalism, since the time of Francis. Most were never allowed to govern until about 50 years after Francis’ death. We never had the “priest mystique”. Our priests have been called Friar or Brother forever. The superior is called Father. Even the Pope has never been called Holy Father by us. Holy Father is Francis. The pope is Lord Pope. We still refer to him as the Lord Pope or the Lord Bishop, if it’s the local bishop.
A lot of what the other posters were praising about the SSPX and condemning about the post Vatican II liturgy is not really accurate for everyone. It’s accurate for most people, since most people do not live in friaries or monasteries. Those of us who live in friaries and monasteries would probably denounce kneeling for communion as a violation of tradition, since we have not done it for 800 years. We have to be very careful with the word tradtion and courage, etc. They mean differen things to different people. To mendicants and monks Tradition means to mind your own business and go about your life of contemplation and do your work. Don’t get involved in the Church’s issues with the laity. Now that you have left the lay state, that is no longer your concern. That is tradition for us.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
Aramis
Guest
There were religious, but not orders; they were hermits and the earliest monastic communities as well.
Arius was 250-336; St. Pachomius, father of monasticism, was 292-348. They and their teachings are contemporary.
The earliest sketes are a generation before St. Pachomius.
A
Aramis
Guest
Cardinal Arinze makes a joke about abuses in the past; about 3:15 into this clip:
youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU&feature=related
(3:17)
… even sixty years ago, there were some priests also who introduced abuses. But as the people didn’t know Latin, they didn’t know what the priest was talking about. [laughter}
While it was funny, Cardinal Arinze makes a good point about why the 62 is permitted earlier in the clip. It’s not so much for the FSSP nor the SSPX; it’s for the laity who benefit from the different form of spirituality.
youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU&feature=related
(3:17)
… even sixty years ago, there were some priests also who introduced abuses. But as the people didn’t know Latin, they didn’t know what the priest was talking about. [laughter}
While it was funny, Cardinal Arinze makes a good point about why the 62 is permitted earlier in the clip. It’s not so much for the FSSP nor the SSPX; it’s for the laity who benefit from the different form of spirituality.
C
CradleCath
Guest
I have a little problem with the emboldened sentence.A lot of what the other posters were praising about the SSPX and condemning about the post Vatican II liturgy is not really accurate for everyone. It’s accurate for most people, since most people do not live in friaries or monasteries. Those of us who live in friaries and monasteries** would probably denounce kneeling for communion as a violation of tradition, since we have not done it for 800 years**. We have to be very careful with the word tradtion and courage, etc. They mean differen things to different people. To mendicants and monks Tradition means to mind your own business and go about your life of contemplation and do your work. Don’t get involved in the Church’s issues with the laity. Now that you have left the lay state, that is no longer your concern. That is tradition for us.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
It seems to me that obeying one’s superior when he is in direct opposition to the Pope is wrong. When the Popes from the council of Trent until the second Vatican council taught that kneeling for communion was the correct way of following the Church’s laws, how can one choose to obey their superior who teaches standing for Communion. Pope Benedict XVI does not want the faithful receiving Communion in their hand nor does he want them standing to receive Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.
According to Vatican liturgist, Monsignor Guido Marini, "the (present)pope is trying to set the stage for the whole church as to the proper norm for receiving Communion for which reason communicants at his papal Masses are now asked to kneel and receive on the tongue.
The Holy Father’s reasoning is simple: “**We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the One True God.” (May 22, 2008) **
According to the pope the entire Church should kneel in adoration before God in the Eucharist. “Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today” (May 22, 2008)
My complaint re religious orders is not chiefly against the contemplative orders, but those orders whose charism’s include serving as parish priests.
My early Catholic education came from the Benedictine nuns & diocesan priests who were staunchly conservative & very much in tune with the Pope at that time (the 1940s) When I was in the 6th grade my family moved & our new parish was run by the Precious Blood order from Ohio. It was founded in 1890 by the Bishop in conjunction with Society of the Precious Blood They have been there since that time.
I saw abuses in their Masses, surpassed only by those in the Newman center at the state University. The membership of the parish is about 900 families. With 5 Sunday Masses (this includes the Sat. evening vigil) even if ALL attended Mass…& they don’t, that means there are approximately 250 communicants. SIX EXTRAordinary ministers of the Eucharist are scheduled for every Sunday Mass, while the parish has 3 priests?? There is no longer a choir, though when they still had one…they “performed” from the sanctuary & great clapping ensued each time. It was from this parish & this religious order that I heard, on the feast of the Holy Family, that we must pray for all families “including those gay couples who have adopted children”.
