In 500 years time, what will be said of the 50 years since VaticanII?

[archangel04]

TevereNauta in my opinion he has been uncharittable to many of us, but I guess we both see it different ways.

Most of us here have no real issue with the OF, in fact a lot of us here were raised in the OF including myself. What most of us have a problem with is the way it’s implemented. Many in charge like liturgical committees go out of their way to make sure nothing “traditional” is done during the mass. Its almost feels like they are saying, “hide the children from the big bad old traditional church, don’t allow them to be influence by it”. Why can’t EF or orthodox OF be done at all parishes and then allow people to choose for themselves? I have no doubt that just because the EF in one area brings out greater fruit than the OF in the same area does not mean that the EF will do the same in all around the world. The holy Father has allowed for the EF because he wants for both forms to complement each other. Too long have “bureaucratic Catholics” have had their way with the liturgy. People blame JP2 for not doing more about the liturgical abuses, but I feel he did exactly what needed to be done, that is “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” what I mean by that is that he knew he wasn’t going to change the older generations mind on the liturgy. Instead he focused on the young seminarians and did a big sweep on the seminaries schools to remove the heterodox thinking and bring in proper orthodox education. Then along come our current pope who starts to focus more on the liturgy. We got the SP in '07 and we will get the new missal much more faithful to the Latin.
I honestly wish we had masses like the one you describe and I would probably attend that type of OF more than the EF, but unfortunately in my area you either have the EF or OF full of abuses.

 

[archangel04]

I’m reading this thread and finding it rather interesting. There are some points that have attracted my attention more than others . . . as is the case with every human endeavor. Is it not?

I actually had to look up the definition of endeacor lol I never claimed to be intelligent, Thank God for Google.

Br. JR thanks again for your post, I did not know much about your order and what had happened to it up to Vat 2. We can add that as another good fruit of the council.

 

[TevereNauta]

TevereNauta in my opinion he has been uncharittable to many of us, but I guess we both see it different ways.

Most of us here have no real issue with the OF, in fact a lot of us here were raised in the OF including myself. What most of us have a problem with is the way it’s implemented. Many in charge like liturgical committees go out of their way to make sure nothing “traditional” is done during the mass. Its almost feels like they are saying, “hide the children from the big bad old traditional church, don’t allow them to be influence by it”. Why can’t EF or orthodox OF be done at all parishes and then allow people to choose for themselves? I have no doubt that just because the EF in one area brings out greater fruit than the OF in the same area does not mean that the EF will do the same in all around the world. The holy Father has allowed for the EF because he wants for both forms to complement each other. Too long have “bureaucratic Catholics” have had their way with the liturgy. People blame JP2 for not doing more about the liturgical abuses, but I feel he did exactly what needed to be done, that is “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” what I mean by that is that he knew he wasn’t going to change the older generations mind on the liturgy. Instead he focused on the young seminarians and did a big sweep on the seminaries schools to remove the heterodox thinking and bring in proper orthodox education. Then along come our current pope who starts to focus more on the liturgy. We got the SP in '07 and we will get the new missal much more faithful to the Latin.
I honestly wish we had masses like the one you describe and I would probably attend that type of OF more than the EF, but unfortunately in my area you either have the EF or OF full of abuses.

I am very sorry if I appeared to be uncharitable, it was not my intention at all Archangel. I agree with you 100% that a reverent OF Mass, excuse me for using the term NO, complements the EF Mass, excuse me for using TLM. I have been extremely fortunate to have found the parish that I have, orthodox and reverent in all its Masses. I also understand that nothing could turn a person ‘off’ from an Ordinary Form Mass more than irreverent liturgical abuse, as it were, if you will read above sir you’ll find I left a parish that: removed its kneelers, consigned the Stations of the Cross to the Eucharistic Chapel (and in the form of Roman numerals at that), preached that the devil was synonymous with the Freudian Ego, and used every opportunity to subtly preach the ordination of women without explicitly stating such. The above was my first post, so please excuse any gross assumptions I made. The new Missal is also a Godsend.

