Is Catholicism A Democracy?

[JReducation]

I was speaking to the effects of the motu proprio, that is, as it relates to implementing a TLM in a parish. I’m not sure what you were describing, but it doesn’t look like an implementation of a TLM. If it hasn’t happened yet, it’s conjecture.

It seems you are anticipating a great upheaval here - great discord. But with all due respect, I think the Holy Father was trying to address this very concern and ease these fears in his

Experience is sometimes the best teacher. While I’m not anticipating another Protestant Reformation, I am not expecting this to be a simple thing. I have spent many years working with religious and training religious. I can tell you from personal experience that they are not all going to be comfortable with someone imposing the EF on them. They are not used to having bishops impose on them. They usually work pretty autonomously and they are very curious to know how something like the EF fits into the spirituality and charism of their order, before they adopt it.

The article in the blog is just about that. The superior of the Missionary of Charity Sisters wants her sisters to understand the EF. This means that they have been discussing it. This is normal for religious communities to do. They have to decide whether it fits into their charism and their spirituality. They must also decide if it’s practical for them and whether their chapter will approve it.

Even though the sisters do not celebrate mass, they cannot allow the EF in their convent chapels until it is approved by the General Chapter of their Society. To present it to the General Chapter, they must be informed.

These are the things that I’m speaking about. Many poeple assume that it’s going to happen smoothly, because the Pope said so. But not everyone is secular. Religious have Pontifical Rights under Canon Law. They have the right to decide what to adopt, as long as there is an option. To do so they must study it, discuss it and vote on it. Even if their General Chapter adopts it, then they have to convince those who voted against it to submit to it. This then becomes he job of the local superior. There is a lot of work at several levels and at different stages.

The Pope’s letter was to the bishops. The bishops have a much simpler job than religious superiors. They don’t have to go to a General Chapter. They don’t have to consult the rule of their order, because they don’t have an order. They can order their diocesan priests to do what they wish. Religious cannot do that. They have levels of government, from a rule to a local superior and several layers in between.

I’m not talking about an upheaval. I’m talking about a great deal of work. I’m insisting that we keep in mind that this must be done this way and that we have patience and accept the final answers that we get.

We may get a favorable response from Franciscans and Dominicans may say, “absolutely not.” Those are just examples. But whatever the outcome, we have to be willing to take it as it comes, because these people have rights under Church law.

I fail to see how you see this as conjecture. These are the steps provided for in the rules of religious orders. Those are not conjecture. They have been followed for centuries.

As I said before, the Pope would be the last person to want to ruffle their feathers, because he wants to preserve the vocations and spirit of the religioius orders. They add something to the Church that no one else can add.

JR

Anyway. Speaking of Religous Orders and the motu proprio, this just in from Father Z’s blog: **Missionaries of Charity seek instruction about the TLM - **

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Maybe there’s been a lack of communication between us. I never anticipated, nor expect, any bishops to try to “impose” the EF on religous orders operating within their diocese. that’s just not gonna happen my friend.

Are you concerned about this or something? I’m not sure what exactly you are arguing against - or for.

DD

 

[DustinsDad]

…I’m not talking about an upheaval. I’m talking about a great deal of work. I’m insisting that we keep in mind that this must be done this way and that we have patience and accept the final answers that we get.

We may get a favorable response from Franciscans and Dominicans may say, “absolutely not.” Those are just examples. But whatever the outcome, we have to be willing to take it as it comes, because these people have rights under Church law…

The motu proprio doesn’t really address religous orders - traditional folks I’ve talked with already realize this. How (or perhaps if) it affects religous orders will probably come out in a later clarification.

I think you may be getting ahead of yourself here.

Or perhaps you are under the impression that traditional folks are these crazy rebels that are going to be picketing outside of N.O. masses. C’mon - I think one of the things the Holy Father was trying to do was to combat the negative stereotype unduly thrust upon the common tradtional person…as he wrote in the letter:
“It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these.”
Let’s help this healing process with a little trust .