My question is… when the Superior of an order, is not faithful to the Pope, what is a priest to do? According to St. Thomas, conscience is primary & we must follow our (well-formed) conscience even when it is in opposition to one’s religious superior. Aquinas teachings on conscience/intellect/& that which can be known through reason alone are complicated, so I’ll leave that to our posters themselves to study rather than going into it here. However, he teaches (& the Church agrees) that if there is something that you believe you cannot do (after having taken care to form your conscience well, praying & seeking advice from the clergy), even if the Church commands it, then you cannot do it without committing a sin. Likewise, if there is something you believe you must do, even if the Church forbids it, then you must do it or else commit a sin.
I do realize that the Primacy of Conscience teaching of the Church has been greatly abused, but it is still a teaching. So…if the teaching of one’s religious superior goes against one’s conscience AND the Pope’s words & examples…what is a priest/brother/sister to do??
BTW. I left this cpps. parish right after Summorum Pontificum was promulgated, but my friends who still worship there, tell me that NEVER ONCE has it been mentioned from the pulpit that there is a TLM. available in the city. How is this following the wishes of the Pope & are these priests bound to obedience to their superior even when he is in direct opposition to the wishes of Pope Benedict??
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not know if this applies, but when the Tridentine Mass was codified, exceptions were allowed at the time form practices of some communities that had century old traditions.
I think the phrase, “outside my pay grade” applies. The religious are not under direct authority of the Holy Father, but indirect authority. In any case, if Pope Benedict has banned CITH, I missed that encyclical.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Brother, you have made some good points and clarifications here that deserve more scrutiny. I’ll add my lay perspective to your religious perspective. Let me start off by saying that I was privileged just a few weeks ago to serve the Tridentine Mass on the very altar that contains the bones of St. Francis in Assisi.
Why would one change the Mass, either significantly, or even subtly? The answer should be to perhaps to accomplish needed updates like changes in the church calendar but in the end, it should be to give more glory to God and enhance the Holy Sacrifice - the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. My question is how does eliminating the genuflection in adoration of the newly confected Body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ give more glory to Christ? In fact, it is now exactly how the Lutheran presbyter consecrates the sacrament. He holds it up to the “community” and by the act of presenting the bread to the congregation, he believes the spirit of Christ surrounds the bread, becomes consubstantial with it, but the bread remains the bread. Then, after the consubstantiation, he genuflects. The mysterium fidei, removed from the Consecration formula, and spoken afterwards no longer refers to our belief in transubstantiation, but now is attached to a phrase palatable to most non-Catholic Christians “When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death Lord Jesus”. This alone should make Catholics bristle at the fact that we are NOT eating bread at all. Our faith teaches us that the host has ceased to be bread and is now the Sacrament under the appearance of bread. Of course, Lutherans and other non-Catholics would have no problem with the “bread”.
So, no matter how reverent it is said and done, it is still what is said and done and not the degree of piousness that I have a problem with. So again, I’ll ask the question, how was the Sacrifice enhanced by these changes?
Finally, and this goes more to the topic of this thread, priests who understand and primarily offer the extraordinary rite understanding its root and origin and then also agree to learn and offer the new rite, also understanding how it was formed and from what theology the changes sprang from, must either have to subdue a considerable internal struggle to offer the Novus Ordo, or they turn a blind eye to what they know.
This will always be my problem with the Novus Ordo Missae. I hear much talk of “reverently” it can be performed and I have seen these Masses. This past weekend, I went to visit my mother who is going to have surgery this week and she asked me if I would take her to the Fatima Shrine in Lewiston, NY for Confession and Mass (Ordinary Form) and I agreed. The Mass was reverent enough. But regardless of how pious it is, you still have the words of the words of the Consecration, purposely mis-translated, as well the rubrics of the Consecration itself. The priest does not genuflect in adoration at the Consecration, but rather displays the host to the Congregation and then bows. Perhaps you consider these insignificant and small things - one small word changed and one phrase removed from the formula to be said immediately following the Consecration with perhaps a slightly different meaning.