Faced with a choice between the parish I describe above and an Extraordinary Form Mass, there is no question I would chose the Extraordinary Form…and as a quick aside, I may mention that the parish with the abuses I mention has 0 people involved in the RCIA program, while the orthodox parish I now attend always has between 20 and 30. I am very fortunate to have found a parish that conducts all its Masses with the utmost reverence and orthodoxy. And it is my hope that reverence and orthodoxy will continue to become hallmarks of the Ordinary Form Masses for those who wish to attend them, just as I hope and pray that Extraordinary Form Masses will become available for those who wish to attend them—and that together they may complement one another for the glory of God. This, from my limited perspective, is what I interpret the ‘spirit’ of VII to be, as well as the excellent points made by JReducation above.

And, for what it is worth, in the ‘spirit’ of VII, I also hope Taizé prayer may become more available for those who wish to experience its mysticism and beauty. I hope and pray again that that ecumenical movement, guided now by a Catholic prior, may slowly, surely, and beautifully lead those involved to the Truth and Beauty of Holy Mother Church.

 

[Celticnovice]

Sorry, Ed, but you’re ignoring a significant item: VII formalized the requirement for the Eastern Catholic Churches to delatinize, and also formally states they are sister churches in union, not merely ritual churches within the Roman. And that change IS implemented. (Delatinization is ongoing in most of the ECCs). That’s the one big doctrinal change of VII… the inherent validity of the Eastern Churches liturgical praxis (both in and out of union). And one that doesn’t affect latins much, and few (if any) latins care about.

This.

Thank you Aramis, and more of us Latins are learning about our “other lung.”

 

[ProVobis]

I believe that, regardless of the denotations of VII, though which I consistently study am not yet an expert, my parish connotes the very best of the VII spirit—orthodoxy in both the Latin and vernacular forms. And I agree with Laszlo’s observation, anecdotal though it may be the TLM has a weekly attendance of some 150 people (the only young one ones in attendance children of the adults) while the other services pack the church to capacity, some 500 people (with many newlyweds and young singles). Why is it that some people cannot accept orthodoxy is not limited to strictly Latin? I can appreciate the beauty of TLM, truly, and am so thankful that the Holy Father has made the efforts he has to preserve it, indeed, to promulgate it: but the hard facts are, by every standard of my own observation, that the NO is not going to be replaced by TLM just as TLM will not be forced out by the NO. Why do so many people hereabouts seem to be insisting that the NO—which is a canonical and absolutely valid Mass—be thrown out in favor of totally restoring TLM…which by and large simply, though beautiful, does not speak to the great majority of the Faithful? Is our faith not about worshipping Our Lord in an orthodox manner?

For the record, I support the Latin OF very strongly as well. I notice well how the “spiriters” of Vatican II like to avoid that subject and just use the generic OF term to throw their comparison numbers with the EF. That I feel is disingenuous as well. Let’s face it, most of it is about language, you won’t find too many Poles going to Spanish Masses or vice versa, for example, but that won’t stop them from denigrating the TLM in terms of attendance, it seems. The TLM faces a lot of hostility and it’s basically the language and the quietness of the Mass, it seems, and that’s unfortunate.

 

[JReducation]

For the record, I support the Latin OF very strongly as well. I notice well how the “spiriters” of Vatican II like to avoid that subject and just use the generic OF term to throw their comparison numbers with the EF. That I feel is disingenuous as well. Let’s face it, most of it is about language, you won’t find too many Poles going to Spanish Masses or vice versa, for example, but that won’t stop them from denigrating the TLM in terms of attendance, it seems. The TLM faces a lot of hostility and it’s basically the language and the quietness of the Mass, it seems, and that’s unfortunate.

I think that it’s unfortunate to reduce Catholic Tradition to a form of the mass. Catholic Tradition is very rich. It includes: liturgy, the writings and legacy of the Fathers, the great monastic movements and reforms, the founding of the mendicant orders, the founding of the apostolic congregations, health care, education, ministry to captives, missions, music, art, science, universities, literature, 23 sui iuris Churches with their respective identities, histories and theology. The liberation of women. Yes, I did say that. Nuns were the most independent women in history. Abbeys were run by women. They did not answer to men. Many abbesses actually governed the local secular clergy. They owned and managed their own property, made their own rules, elected their own leaders. Sisterhoods would be founded later. They ran institutions: hospitals, schools, universities, social service centers and much more. They too governed themselves. We were the first social organization to promote common sharing of material goods and resources, long before Marx came along. Philosophy, math, astronomy, theology and law were all part of Catholic Tradition.

