How will Pope Francis impact traditionalists?

[erlembald]

I doubt it would send that sort of message. Those who oppose the Usus Antiquior aren’t going to change. OTOH, if their attentions are diverted, perhaps they will lay-off obstructing it. No, it’s not great but it’s better than the alternative.

Yes, I think you are right; it is better not to raise too much attention and over time let the EF become so entrenched in the Church that if certain ecclesiastic circles would one day actually wish for the EF to be abolished they couldn’t do it without being (rightly so) perceived as bullies.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Wasn’t that what I said a few posts ago? Indeed, that is the job of the Paraclete, who “unifies all these differences, not making them equal but in harmony with one another,”

It may have been. Perhaps it bears repeating?

And it is the job of all of us to cooperate with the Holy Spirit, else we will remain in discord. How frightening an aspect that we can tie the Hands of God by the generous gift of free will He bestowed on us and will not take back.

In all of these many pages of discussion the only thing that comes to me is that I pray that no matter which way we go from here that no one stubbornly places Form over Substance. Let the real form of the Mass be enshrined in each of our hearts when we pray and participate in the Mass. In the end, unity is in the heart, not in the external form. No two individuals are alike, and no two human beings will feel the same sentiments or identically express the soulful sorrow they feel at the foot of the Cross. We should all strive to see the heavenly hosts that congregate around the altar at each Mass. If one form or the other helps you pray the Mass more fervently, then by all means avail yourself of it. I am now watching the Novus Ordo Mass celebrated at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. It is as beautiful as any EF of the Mass I have ever witnessed.

 

[JReducation]

I have to smile when I read this. In may parish, our priest has permission for four on Sunday.

Wow! I’ve never heard of one priest celebrating four masses in one day. I’ve seen three, but even that’s rare.

Given these constraints, it seems like another alternative is to have the EF as a Saturday vigil. (They did that in my area with the Spanish and Polish Masses.) However, the Saturday evening time slot doesn’t usually sit well with the EF crowd.

My guess is that many traditionalists wouldn’t like the vigil mass. Even then, there is still the question of numbers. If you’re going to displace 500 people who attend the OF for 50 who attend the EF, nor religious superior or bishop will feel comfortable allowing this. The backlash would be incredible. Now, if there could be two vigil masses, one for the 500 and one for the 50, I don’t see why authorities would find a problem with that.

Is there a minimum amount of parishioners that have to consistantly attend the EF in order for the bishop to ok it? Does anyone know? Or is that also at the discretion of the individual bishop?

I know in my diocese the EF is celebrated every week in one parish in Hartford (CT) but I am not sure of it’s attendance #s.

There is no fixed number. The people don’t even have to come from the same parish. You can create a group from different sectors of a diocese. We have that in the diocese where I live. A few parishes have the EF and people travel there from different areas.

The MP also mentions the possibility of a personal parish. I thank God that in our diocese we have such a personal parish for those who prefer the EF (led by FSSP priests). This is mainly due to our Bishop being a traditional Catholic himself; sadly this is also the reason why he is so often attacked and vilified in the media, and constantly criticized by modernist theologians and priests

A personal parish does require the permission of the bishop and the diocesan synod. You can’t erect parishes without going through the process. A personal parish is not unheard of. We have many for reasons other than the EF. I remember before Vatican II there were what I call ethnic parishes. Sometimes there were two parishes within a one mile radius. Today, we would call these personal parishes. There is the famous shrine of St. Joseph in St. Louis, which was founded as a personal parish for German immigrants. The bishop ordered that if you were not German you could not fulfill your Sunday obligation at St. Joseph. That was back in the late 1800s or early 1900s.

If Pope Francis’ papacy will lead to a more simple, pristine NOM - without any liturgical dancing or other hullaballoo - I’d be very grateful! I for my part think that the Traditional Mass itself (not the vestments etc.) is an perfect example of liturgical austerity. Nothing in it is vain or gimmicky, everything is centered around Christ.

Have you seen his two public masses, the one at Santa Ana and the inauguration mass? They were very simple, austere, and very beautiful. The mass at Santa Ana was a typical Sunday OF that you would see at any parish.