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JReducation]

Maybe there’s been a lack of communication between us. I never anticipated, nor expect, any bishops to try to “impose” the EF on religous orders operating within their diocese. that’s just not gonna happen my friend.

Are you concerned about this or something? I’m not sure what exactly you are arguing against - or for.

DD

We’re not communicating well. I’m not arguing. I’m trying to present some facts for those who believe that the EF or the NO can simply happen, because they want it and the Pope said they can have it.

Many well meaning people are unaware of the details and all of the parties who are involved in something like this.

I have not seen too much of it on this thread, but on other threads on CAF there are people who are so militant about the EF, as if it had to happen yesterday, because the Motu Propio says that they have a right to it.

Why I am attempting to do is to help clarify that others also have rights, these include diocesan priests, religious priests, major superiors and bishops.

I’m not sure why you seem so confident that there are going to be no conflicts between bishops and religious superiors over this. I have seen conflicts over less important issues.

As I gave the example above of the religious who left four parishes because they had a conflict with the bishop. That conflict was over the fact that the religious order had a tradition of baptizing only children of parents who were practicing Catholics and they required that parents who requested baptism for their children become practising Catholics first and come back when they could prove it.

The bishop’s policy was that all children whose parents requested baptism should be baptized as long as they attended the pre-baptismal classes and promised to raise the children in the faith.

The issue became one of whose authority should the religious follow, the bishop’s or their founder’s. Situations like this have happened in several dioceses around the world, where two authorities don’t see something from the same point of view. Like a marriage, it ends indivorce.

There was the case of one of the bishops of Philadelphia, I believe it was Cardinal Crowe, but am not sure. In any case, this bishop demanded that all sisters wear veils. Two religious communities of sisters had to leave the diocese, because they had never worn veils, even when they wore habits. Their founders didn’t want them to wear veils. Their original habits did not include veils. The bishop would not yield. Several schools lost their sisters.

In Boston, some of the laity have publically criticized the Cardinal because he’s too ecumenical. They do not understand that his religious order places great emphasis on ecumenism and has done so for centuries. They even have a branch of the order that was founded in Garrison, NY for the sole purpose of expanding ecumenical dialogue and preaching atonement to both Catholics and Protestants for their respective sins against each other. This was done with the approval of Benedict XV.

This has been explained over and over again, but some people are not comfortable with this, because it’s very new to them. They have always had archbishops who were diocesan priests and did not come with a long standing religious tradition. They have few complaints about how he adminsters the diocese, but they feel uncomfortable with his ecumenical activities, even though he told the people about himself and his history when he first came to the archdiocese. He has done wonders to help heal the damage caused by the sexual abuses that took place in this diocese before he arrived. But for those who are uncomfortable with ecumenism, the progress made in this area doesn’t enter the equation. This is human nature when people don’t understand.

I’m attempting to help people understand that the implementation of the EF is a process that involves many people and much dialogue. The less militant they behave and the more open they are to dialogue and understanding where their priests are coming from, the smoother the process and the better the prospects of making most people happy. Of course, you can’t make everyone happy, if only we could.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I should add, I have worked for three large archdioceses and have seen these difficulties. They are common, because we are human and we come to situations from many perspectives.

We, the laity, should expect them and understand that they happen not because of ill-will on anyone’s part, but because of different perspectives and people responding to different priorities.

Like any family, the Churhc has different members with different gifts and different goals. Therefore, like any family, we must all try to understand each other’s perspectives, needs and goals.

We have to look at the practical side of anything that we do and see what it entails to understand how we can help and people’s good will, even when it differs from us. This is empathy and empathy is the beginning of charity.

JR )

 

[Jeanette_L]

I think you may be getting ahead of yourself here.

Or perhaps you are under the impression that traditional folks are these crazy rebels that are going to be picketing outside of N.O. masses.

Let’s help this healing process with a little trust .

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

I have not seen too much of it on this thread, but on other threads on CAF there are people who are so militant about the EF, as if it had to happen yesterday, because the Motu Propio says that they have a right to it.