We have a very rich tradition. The mass is the focal point. But we have forgotten that around the mass we have a crown called the Liturgy of the Hours. I know that many Traditionalists don’t like this term, but it’s actually a very ancient term. It’s been in use for many centuries in mendicant houses. We diverted from using Divine Office, because the Divine Office used the monastic Diurnal and the Mendicants used the Psalter without the rest of the diurnal. Even that difference is part of our tradition.

All of these elements together are what makes Catholic Tradition. It’s the Gestalt. If you take one away, you lose something important.

Denigrating any part of Tradition, whether it’s the mass in the Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form is unfortunate and is probably due to a failure to understand that the mass, in any form within the Roman Rite, is still the mass. It does not cease to be what it is.

I can say that I don’t like this kind of music or that physical arrangement for a church. I can say that I prefer this form over that one. I can certainly point to violations of the rubrics in either form. But to say, “my mass is better than your mass” is bizarre to the extreme.

To say that a person who prefers a mass in their own language is not a Traditional Catholic is unfair. As I’ve pointed above, Traditional Catholicism is very rich. Latin and the Extraordinary Form do not define Catholic Tradition. They are part of it, but not the whole of it.

We really have to learn to think in bigger images and we have to learn to be more gentle and kinder in how we speak about any form of the mass, the Council, the Church, the hierarchy, other Catholics and even non-Catholics.

Gentleness is never wasted. What is not appreciated by the other person, will only return to you as Grace.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[archangel04]

For the record, I support the Latin OF very strongly as well. I notice well how the “spiriters” of Vatican II like to avoid that subject and just use the generic OF term to throw their comparison numbers with the EF. That I feel is disingenuous as well. Let’s face it, most of it is about language, you won’t find too many Poles going to Spanish Masses or vice versa, for example, but that won’t stop them from denigrating the TLM in terms of attendance, it seems. The TLM faces a lot of hostility and it’s basically the language and the quietness of the Mass, it seems, and that’s unfortunate.

Agreed! Ever notice how many people seem to love the Anglican mass? I wonder why? And a lot of them are Catholics. It seems like the TLM hostility is about the language then everything else is second.

 

[Adeodatus]

Millions of souls driven away from the Church and into the waiting snares of the devil, smashed icons, destroyed and defiled high altars, tabernacles removed, the Real Presence of our Lord mocked or minimized, the faith lost, the traditions thrown out and relegated to obscurity, orthodoxy attacked, pagans invited to perform sacrilege upon holy ground, the fathers ignored, the Bible desecrated by the interventions of faithless Modernists, the liturgy laid waste, heresy promoted and Jesus Christ openly mocked (even His words to Saint Faustina were ‘edited’!).

It will be remembered as a worse and more complete apostasy than Arianism, in which only 80% of bishops vacated the faith. Even at that time, to allow those such as the Buddhists to place an icon of their heathen god over the tabernacle and hold a pagan rite would have been unthinkable.

It will be remembered when the Church of Jesus Christ almost died out completely from the face of the Earth. All arranged by the most amazing coup ever launched in human history.

I think in 500 years, if indeed there is that large a measure of history even left, that few people will have the slightest idea how close the faith came to total extinction, and how hard it was to be a Catholic Christian in this time.

 

[ProVobis]

To say that a person who prefers a mass in their own language is not a Traditional Catholic is unfair. As I’ve pointed above, Traditional Catholicism is very rich. Latin and the Extraordinary Form do not define Catholic Tradition. They are part of it, but not the whole of it.