 

[PJD1987]

The mass at Santa Ana was a typical Sunday OF that you would see at any parish.

I’m not so sure we need or want the Holy Father to be viewed as “just another” parish priest.

Granted, this is simply my opinion, and I’m still getting used to the Holy Father’s new style, but Pope’s are Pope’s, and parish priests are parish priests, they’re different for very good reasons…

 

[JReducation]

I’m not so sure we need or want the Holy Father to be viewed as “just another” parish priest.

Granted, this is simply my opinion, and I’m still getting used to the Holy Father’s new style, but Pope’s are Pope’s, and parish priests are parish priests, they’re different for very good reasons…

I’m not speaking about being a parish priest. I’m speaking about the mass that he celebrated.

There is another reality that many traditionalists seem to refuse to factor in. This pope is a regular pope. He is not a secular pope. For some reason, many traditionalists are expecting him to follow the tradition set by secular popes. That would be totally inappropriate and unfaithful for a consecrated religious.

Because he is in the public eye, he has to be very much the religious in solemn vows that he is. To be anything else would be unfaithful to his covenant with God and the Church and a scandal.

We didn’t expect Pope Benedict to act and think like a religious. Such an expectation would have been grossly unfair. He is a secular priest. The same goes for Pope Francis. He is a consecrated religious We expect simplicity and a more obvious spirituality from a religious.

Let’s not forget that the papacy is not part of the sacrament of Holy Orders, nor is it part of the consecrated life. It’s an office and a ministry. The man who occupies the Chair of Peter continues to be a priest. If he is a consecrated man, he continues to be one. Everything that goes with being a priest and a religious remains in place. Theologically, nothing should change in how the man lives the Gospel.

While he’s not a parish priest, he is still a regular priest. We should not expect him to be anything other than a regular pope.

Regular does not mean typical. On the contrary. In Catholic theology and tradition, regular only applies to consecrated men and women. Consecrated men and women are not typical Catholics. They are the minority. When one of them is elected pope, he is going to be in the minority. Therefore, his papacy will stand out from that of majority of popes.

This difference is actually fidelity to tradition. When popes were regular and very few secular priests were elected popes, those secular popes stood out. Today, it’s the other way around.

 

[OraLabora]

I’m not speaking about being a parish priest. I’m speaking about the mass that he celebrated.

There is another reality that many traditionalists seem to refuse to factor in. This pope is a regular pope. He is not a secular pope. For some reason, many traditionalists are expecting him to follow the tradition set by secular popes. That would be totally inappropriate and unfaithful for a consecrated religious.

Because he is in the public eye, he has to be very much the religious in solemn vows that he is. To be anything else would be unfaithful to his covenant with God and the Church and a scandal.

We didn’t expect Pope Benedict to act and think like a religious. Such an expectation would have been grossly unfair. He is a secular priest. The same goes for Pope Francis. He is a consecrated religious We expect simplicity and a more obvious spirituality from a religious.

Let’s not forget that the papacy is not part of the sacrament of Holy Orders, nor is it part of the consecrated life. It’s an office and a ministry. The man who occupies the Chair of Peter continues to be a priest. If he is a consecrated man, he continues to be one. Everything that goes with being a priest and a religious remains in place. Theologically, nothing should change in how the man lives the Gospel.

While he’s not a parish priest, he is still a regular priest. We should not expect him to be anything other than a regular pope.

Regular does not mean typical. On the contrary. In Catholic theology and tradition, regular only applies to consecrated men and women. Consecrated men and women are not typical Catholics. They are the minority. When one of them is elected pope, he is going to be in the minority. Therefore, his papacy will stand out from that of majority of popes.

This difference is actually fidelity to tradition. When popes were regular and very few secular priests were elected popes, those secular popes stood out. Today, it’s the other way around.

I was thinking the same thing when I read PJD1987’s comment: the Pope is a Jesuit first, a priest second, and now holds the office of Pope. He can no more stop being a Jesuit than the sun can stop rising in the East.

I’m in fact delighted that we have a regular Pope. This will bring the notion that there’s something more to Catholic “tradition” than the TLM and the 1960 breviary.