Why would one change the Mass, either significantly, or even subtly? The answer should be to perhaps to accomplish needed updates like changes in the church calendar but in the end, it should be to give more glory to God and enhance the Holy Sacrifice - the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. My question is how does eliminating the genuflection in adoration of the newly confected Body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ give more glory to Christ? In fact, it is now exactly how the Lutheran presbyter consecrates the sacrament. He holds it up to the “community” and by the act of presenting the bread to the congregation, he believes the spirit of Christ surrounds the bread, becomes consubstantial with it, but the bread remains the bread. Then, after the consubstantiation, he genuflects. The mysterium fidei, removed from the Consecration formula, and spoken afterwards no longer refers to our belief in transubstantiation, but now is attached to a phrase palatable to most non-Catholic Christians “When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death Lord Jesus”. This alone should make Catholics bristle at the fact that we are NOT eating bread at all. Our faith teaches us that the host has ceased to be bread and is now the Sacrament under the appearance of bread. Of course, Lutherans and other non-Catholics would have no problem with the “bread”.
So, no matter how reverent it is said and done, it is still what is said and done and not the degree of piousness that I have a problem with. So again, I’ll ask the question, how was the Sacrifice enhanced by these changes?
Perhaps if the architects of the Novus Ordo Missae had as their goal to make the Mass more Franciscan or more Benedictine, we might be having a different conversation. But in the words of the architect himself, the changes were driven by a desire to create a service that could be performed by Catholics and non-Catholics alike without complaint.
So, once again, these were changes that had to come about for a reason. The reason for the tabernacle being at the center of the high altar in most churches is obvious. Why does one move it to a less prominent place? I understand your point about years of Franciscan practice. But I ask “how does changing the Blessed Sacrament location to a place of less prominence enhance the reverence and devotion?”
So if the answer to Communion in the hand is to more emulate St. Francis and incorporate his rule into our daily lives, that’s one thing. I have never heard that given as a reason for initiating the practice to the consternation but eventual acquiescence of the vatican.
This is a statement that is understandable within the confines of a religious order. But it has proved dangerous to apply this to the relationship between the priest and the lay faithful. The civilian clothes and priest/nun as a buddy paradigm has probably done more to annihilate vocations then most other results of modernistic attitudes since the Council. And unfortunately it plays right into the Protestant concept that we are all priests and the presbyter is just “the presider” as opposed to the alter-Christus. And I’ll use your word, because it is important; we have lost the “priest mystique” - the concept that priest is of the Royal Order of Melchizedek.
Finally, and this goes more to the topic of this thread, priests who understand and primarily offer the extraordinary rite understanding its root and origin and then also agree to learn and offer the new rite, also understanding how it was formed and from what theology the changes sprang from, must either have to subdue a considerable internal struggle to offer the Novus Ordo, or they turn a blind eye to what they know.
J
JReducation
Guest
The popes always expect the religious orders to obey their founders over Church law. This is written into Church law. If you go to canon law, you will find examples when the law makes references to religiuos and uses the term “according or common law”. This means that we follow our own law, not the law of the Church.
If you read Summorum Pontificum, it says that all priests have a right to celebrate the EF, except for regular priests. These must consult with the major superiors and be guided by common law. Common law refers to the law of the order.
The rules of certain orders have been sealed with a papal bull, so that no one can change them, not even Church law. Only a pope can change them and he must do so by an explcit decree to the order. If there is no such decree, the order is bound to follow the rule. Several encyclicals have been written on the Franciscans and Benedictines, by different popes. In all of them, they are told to follow the rule of their founder.
When one of our priests is assigned to a parish, he must follow the Rule of St. Francis, not what is universal law for the Church. The Church expects him to follow the rule of his order. The local bishop understands this when he makes the contract with the major superior. The friars have a cononical right to close the parish and leave without notice or they can report the abuse by the laity or the bishop to their major superior who then takes it from there. It can result in a ecclesial court battle, which rarely happens, parishes being closed, in papal intervention, which rarely happens Or it can result with the order leaving every parish and ministry in the diocese on a moments notice with no notification. This has happened.
If you have religious in a parish that do things differently, the bishop is not the person to go to. You go to the major superior of the religious. On the otherhand, if the major superior explains why something is done, then the case is closed. The bishop cannot overrule it, because he cannnot disband the religious community.
No bishop or lay group can disband a group of religiuos in any diocese. Only a pope can do that. Once a religious community is erected in a diocese it has the canonical right to be there and cannot be asked to leave. For this reason, bishops are very careful to understand the rules and governance of religious orders, because once the bishop allows them to establish themselves in his diocese he no longer has any authority over them.
Religious superiors are only subject to the pope in those matters that are contained in the rule and those matters that bind by a direcgt papal mandate. If it’s not in the rule and the pope has not sent a letter to the superior general, then it is assumed that the law is for the secular members of the Church. Sometimes, the law is worded in such a way that it includes religious. This means that it mentions religious. If it does not mention religious, we are not included.