I’m attempting to help people understand that the implementation of the EF is a process that involves many people and much dialogue. The less militant they behave and the more open they are to dialogue and understanding where their priests are coming from, the smoother the process and the better the prospects of making most people happy. Of course, you can’t make everyone happy, if only we could.

JR

It seems to me that the impression that a lot of Catholics have of the TLM movement is in fact that they are militant, because that is how they speak and present themselves at times.

I don’t think anyone here would be accusing you, DustinsDad of this extreme, but even you have to admit this is quite a common attitude among the more vocal of the group. Extremes are always the more vocal, on any given side. This makes the average, non-extreme groups uneasy about possible agendas.

JR seems to be trying to reach the extreme on the side of the TLM movement, to present a reasonable approach or attitude toward changes over time that might accomodate their preferences without causing further distrust among the general population of Catholics who are uneasy because of their perception that they will be forced into a form of worship that they don’t necessarily want.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

…They usually work pretty autonomously and they are very curious to know how something like the EF fits into the spirituality and charism of their order, before they adopt it. …They have to decide whether it fits into their charism and their spirituality. …

Of course, I find this somewhat ironic in that the TLM, or a similar rite (such as the Dominican,) would have been the Mass these orders had celebrated for centuries prior to the 1960’s. I think a more pertinent question would be, “How does the Novus Ordo fit into the spirituality and charism of this particular order?” I can’t help but ask myself this question, when, say, assisting at a Mass celebrated by the Carmelites.

 

[JReducation]

Of course, I find this somewhat ironic in that the TLM, or a similar rite (such as the Dominican,) would have been the Mass these orders had celebrated for centuries prior to the 1960’s. I think a more pertinent question would be, “How does the Novus Ordo fit into the spirituality and charism of this particular order?” I can’t help but ask myself this question, when, say, assisting at a Mass celebrated by the Carmelites.

Brennan:

You have to remember that after the NO came into existence the General Chapters of each religious order had to discuss it and approve it for use within their orders. They entered into a period of discernment trying to define what was good for them as a community.

The choice they had was the NO in the vernacular or the NO in Latin. Some religious orders decided that the NO in Latin was good for them and they continue to celebrate it today.

After 40 or so years, there is a new generation of religious. Once again, the matter has to go to the General Chapter to decide what it good for their community. The new generation of religious grew up with the NO and was trained in the NO, both mass and Liturgy of the Hours.

They must discern what is good for their community. This means that they have to discern the effects, pro and con, that the EF will have on their community. If the effects are positive, the General Chapters will probably approve it for their use. If they believe that the TLM is not needed or that enforcing it will cause a problem within their community, they will not pass it.

We have to be patient and fair. We have to acknowledge that TLM is not mandatory. We have to recognize that religious are also Catholics and they have rights too. We have to recognize that religious life does not exist to make one group or another happy, but to sanctify its members through prayer, community and ministry. Notice that ministry comes third.

I understand the example that you gave of the Carmelites, one of the oldest orders in the Church, at least tradition says this. The Benedictines argue that they are, but that’s another thread.

However, remember, the younger generation of Carmelites did not grow up with TLM. They grew up with NO. To them the priority is to celebrate the liturgy in the spirit of St. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, not in the TLM or the NO. St. Teresa was not big on ritual to begin with. Her focus was on having her nuns and friars reach spirtual union that transcended the rituals. They’re going to choose whichever form they believe helps them be more like Teresa and John, because their goal is to serve Christ in the same manner as their founders. Their goal is to reach spiritual union with the divine that transcends rituals. It doesn’t have to do with TLM or NO. They’ll go for whatever they believe helps them achieve this today.

I’m not placing bets that any religious order will go one way or another. I will bet that there are going to be some interesting General Chapters.

The best thing that the laity can do is to stay out of the internal affairs of the Orders. Our presence can do more harm than good. They have their own culture and their own systems that we do not understand.