It’s good that you’re here to demystify how consecrated religious think and carry out their ministry, and this will also help the Church unleash the power of the charisms of the various orders which often remain hidden behind the “cloister” walls (figuratively speaking as the Jesuits aren’t cloistered…).

 

[TimothyH]

I also remember something that someone posted here. The poster had visited a Cistercian house. The monks said something to the effect that they do not think theology, because it interferes with the life of faith.

Thank you for reminding me why I love Cistericans.

-Tim-

 

[Marie5890]

There is the famous shrine of St. Joseph in St. Louis, which was founded as a personal parish for German immigrants. The bishop ordered that if you were not German you could not fulfill your Sunday obligation at St. Joseph. That was back in the late 1800s or early 1900s.

EWTN ran an hour long show on the shrine today. What a story about it and it’s restoration, not to mention the priest who was murdered. Really strong Jesuit influence, too.

If it’s ever possible for me, that is a shrine I would like to visit. St Joseph is the patron saint of my archdiocese, so I am tender-hearted towards those who have a strong devotion.

 

[Marie5890]

Because he is in the public eye, he has to be very much the religious in solemn vows that he is. To be anything else would be unfaithful to his covenant with God and the Church and a scandal.

Bro., could you elaborate more on what it means to be “in solemn vows” and how those of you who are, how you are formed in it, and how you view it.

I think for me, at least at first, I was like a more cursory attitude of “yea, ok they take solemn vows”, but I dont think I fully (even now) understand what that means to those who take them.

Does that make sense?

 

[PJD1987]

I was thinking the same thing when I read PJD1987’s comment: the Pope is a Jesuit first, a priest second, and now holds the office of Pope. He can no more stop being a Jesuit than the sun can stop rising in the East.

I don’t think I was suggesting that the Pope cease being a Jesuit…? I was simply commenting on the fact that there is a certain prestige and aura around the office of the papacy that just comes with the territory and helps establish his primacy. My fear is that being seen as “just another” parish priest will give others a false notion that being Pope is simply being primus inter pares and that may serve to undercut the authority and primacy of the papacy.

I apologize if I did not make myself clear in my first post.

God bless.

 

[OraLabora]

I don’t think I was suggesting that the Pope cease being a Jesuit…? I was simply commenting on the fact that there is a certain prestige and aura around the office of the papacy that just comes with the territory and helps establish his primacy. My fear is that being seen as “just another” parish priest will give others a false notion that being Pope is simply being primus inter pares and that may serve to undercut the authority and primacy of the papacy.

I apologize if I did not make myself clear in my first post.

God bless.

I do think you’ve missed the point. “Prestige” is a word that is practically anathema to consecrated religious.

He’s not being “just another parish priest”, he is in fact being a Jesuit priest. That’s a big difference. If he took on the notion of “prestige” he would not be being true to his religious vows.

I understand that this will take some getting used to by most folks; those of us with some understanding of religious life (although I’m only an oblate, I am close to several consecrated religious), are heartened, very much so, by the fact that he is being true to his vows.

For those that love the trappings of a high EF Mass, this may be somewhat disconcerting (even to me as a Benedictine it is, because liturgy is very big for Benedictines; and as a lover of Gregorian chant I know this won’t be his priority). The Jesuits are not bound to choir, therefore chant, etc, won’t play as big a role in their charism as it does, say, for a Benedictine or a secular priest who loves liturgy such as Benedict XVI. It’s not the main part of their charism, whereas for Benedictines liturgy is one half of their motto of “Ora et Labora”. In fact their (liturgical) “Ora” is also a big part of their “Labora” (they call the Divine Office the “doing the work of God”).

For Jesuits, teaching, mission work, intellectual work, and I’m assuming here based on the Holy Father’s prior acts, social justice, take precedence over elaborate liturgy. This will necessarily be reflected in his pontificate. I think this is a good and refreshing thing and a reminder to us that all charisms in the Church have their place and should be allowed to flourish in whatever circumstances they happen to find themselves in, including in Chair of St. Peter.

What truly matters is that the Holy Father is a good, orthodox, holy, and able man. I think we will be very well served on that count, and moreover I think he is already showing what a powerful inspiration he is to us.