Br JR, I don’t quite see it that way. Preferring a mass in one’s everyday language means that one is unwillinging to make that little extra effort that used to be required of every Latin Rite Catholic. To me it’s almost like abstaining from meat on Friday. You don’t have to make that effort but what does it say about your spiritual focus? And how are you able to distinguish between the secular world and a more intimate one with your Creator? I don’t think I could do that with a mass in the primary tongue or at least not to the fullest degree possible. If the Church decides tomorrow to make Chinese its official language and primary language of the Mass, then I would be ordering books from Amazon first thing in the morning so I can feel that much closer to Christ. I want to hear God’s word, not the word of a translator. But that’s me and I’m sure most won’t agree with me.

 

[Cojuanco]

Like almost any other era - some people and nations fell away from the Faith, while others embraced it ever more fervently. Some reforms were correctly implemented, while others were misinterpreted owing to larger cultural forces standing in the way. The Mass, in spite of what some tried to do to it, survives in every Catholic parish.

Like it or not, there have always been disobedient bishops, iconoclastic priests, Popes who, in spite of their best intentions, made some mistakes (in the ordinary sense, as opposed to errors, which God naturally prevents him from teaching). The difference is, in our modern era, we get to see more of it, unfiltered. Also add to that a change in the wider culture where significant sectors of society turned against religion in general, and who sought to subvert it.

What will our descendants say about us? The same as we say about our ancestors, if they are honest. The problem is we have too much nostalgia of what everything was like before, often to the detriment of what was actually good about that time.

 

[archangel04]

Adeodatus don’t you think you are being a little too harsh? From what I heard the statue was never on top of the tabernacle. Aslo where did you get those numbers about the bishops?

 

[Cojuanco]

Adeodatus don’t you think you are being a little too harsh? From what I heard the statue was never on top of the tabernacle. Aslo where did you get those numbers about the bishops?

Agreed. Some number lost their orthodoxy, but certainly not four-fifths.

 

[JReducation]

Millions of souls driven away from the Church and into the waiting snares of the devil, smashed icons, destroyed and defiled high altars, tabernacles removed, the Real Presence of our Lord mocked or minimized,

Where did you see Catholics doing this?

the faith lost, the traditions thrown out and relegated to obscurity, orthodoxy attacked, pagans invited to perform sacrilege upon holy ground,

Where did you see this?

the fathers ignored, the Bible desecrated by the interventions of faithless Modernists, the liturgy laid waste, heresy promoted and Jesus Christ openly mocked (even His words to Saint Faustina were ‘edited’!).

Again, where and by whom?

It will be remembered as a worse and more complete apostasy than Arianism, in which only 80% of bishops vacated the faith. Even at that time, to allow those such as the Buddhists to place an icon of their heathen god over the tabernacle and hold a pagan rite would have been unthinkable.

If this and all the above are your references to the Assisi gathering, you have been reading the writings of people with an agenda.

Let me tell you something about the physical arrangements for the Assisi gathering. If you choose not to believe me, I can’t help that. St. Francis Basilica is the Mother house of the Franciscan Order. Nothing and no place in the world is more sacred to the Franciscans than Assisi, maybe the Holy Land. The order has guarded Assisi almost jealously for 800 years.

Because the Franciscan family is so huge, it slowly evolved into 100+ branches that we call obediences. However, every couple of years we have a Chapter of Mats. That means that each branch of the order sends delegates to Assisi. For example, in 2009, for the 800the anniversary of the order, 1400 delegates were sent to Assisi.

To accommodate these delegates, the friary was expanded about 35-years ago. To avoid ruining the architecture, which dates back to the 13th century, the new addition was build using the exact same design and materials. When you look at it from the outside, it gives the impression of being one big church with a friary attached.

When you go into the building, you realize that it’s four buildings connected by corridors. One is the basilica where our Holy Father is buried. The other is the friary where 100 or more friars still live. The other building is a conference building with many rooms the size of classrooms for those who come for retreats and workshops. The fourth building is an Assembly hall that accommodates about 1,000 people or more. It was in these two buildings, the conference hall and the assembly hall where the Assisi gathering was hosted and where the next one will be hosted. Nothing every took place in the basilica. Therefore, nothing was ever placed on the tabernacle. You can’t even if you wanted to do so. The tabernacle is not in the basilica. It was taken out over 100 years ago by the Franciscans. The tabernacle is in a small chapel that connects the basilica and the friary. That chapel does not hold more than 50 people. It is physically impossible to do all those horrible things that people claim were done in a church that was not open to the visitors, except to take a tour. Don’t let some lose canon who’s writing about something, with an agenda of his own, mislead you.