We need them more than they need us. Their presence sanctifies the Church, regardless of how they celebrate mass, NO or TLM or NO in Latin as most cloistered orders do.

When it comes to religious, I sometimes wonder if we (the laity) don’t have a sense of entitlement, mabye because we really don’t understand why they exist or how they function within the Church.

I would say, let them decide what is best for them. Whatever is best for them, will be good for the Church in the long run. Their sanctification brings down many graces upon the Church.

In the end, what we want is the grace of God above all things.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Brennan:

You have to remember that after the NO came into existence the General Chapters of each religious order had to discuss it and approve it for use within their orders. They entered into a period of discernment trying to define what was good for them as a community.

The choice they had was the NO in the vernacular or the NO in Latin. Some religious orders decided that the NO in Latin was good for them and they continue to celebrate it today.

After 40 or so years, there is a new generation of religious. Once again, the matter has to go to the General Chapter to decide what it good for their community. The new generation of religious grew up with the NO and was trained in the NO, both mass and Liturgy of the Hours.

They must discern what is good for their community. This means that they have to discern the effects, pro and con, that the EF will have on their community. If the effects are positive, the General Chapters will probably approve it for their use. If they believe that the TLM is not needed or that enforcing it will cause a problem within their community, they will not pass it.

We have to be patient and fair. We have to acknowledge that TLM is not mandatory. We have to recognize that religious are also Catholics and they have rights too. We have to recognize that religious life does not exist to make one group or another happy, but to sanctify its members through prayer, community and ministry. Notice that ministry comes third.

I understand the example that you gave of the Carmelites, one of the oldest orders in the Church, at least tradition says this. The Benedictines argue that they are, but that’s another thread.

However, remember, the younger generation of Carmelites did not grow up with TLM. They grew up with NO. To them the priority is to celebrate the liturgy in the spirit of St. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, not in the TLM or the NO. St. Teresa was not big on ritual to begin with. Her focus was on having her nuns and friars reach spirtual union that transcended the rituals. They’re going to choose whichever form they believe helps them be more like Teresa and John, because their goal is to serve Christ in the same manner as their founders. Their goal is to reach spiritual union with the divine that transcends rituals. It doesn’t have to do with TLM or NO. They’ll go for whatever they believe helps them achieve this today.

I’m not placing bets that any religious order will go one way or another. I will bet that there are going to be some interesting General Chapters.

The best thing that the laity can do is to stay out of the internal affairs of the Orders. Our presence can do more harm than good. They have their own culture and their own systems that we do not understand.

We need them more than they need us. Their presence sanctifies the Church, regardless of how they celebrate mass, NO or TLM or NO in Latin as most cloistered orders do.

When it comes to religious, I sometimes wonder if we (the laity) don’t have a sense of entitlement, mabye because we really don’t understand why they exist or how they function within the Church.

I would say, let them decide what is best for them. Whatever is best for them, will be good for the Church in the long run. Their sanctification brings down many graces upon the Church.

In the end, what we want is the grace of God above all things.

JR

Hi Jr,

I believe it was Teresa of Avila who wrote, as Fr. Thomas Dubay notes in his book, The Fire Within that she was “ready to die over and over ‘for the least ceremony of the Church’. Thoroughly Catholic in mind and heart, Teresa loved the Church in her everyday life: sermons, holy water, blessings, liturgy.”

books.google.com/books?id=TQviZRIrmy4C&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=teresa+of+avila+die+ceremony&source=web&ots=XBCqcdWyl4&sig=B5ZpQHtY4RAQUJMD4r74ooGEQgc&hl=en

The issue is not ultimately about Latin. And I note that you are correct that it was not really a choice between the TLM and the NO, but rather the NO in Latin or the vernacular. Just about any monastery I have been to prays and sings Gregorian chant and/or the Office in English. And yes, that’s their choice and I’m pretty sure I’m not going to be invited to any Chapter meetings to give my opinion on it.