 

[JReducation]

Bro., could you elaborate more on what it means to be “in solemn vows” and how those of you who are, how you are formed in it, and how you view it.

I think for me, at least at first, I was like a more cursory attitude of “yea, ok they take solemn vows”, but I dont think I fully (even now) understand what that means to those who take them.

Does that make sense?

Religious can make one of two kinds of vows, simple or solemn. Most religious make simple vows. Among women, only nuns are allowed to make solemn vows. Among men, only those who belong to religious order are allowed to make solemn vows. Congregations make simple vows.

In essence, the vows encompass the Evangelical Counsels of obedience, poverty and chastity. Some religious communities vow to beyond the Counsels. For example, the Missionaries of Charity make a fourth vow to serve the poorest of the poor. In the Benedictine tradition, the monks make vows of obedience and stability. Chastity and poverty are in the rule. If you’re obedient, you’ll be chaste and poor. Obedience is the greatest of the three vows.

Canonically, a solemn vows has certain differences from a simple vow. For example, a person who is in solemn vows cannot validly marry without a dispensation. A person in simple vows can validly marry, but the marriage is ilicit. The marriage vows trump the vows of religious life, because marriage is a sacrament. However, if you are in solemn vows, the religious vows trump the vows of the sacrament and there is no sacrament, even if the pope himself were to witness your marriage. That’s one effect of a solemn vow.

Religious in simple vows can own property as individuals. Religious in solemn vows may never own property. In most congregations, even if the religious owns something, that property is administered by someone outside of the community. When the appropriate time comes, the property transfers to whomever the religious chooses. Not so in solemn vows. When my mother died she left an inheritance for all her children. Before making solemn vows, I had signed a legal document appointing an heir. When my mother died, my inheritance went directly to my heir. I never had ownership of it.

Then comes the vow of obedience. This one is really serious stuff. A religious in simple vows is bound to obey God and all legitimate authority. This includes superiors, government leaders and anyone else to whom he or she answers. The religious in solemn vows owes obedience to: a) God (obviously), b) the pope, c) the founder of his community (even if he’s dead), d) the general chapter of his community, and e) his superior.

We who are solemn vows practice what has often been called “blind obedience”. The term is not accurate; but that’s how it has often been described. In reality, it’s a loving obedience. We are never bound to obey that which the Church teaches to be a sin. No one is. However, we are bound to obey beyond that usual. A loving obedience is the obedience of a child. You obey because you love, not because the pope, bishop, superior or your brothers are right and you’re wrong. You may be the only lucid person in the group. If the other side is not asking you to sin, even if what you know is a better choice, you submit your will because you love. You offer up whatever you have to sacrifice as a penance.

We never obey reluctantly. “Oh well, if you say so.” That’s not a loving obedience. We obey cheerfully. “Because you say so, I will obey.” If you were in simple vows, you would not be bound to this kind of obedience. A command would have to be legitimate. If the superior told you to walk barefoot in the snow, you could disobey, because it’s an unreasonable mandate. In solemn vows, if the superior asks you to walk barefoot in the snow, reasonableness does not enter into the picture. It’s all about morality and love. Because walking in the snow is morally neutral (many saints have done it) and because you love your superior as you love Christ, you walk in the snow.

This obedience goes beyond externals. It goes into the soul as well. Here is where some may have problems with Pope Francis. St. Ignatius was more than just the founder of the Jesuits. Because they are in solemn vows, St. Ignatius is their patriarch. He is very much alive among them. They obey not only what he taught them, but they obey his manner as well.

What does it mean to say that we in solemn vows obey the manner of our founders, be it Ignatius, Francis, Benedict, Teresa of Avila or other? Well, in simple terms, it means that we take everything that they did, everything that they valued, their worldview, their view of the Church, their view of the religious life, their view of the apostolate and their understanding of the Gospel as a mandate to be imitated. Ignatius is more than just a role model. For a Jesuit, Ignatius is a way of thinking, acting, and a teacher of the Gospel life. A Jesuit lives the Gospel as he understands Ignatius’ interpretation of the Gospel. Ignatius is his teacher and father. All good disciples and sons obey their teachers and fathers. Obedience is shown not only when one does what one is commanded, but when one replicates in one’s life what the teacher lived. We take the teacher’s actions, principles, and faith as laws that we follow.