Also, remember that the pope who was responsible for this was just beatified. Obviously, he was neither an apostate nor a modernist. A modern man is not the same as a modernist.

It will be remembered when the Church of Jesus Christ almost died out completely from the face of the Earth. All arranged by the most amazing coup ever launched in human history.

I wouldn’t call a church of 2 billion people a dying Church. By the way, I believe that’s just Latin Catholics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cojuanco]

Exactly. Has Europe slowly abandoned the Faith? Unfortunately, yes. But that does not mean the Faith is dead. The Church has become wildly successful in missionary work, in spite of attempts by secret policemen and perverted parodies of NGOs trying to resist their work. Even in Red China, the Communists have totally failed to stop the steady spread of the Faith. This naturally produces converts who breathe new life into the Church.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, I don’t quite see it that way. Preferring a mass in one’s everyday language means that one is unwillinging to make that little extra effort that used to be required of every Latin Rite Catholic. To me it’s almost like abstaining from meat on Friday. You don’t have to make that effort but what does it say about your spiritual focus? And how are you able to distinguish between the secular world and a more intimate one with your Creator? I don’t think I could do that with a mass in the primary tongue or at least not to the fullest degree possible. If the Church decides tomorrow to make Chinese its official language and primary language of the Mass, then I would be ordering books from Amazon first thing in the morning so I can feel that much closer to Christ. I want to hear God’s word, not the word of a translator. But that’s me and I’m sure most won’t agree with me.

This is an interesting and positive exchange, because I’m coming from a different angle. I was born Jewish and became a Catholic right after high school, in 1968. Yes, I’m old.

After having suffered through Hebrew classes, I welcomed the opportunity to pray in my own language. Even today as a religious, I find that language of the mass or the breviary is not something that I even think about as I’m going through it. I’m fascinated by the prayer itself. I find a great sense of peace and beauty in the liturgy of the mass and of the hours in any language. We have some houses that celebrate them in Latin. When I visit them, I go with the flow and don’t find it distracting at all. We have other houses in the USA that celebrate them in Spanish. Again, I merge right with the flow. In the house where I live we use English and Creole.

Maybe part of this may be because I’m a religious. The experience of being with one’s brothers is always elevating. It may be that coming from a Jewish background, there are many things in the psalter and in the mass that I think I understand better than many Christians, because it’s the language of my people. Or it can be that I’m just a Franciscan. We never had the full blown Tridentine mass that everyone had. For example, while other orders were using Gregorian Chant, Francis of Assisi didn’t use or encourage it. While other orders were singing hymns in Latin, Francis of Assisi wrote hymns in Italian. The German friars would later write other hymns in German and the Spanish friars in Spanish and so forth. When our friars first went to Asia, they got permission to celebrate mass in Chinese and they dressed in Chinese clothing instead of the habit. This was in the 1500s and later up to the time of St. Maximilian Kolbe. We have always used Latin alongside the vernacular, even if it was just singing in the vernacular and reading the scriptures at mass in the vernacular.

From our early days in formation the focus is always placed on praying as Francis prayed, meaning with the same devotion, the same focus and intensity. We train our postulants, novices and student friars in the art of Franciscan prayer and Franciscan contemplation. That is the goal to which every friar aspires.

After Vatican II, with the translation of the books, some do it in Latin and others do it in different languages. But what unites us is Francis and Jesus. Francis is the teacher on following Jesus. It is his approach to prayer that we try to emulate in our lives. We try to open ourselves up to Christ in the Eucharist and the breviary as Francis did. We’re paying a lot of attention to our attitude in prayer and to our tradition of prayer.

During the mass we bring three elements together: the sacrifice (obviously), the adoration of God and the oneness of our brotherhood. That’s why we never had the railings or the physical separations between the priest who is celebrating the mass and the community. Because most of the time, the priest is one of our own brothers. He is serving his brothers as a priest for those few minutes that we’re at mass.