If, for instance, the Carmelites are not celebrating the TLM (whether in Latin or not) then they simply are not praying the same liturgy as either John of the Cross or Teresa. Thus it is rather dubious, to say the least, to say that they are celebrating the same spirituality, at least regarding the liturgy. I mention the Carmelites (whom I have visited) because hardly anything seems more dissonant with Carmelite spirituality than the NO with its general lack of silence and constant talking. Yet I recognize that they did not really have any choice in the matter (only whether to celebrate the NO in the vernacular or not).

Given St. John of the Cross’s and Teresa of Avila’s intense spirituality and devotion to prayer, which they would have brought to the liturgy, I think it can safely be said that the TLM helped form them spiritually their entire lives and was part and parcel with their contemplative prayer, as the TLM itself invites one to contemplation.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Brennan:

You have to remember that after the NO came into existence the General Chapters of each religious order had to discuss it and approve it for use within their orders. They entered into a period of discernment trying to define what was good for them as a community.

The choice they had was the NO in the vernacular or the NO in Latin. Some religious orders decided that the NO in Latin was good for them and they continue to celebrate it today.

After 40 or so years, there is a new generation of religious. Once again, the matter has to go to the General Chapter to decide what it good for their community. The new generation of religious grew up with the NO and was trained in the NO, both mass and Liturgy of the Hours.

They must discern what is good for their community. This means that they have to discern the effects, pro and con, that the EF will have on their community. If the effects are positive, the General Chapters will probably approve it for their use. If they believe that the TLM is not needed or that enforcing it will cause a problem within their community, they will not pass it.

We have to be patient and fair. We have to acknowledge that TLM is not mandatory. We have to recognize that religious are also Catholics and they have rights too. We have to recognize that religious life does not exist to make one group or another happy, but to sanctify its members through prayer, community and ministry. Notice that ministry comes third.

I understand the example that you gave of the Carmelites, one of the oldest orders in the Church, at least tradition says this. The Benedictines argue that they are, but that’s another thread.

However, remember, the younger generation of Carmelites did not grow up with TLM. They grew up with NO. To them the priority is to celebrate the liturgy in the spirit of St. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, not in the TLM or the NO. St. Teresa was not big on ritual to begin with. Her focus was on having her nuns and friars reach spirtual union that transcended the rituals. They’re going to choose whichever form they believe helps them be more like Teresa and John, because their goal is to serve Christ in the same manner as their founders. Their goal is to reach spiritual union with the divine that transcends rituals. It doesn’t have to do with TLM or NO. They’ll go for whatever they believe helps them achieve this today.

I’m not placing bets that any religious order will go one way or another. I will bet that there are going to be some interesting General Chapters.

The best thing that the laity can do is to stay out of the internal affairs of the Orders. Our presence can do more harm than good. They have their own culture and their own systems that we do not understand.

We need them more than they need us. Their presence sanctifies the Church, regardless of how they celebrate mass, NO or TLM or NO in Latin as most cloistered orders do.

When it comes to religious, I sometimes wonder if we (the laity) don’t have a sense of entitlement, mabye because we really don’t understand why they exist or how they function within the Church.

I would say, let them decide what is best for them. Whatever is best for them, will be good for the Church in the long run. Their sanctification brings down many graces upon the Church.

In the end, what we want is the grace of God above all things.

JR

Hi Jr,

I believe it was Teresa of Avila who wrote, as Fr. Thomas Dubay notes n his book, The Fire Within that she was “ready to die over and over ‘for the least ceremony of the Church’. Thoroughly Catholic in mind and heart, Teresa loved the Church in her everyday life: sermons, holy water, blessings, liturgy.”

books.google.com/books?id=TQviZRIrmy4C&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=teresa+of+avila+die+ceremony&source=web&ots=XBCqcdWyl4&sig=B5ZpQHtY4RAQUJMD4r74ooGEQgc&hl=en

The issue is not ultimately about Latin. And I note that you are correct that it was not really a choice between the TLM and the NO, but rather the NO in Latin or the vernacular. Just about any monastery I have been to prays and sings Gregorian chant and/or the Office in English. And yes, that’s their choice and I’m pretty sure I’m not going to be invited to any Chapter meetings to give my opinion on it.