Why is that so intense? Because it is our belief that this person will lead us to Christ. This person will teach us how to imitate Christ. This person will speak to us for Christ. St. Benedict said it well when he said that the voice of the abbot is the voice of Christ.

 

[JReducation]

In the Jesuit tradition, the externals of the priesthood have always been toned down, meaning that they have always tried to blend with their environment. This was the mind of Ignatius. He was so insistent on this that he never gave them a habit, even though they were religious. They usually wore whatever the clergy was wearing at that time and place.

This is something that is drilled into you over many years. In the Franciscan tradition, it can take as long as 10 years before you can make solemn vows, counting from the time you enter. It all depends on how long it takes you to adopt this way of thinking and living. I believe that it’s the same number of years in the Jesuit tradition. These years have nothing to do with academic studies. You can finish your studies long before you’re allowed to make solemn vows.

There is one last, but not less, important detail about solemn vows. That is fraternity. Whether you’re a monk, a mendicant or a Jesuit, your brothers are your family. Your ties with your biological family are virtually non-existent. You biological family goes on with its life and you with your own. You see each other and even visit on a schedule. In charity, we’re bound to care for our families. Yet, we care for our families. My brother’s mother is also my mother. If she has a need, I have a moral duty to respond.

Having said this, let’s look at our duty to our brothers. Let’s put this in the context of Pope Francis. As a Jesuit, he has a moral duty to his brothers to live the Jesuit life, to maintain the Jesuit ideals and customs, and to be attentive to their guidance.

This does not interfere with his ministry as pope. The Jesuit ideals, customs and the guidance that they will offer will always be in the interest of the Church. Ignatius was a faithful son of the Church. There were times when Ignatius and the Church disagreed. If the Church allowed him wiggle room, he did things his way. However, if the Church drew the line, he also complied. There was always that dynamic relationship between Ignatius and the Church. The same dynamic relationship has existed between the Jesuits and the Church. They have had their problem children like any large family. But those children have no influence on a Jesuit pope. A Jesuit pope will serve the Church with the love, simplicity, and fidelity of Ignatius.

The problem where traditionalists may find is in the area of simplicity. What may look like surrendering the signs of authority are really obedience to Ignatius, whom as we have already said, is the master teacher on Christian living for a Jesuit. Now, here is where St. Francis enters the picture. St. Ignatius was a devotee of St. Francis of Assisi. When he founded the Society of Jesus, he emulated the poverty of St. Francis of Assisi. It is from St. Francis that St. Ignatius got the idea that the Jesuits should never accept positions among the hierarchy. The statute is found in the Rule of St. Francis. Franciscans cannot seek, ask for or accept such positions. However, we are bound to obey. When the needs of the Church require that you serve among the hierarchy, you do so out of obedience, but you do so with the minimal amount of externals. In doing so, you’re faithful to your founder and the spirit of your order. In other words, you are taking your vow of obedience as something very solemn, not to be brushed aside, because you’re a bishop or a pope.

There is more, but it would be too long. There is not really one single book out there that has all of this. Most of this is handed down by oral tradition among religious in solemn vows, usually through the novice master in union with the superior.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think I was suggesting that the Pope cease being a Jesuit…? I was simply commenting on the fact that there is a certain prestige and aura around the office of the papacy that just comes with the territory and helps **establish his primacy. **My fear is that being seen as “just another” parish priest will give others a false notion that being Pope is simply being primus inter pares and that may serve to undercut the authority and primacy of the papacy.

I apologize if I did not make myself clear in my first post.

God bless.

The bold is mine.

That would not be something that occurs naturally to a religious in solemn vows. Because we have been programmed to be as simple as possible. When you’re 76 years old, reprogramming is not easy.

I’m using the word programmed in the good sense, not the cult sense.

 

[PJD1987]

I do think you’ve missed the point. “Prestige” is a word that is practically anathema to consecrated religious.

With respect, I don’t believe I am missing the point. I just think I’m bringing up certain issues that may arise from the fact that the Holy Father is a Jesuit and is being true to his solemn vows (which is commendable), but as you said will take much getting used to by most folks.