I don’t believe that the Franciscans of the Eternal Word ever televise their community mass. But you can see the setup in the chapel. The sanctuary is open. You can see the back and forth movement from English to Latin. That is very Franciscan. In some houses there is more and in others there is less Latin. The celebration of the mass is exactly the same with some minor differences due to space. The chapel at EWTN is much larger than most of our chapels. Most of our chapels are only for the friars. This one was built for the staff at EWTN.

I don’t know. For me the focus in on our way of praying, not on the language. There is a very specific Franciscan way of praying the mass and praying the breviary. It’s more an attitude, than an external thing. Our goal is to pray as the Trinity prays, because that’s how Francis prayed. He was infused with the prayer of the Trinity. We’ve never made a big deal about language, but we have made a big deal about the Franciscan method. Even in our parishes, we sort of impose it on the laity. Impose may be too harsh. What I’m trying to say is that the lay faithful in our parishes are brought into this method. We don’t change or adapt to what the rest of the Church is doing in order to accommodate the laity. They accommodate to us. That’s how we’ve done it for 800 years and that’s how the tabernacle ended up on the main altar. We did that when no one else was doing it. Eventually, everyone got used to it.

I’m not sure if I’m making myself too clear. Sorry.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[archangel04]

**Even in our parishes, we sort of impose it on the laity. Impose may be too harsh. What I’m trying to say is that the lay faithful in our parishes are brought into this method. We don’t change or adapt to what the rest of the Church is doing in order to accommodate the laity. They accommodate to us. ** That’s how we’ve done it for 800 years and that’s how the tabernacle ended up on the main altar. We did that when no one else was doing it. Eventually, everyone got used to it.

I’m not sure if I’m making myself too clear. Sorry.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Interesting that you say that. I am actually curious now on the Franciscan style in praying. Have any sites or books might recommend? By the way having the tabernacle on the main altar was one of the best inovations for the Church IMHO, I know it wasn’t done intentional by Francis, but it worked.

 

[JReducation]

Interesting that you say that. I am actually curious now on the Franciscan style in praying. Have any sites or books might recommend? By the way having the tabernacle on the main altar was one of the best inovations for the Church IMHO, I know it wasn’t done intentional by Francis, but it worked.

It’s funny. Francis put it on the main altar because our brothers did not live in monasteries. Monasteries always had a side chapel next to the sanctuary. That’s where the Blessed Sacrament was kept. Later, architects would use the monastery model to build the great churches with the side chapels and side altars, but place the tabernacle in the Franciscan position – front center.

The only difference was that in our early chapels the tabernacle was not on the altar of sacrifice. There was a small table against the wall on which the tabernacle sat. The altar of sacrifice was very much like the altars in our moder churches. You know, the ones that Traditionalists call table. That’s a Franciscan concept, not a Protestant one. The Protestants took it from us when they left.

The floor plan was the tabernacle against the wall on a little altar that was almost an over sized pedestal and the altar in front of it so that you could stand on either side of it to celebrate mass.

The next time you watch mass on EWTN, look at the setup that they have both at the EWTN chapel and the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament. That’s the traditional Franciscan arrangement. When mass facing the people was allowed, the altars in our chapels never had to be pulled forward. They were already free standing. It was only in the churches that we inherited where there were those big altars attached to the wall. Also, later some bishops would ask us to build churches for their dioceses and we did use their model. It was their money and their churches.

Topic shift:

On Franciscan prayer, there are two books that I like very much. One is biographical. Brother Francis of Assisi by Ignacio Larañaga. Friar Ignacio tries to walk you through Francis’ soul. He actually succeeds in showing you how Francis prayed.

The other book that I like very much is Francis of Assisi: Writer and Spiritual Master by Thaddée Matura. Friar Thad walks you through a quick summary of Franciscan Spirituality. If you like that book, he expounds on the subject in a much longer volume where is goes deep into Francis’ life of prayer.

Then, of course, there are the prayers that Francis wrote. If you examine them line by line, word by word, they are very theological. I believe that the most theological of all is the Canticle of the Creatures. If you read it carefully, you notice that Francis observes God’s attributes in the world around him as he prays. Rather than avoid “distraction” as many would say. Francis welcomes it. He likes having his prayer invaded by the world, because the more of the world that he sees in his prayer, the more of God that he sees in the world.