If, for instance, the Carmelites are not celebrating the TLM (whether in Latin or not) then they simply are not praying the same liturgy as either John of the Cross or Teresa. Thus it is rather dubious, to say the least, to say that they are celebrating the same spirituality, at least regarding the liturgy. I mention the Carmelites (whom I have visited) because hardly anything seems more dissonant with Carmelite spirituality than the NO with its general lack of silence and constant talking. Yet I recognize that they did not really have any choice in the matter (only whether to celebrate the NO in the vernacular or not).

Given St. John of the Cross’s and Teresa of Avila’s intense spirituality and devotion to prayer, which they would have brought to the liturgy, I think it can safely be said that the TLM helped form them spiritually their entire lives and was part and parcel with their contemplative prayer, as the TLM itself invites one to contemplation.

 

[JReducation]

Hey folks!

Why are we stuck on TLM? It seems that we define everything in terms of TLM or NO. This is incredible. It’s almost like an obsession.

We are speaking of the practical issues that have to be dealt with to implement TLM, suddenly we’re back to saying that Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross and the other great mystics took their spirit from TLM. They took their spirit from the Gospel. TLM just happened to be the liturgy that was celebrated at the time.

When we say that the mystics were not big into symbols, does not mean that they did not love the liturgy in all of its dimensions: Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy or the Eucharist, Liturgy of the Hours. This comes through very clearly in the rule of St. Benedict. The Benedictine life is built around the liturgy. However, their focus was not the form. Their focus was Christ. Their goal was to reach mystical union with Christ. They have revamped the form according to the spirit of the Church and that of St. Benedict over the centuries.

I believe it would help some of us to read the writings of Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. Their writings focus on prayer and on the interior life. There is no question that they loved the Church. But they wanted to reach perfection. They didn’t stop at liturgy; they went on to contemplation and mission. And their writings focus more on prayer.

When we speak of religious today, we must keep in mind that they maintain this focus. They are looking for perfection. They will subscribe to whatever works for them. To them perfection is found by following the spirit and teaching of their founders. Their founders did not write about this form or that form of the liturgy. They had not forms, except whatever was available at the time. The Benedictines and the Carmelites predate TLM. The reforms that took place within their orders took whatever form of the liturgy was available at the time of the reform and they used it to their advantage to achieve the goals of their rule. They did not vow obedience to the liturgy; they vowed obedience to the founder, to live the gospel as their founder lived it.

When Teresa and John reformed the Carmelites, TLM was available, that’s what they used. Today, the Franciscans of the Renewal have the NO. That’s what they use. Their focus is to renew the Franciscan life to conform to the rule of St. Francis and his spirit of penance. Read Fr. Benedict Groeschel’s book Reform of Renewal. He captures what we have to do if we want true reform and goes way beyond liturgy.

When Mother Angelica reformed her Poor Clare monastery she had the NO. She took that and ran with it. Her goal was to recapture the spirit of St. Clare and Francis.

We seem to suffer from a serious misunderstanding of the role liturgy plays in religious life and he role that religious life plays in liturgy in places where religious celebrate liturgy. The focus is not the form, the focus is foremost Christ and second their founder’s goals. Each religious order and religious congregation strives to find Christ. They are looking for the grace to follow Christ. They find that grace in the sacrament of the Eucharist and the proclamation of the word in liturgy. They find the Church and Christ in the liturgy of the hours. However, they do not stop there. They tie the graces of the Eucharist and the communion with the praying Church with the lifestyle that they have adopted. This is what they bring to ministry.

It behoves the laity to support our religious to live the life that they have been called to live and to use whatever works for them to achieve this goal. In justice, we have to show gratitude toward religious, whether they choose the NO (vernacular or Latin) or TLM, because their life is a great source of grace to the Church.