We shall see how it all develops.

 

[clem456]

Can anyone explain what the term regular means? In relation to religious or consecrated?

 

[JReducation]

Can anyone explain what the term regular means? In relation to religious or consecrated?

A consecrated religious lives by a rule (regula in Latin). He is called a regular.

A Catholic who is of the world is referred to as a secular.

Most priests are not consecrated religious, meaning that they do not make vows. In the Latin Church they promise to remain celibate, which is not the same as a vow of chastity. They promise to obey the bishop, but that only applies to pastoral matters. The bishop has no authority over their personal life as would the superior of a consecrated religious. These men belong to a diocese or to a priestly society such as Maryknoll, Vincentians, SOLT, FSSP, ICRSS or Opus Dei. Priests who are not consecrated religious are called secular priests.

A consecrated Catholic is called a regular or a religious.

A non consecrated Catholic is called a secular.

Since Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a Jesuit, he is a consecrated religious. Therefore, he is a regular.

 

[Esrb99]

**The problem where traditionalists may find is in the area of simplicity. ** What may look like surrendering the signs of authority are really obedience to Ignatius, whom as we have already said, is the master teacher on Christian living for a Jesuit. Now, here is where St. Francis enters the picture. St. Ignatius was a devotee of St. Francis of Assisi. When he founded the Society of Jesus, he emulated the poverty of St. Francis of Assisi. It is from St. Francis that St. Ignatius got the idea that the Jesuits should never accept positions among the hierarchy. The statute is found in the Rule of St. Francis. Franciscans cannot seek, ask for or accept such positions. However, we are bound to obey. When the needs of the Church require that you serve among the hierarchy, you do so out of obedience, but you do so with the minimal amount of externals. In doing so, you’re faithful to your founder and the spirit of your order. In other words, you are taking your vow of obedience as something very solemn, not to be brushed aside, because you’re a bishop or a pope.

I have a bit of a hard time believing that… But if they are, then of course they are wrong. I’m sure you can talk to many people about the benedictines at Clear Creek Monastery. The place is austere, solemn, and secluded. Even the liturgy is austere to a degree-no polyphony, or grand baroque motets. But just because the liturgy is that way, does not mean that rubrics or solemnity is compromised. Indeed, the Abbey is able to publicly offer most of the major hours of the office, along with low mass and High mass daily. Keeping in mind that High mass is supposed to be the standard & not the exception, this is a very good fruit for the church in the Americas.

http://clearcreekmonks.org/gallery-...ear-creek-abbey-Cardinal-Burke-visit-5964.JPG

http://clearcreekmonks.org/gallery-...ear-creek-abbey-Cardinal-Burke-visit-5966.JPG

And even among the Franciscans, you still have those that celebrate solemn mass, with great dignity. As I understand it, most traditionalists don’t care so much about opulent externals, so much as they care about the liturgy in the Extraordinary Form offered with love and care for the mass expressed in as devout and precise expression possible.

This can be seen at Our Lady of Guadalupe Friary of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. As such, it is clear that religious traditions of the Franciscans & other religious groups is not incompatible with the EF liturgy. One does not have to be just a franciscan or just an adherent to the 62 missal to be ‘traditional’. One can be both.

youtube.com/watch?v=4frzb-mre2Y

 

[Melchior_1]

Esrb99,

There are some posters here with a reflexive dislike of austerity in architecture and liturgy. For some reason, they feel threatened by it.

 

[Esrb99]

Esrb99,

There are some posters here with a reflexive dislike of austerity in architecture and liturgy. For some reason, they feel threatened by it.

What constitutes austerity in architecture and liturgy in this case? (the one that causes a reflexive dislike, that is).

In those photos above, the architecture, is fully Benedictine, is austere, and yet I believe these posters you mention would be hard-pressed to have a reflexive dislike of it as I posted.

I am also fairly certain that there are posters here who dislike what they perceive as opulence, or even excessive opulence in both architecture and the liturgy. Just because these posters exist does not mean that any critical eye at possible excesses should be discounted. Likewise just because one perceives that others dislike austerity because they feel threatened does not in itself mean that this opposing viewpoint is invalid.