What he does when he prays is that those things that we would consider distractions, he considers opportunities to stop praying with words and to observe God’s presence. This observation is called contemplation. You stop and you look.

Often, we want to pray. Francis wanted more than that. He wanted to SEE. In other words, he wanted to see the Father. He calls on Christ to take him to the Father and he relies on the Holy Spirit to help him recognize the Father’s presence, even in those things that to many people are distractions such as sounds, images, movement, music and so forth. To him, those are all means that the Holy Spirit provides to see the Father to whom Jesus is leading. That’s how we pray and that’s why we pray. We pray in order to find the Father, as Jesus found the Father in his life of prayer. It’s a very powerful part of Traditional Catholicism that does not get discussed too often on this forum.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ConstantineTG]

Brother JR, was St.Francis influenced by the Byzantine Rite? The free standing table and the tabernacle on the altar is part of the Byzantine tradition.

 

[Aramis]

Brother JR, was St.Francis influenced by the Byzantine Rite? The free standing table and the tabernacle on the altar is part of the Byzantine tradition.

The earliest DL’s/Masses were celebrated on kitchen tables in homes. Some were also celebrated on tombs in the catacombs… and facing the tomb was requisite, since it was usually a shelf space carved into the wall.

The theory I’ve read most often boils down to these factors.

It goes something like this:

Since the Byzantines, Alexandrians, and Antiochenes tended to not have catacombs, they gathered in private homes… many having free standing altars. There are illustrations of this, and all the priests and the bishop face the altar… standing around it. Then the deacons and minor orders. then the laity if they could squeeze in. When they later moved into dedicated temples, they put the table on a dais, to better allow being heard, and kept it at one end, so the deacon wouldn’t need to repeat the litanies for all to hear clearly.

The Latins, however, had a tendency to pray the mass at the tombs of martyrs, using the offering shelf of the niche as the table of the mass. This put the ministers facing naturally the same direction. When they moved to temples, they retained the praying at the tomb positioning: all facing the same way to an altar sized to be a tomb.

Even now, a concelebration in the Byzantine rite has priests surround the table in the sanctuary/altar; they do not face east, but the tabernacle and the gifts. if enough, or a small table, concelbrants may even be facing the people.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Yes indeed, let’s go back to an era when over 95% of the people could not understand a word of the Mass. Let’s go back to when people read a Missal, recited a Rosary, or did almost anything EXCEPT actively participate in the Mass.

The funny thing is, the vast majority of those that advocate for this never lived in that era. I did. I converted to Catholicism in 1953. I LEARNED the Latin, which the VAST majority of “born Catholics” never did. I didn’t need to READ my responses while serving Mass, I knew them by heart AND I knew what they actually meant (and the Priest’s parts as well).

I went to Mass in a number of countries (including Germany, France, Holland, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Korea, Vietnam and Japan), and the Mass was essentially the same the world around (except in the Easter Rites of the Catholic Church, where it was NOT in Latin, and the Mass was VERY different from the Roman version).

I LOVE the sung Mass in Latin (and I can sing them better than most). But, I pray that there is never again a day when the mass is in a language tha the majority of the people can not understand.

There was a comment that Poles don’t go to a Spanish Mass. I hate to tell you, but that was the case prior to Vatican II, just as it is today. People went where they could understand the readings and the homily (which were always in the predominant language).

Go ahead, wax nostalgic for an era you neither remember very well, nor did you truly experience. it is so comforting to want to retreat back into what is perceived as “the good old days”. But, in reality, they were the BAD old days.

There is absolutely NO excuse for not having our liturgical services in a language that the people can understand.

There is nothing magic about Latin. NOTHING. It was the language of the people when the Mass was being formulated. Sadly, dinosaurs kept that language long after its real usefulness had long disappeared.

And even more sadly, so called “Conservatives” want to go back to that ear, as if it will solve all of the problems of the church. It wouldn’t, and in reality, most of those “conservatives” are actually rebels against their own church.