There is another law in the Church, no one has the authority to change any law of a religious community that is over 100 years old, except the superior general, the community itself through a democratic vote (if allowed by the superior) or a direct command from the pope. To date, no pope has ever asked any religious order to change any practice that is over 100 years old.
For us, kneeling to receive communioin is a novelty Most superiors do not object to it. But no superior can eforce it. In addition, the pope has never said that one has to kneel for communion. He has expressed his preference for it. The Holy Father’s preferences cannot trump the commands of the founder. Only a command from the Holy Father can trump a command from the founder.
Finally, the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life has reworked Aquinas’ position that the primacy of conscience as it applies to religious in solemn vows. It only applies when the superior orders something that has been identified as sinful by the Church. If the Church allows it, it is not sinful and conscience is wrong. A solemn vow of obedience trumps conscience. When you make the vow, you agree to let the superior and the Church guide your conscience. Finally, primacy of conscience only applies in matters that are not already defined by common law of the order or canon law of the Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
Lormar
Guest
I’ll tell you what I find courageous.
The people who have sat in the pews all of these years and suffered through the chaos. I wasn’t one of them. I jumped ship. And I tell you that I am deeply ashamed for having done so. God forgive me my arrogance and pride.
The people who have sat in the pews all of these years and suffered through the chaos. I wasn’t one of them. I jumped ship. And I tell you that I am deeply ashamed for having done so. God forgive me my arrogance and pride.
D
distracted
Guest
if you knew what i know… you would probably think that of the oppositionYeah, I think they may be on something.
J
JReducation
Guest
I imagine that you were in the crypt, where the casket is right above the altar or were you in the main church, where the altar is right above the casket?
If you watch the Holy Father celebrate mass or our own Franciscans on EWTN, I don’t find anything irreverent about that mass and it’s in the Ordinary Form.
Don’t add motives that are not there. It was not purposely mistranslated. It was mistranslated in English only… The translation into the other Romance languages is perfectly consistent with the Latin.
I can’t explain that because I was not there. The rubrics say that you genuflect. I know priests who can’t do it, because they have conditions such as arthritis or because of age.
The point is that the sacrifice can neither be enhanced or diluted. There are many forms in the universal Church. In fact, there are over ten forms of celebrating the mass and they don’t all do the same thing.
Actually, it is obvious to us. It was not obvious to the Church until 1209 when Francis of Assisi moved it to the main altar. The Benedictines thought it was heresy. They never agreed to do it, to this day. When it became law in the universal Church, the Benedictine family had to be given an indult, because they held that this was a violation of the Rule of St. Benedict.
That’s because that was not the idea. I never offered that suggestion. I simply said that this was not even noticeable to us, because we had always done it. I remember I was very confused when I first entered the order. But as time went on, I never noticed again.
On the above point the laity is going to have to yield to religious superiors. Some orders do not want our priests to be noticed by the laity. Nor do we want them being called Father or being distinct form any other friar. For that reason, the newly ordained are going by Brother and we have cut back the number of ordinations. Religious orders are not ordaining as many, because we do not need as many priests as the laity says we do. We have offered many parishes to give them friars who are theologians, pastoral counselors, experts in religious education, experts in finances and administration, expert spiritual directors and marriage counselors, youth ministers, retreat directors and who hold doctorates in theology, ministry, religiuos ed, pastoral care, scripture or Canon Law. Only 1/4 of those parishes have taken our offer, because they want priests. We have offered them 1/2 priest. They would share a priest with another parish, but the other friars would provide for all the pastoral needs of the parish and all the administrative needs. This offer has been turned down.
Several orders have told the Holy Father that they will no longer serve in parishes, where the laity will not accept all friars as equal and insist on the distinction of the priest. The Holy Father has agreed that the situation is not spiritually healthy for these orders. They risk being turned into priests and losing their religious vocation. This has now been turned into a problem for the bishops to solve, but the laity is determined not to comply with the request of the religious. The result is religious men moving into other ministries away from parishes.
I disagree. Most religious have been ordered not to think about it and not to have an opinion on it one way or the other and most don’t. I don’t think that it’s impossible to view the Ordinary Form as Pope Benedict sees it. In my community were simply commanded to put distance between us and any position that is contrary to the Holy Father’s position regarding this matter under penalty of suffering what some of us call “the curse of St. Francis.” It’s not really a curse. It’s just that Francis promised eternal life to those friars who obeyed him and his successors. The converse of that is that if you disobey, you forfeit eternal life.
We do have the EF on special occasions. It’s just never allowed as a regular thing.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status