Some religious go as far as making solemn vows, which is a deeper consecration with even more graces for the individual and the Church. In fact, the Church considers solemn vows such a deep commitment that they overrule the sacrament of marriage, even though marriage is a sacrament and vows are not. Think of this. The Church teaches that a particular kind of vow takes precedence over one of its sacraments.

Keep this in focus, the Church looks at these orders in a broader context, not just the context of the form liturgy that they celebrate. For this reason, the Church will never demand that they adopt a form of the liturgy that the religious feel they don’t need or the other way around, if they adopt TLM because they feel they need it, the Church will not stop them either. The laity in these parishes will just have to live with the choice of the religious community or move to another parish.

If we are truly part of the Church, we must understand the entire picture. All things lead to the Eucharist and all flow from the Eucharist, not the form.

Let’s expand our horizons and our view point so as to do justice to those who have served the Church so well for so long.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Hey folks!

Why are we stuck on TLM? It seems that we define everything in terms of TLM or NO. This is incredible. It’s almost like an obsession.

We are speaking of the practical issues that have to be dealt with to implement TLM, suddenly we’re back to saying that Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross and the other great mystics took their spirit from TLM. They took their spirit from the Gospel. TLM just happened to be the liturgy that was celebrated at the time.

When we say that the mystics were not big into symbols, does not mean that they did not love the liturgy in all of its dimensions: Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy or the Eucharist, Liturgy of the Hours. This comes through very clearly in the rule of St. Benedict. The Benedictine life is built around the liturgy. However, their focus was not the form. Their focus was Christ. Their goal was to reach mystical union with Christ. They have revamped the form according to the spirit of the Church and that of St. Benedict over the centuries.

I believe it would help some of us to read the writings of Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. Their writings focus on prayer and on the interior life. There is no question that they loved the Church. But they wanted to reach perfection. They didn’t stop at liturgy; they went on to contemplation and mission. And their writings focus more on prayer.

When we speak of religious today, we must keep in mind that they maintain this focus. They are looking for perfection. They will subscribe to whatever works for them. To them perfection is found by following the spirit and teaching of their founders. Their founders did not write about this form or that form of the liturgy. They had not forms, except whatever was available at the time. The Benedictines and the Carmelites predate TLM. The reforms that took place within their orders took whatever form of the liturgy was available at the time of the reform and they used it to their advantage to achieve the goals of their rule. They did not vow obedience to the liturgy; they vowed obedience to the founder, to live the gospel as their founder lived it.

When Teresa and John reformed the Carmelites, TLM was available, that’s what they used. Today, the Franciscans of the Renewal have the NO. That’s what they use. Their focus is to renew the Franciscan life to conform to the rule of St. Francis and his spirit of penance. Read Fr. Benedict Groeschel’s book Reform of Renewal. He captures what we have to do if we want true reform and goes way beyond liturgy.

When Mother Angelica reformed her Poor Clare monastery she had the NO. She took that and ran with it. Her goal was to recapture the spirit of St. Clare and Francis.

We seem to suffer from a serious misunderstanding of the role liturgy plays in religious life and he role that religious life plays in liturgy in places where religious celebrate liturgy. The focus is not the form, the focus is foremost Christ and second their founder’s goals. Each religious order and religious congregation strives to find Christ. They are looking for the grace to follow Christ. They find that grace in the sacrament of the Eucharist and the proclamation of the word in liturgy. They find the Church and Christ in the liturgy of the hours. However, they do not stop there. They tie the graces of the Eucharist and the communion with the praying Church with the lifestyle that they have adopted. This is what they bring to ministry.

It behoves the laity to support our religious to live the life that they have been called to live and to use whatever works for them to achieve this goal. In justice, we have to show gratitude toward religious, whether they choose the NO (vernacular or Latin) or TLM, because their life is a great source of grace to the Church.

Some religious go as far as making solemn vows, which is a deeper consecration with even more graces for the individual and the Church. In fact, the Church considers solemn vows such a deep commitment that they overrule the sacrament of marriage, even though marriage is a sacrament and vows are not. Think of this. The Church teaches that a particular kind of vow takes precedence over one of its sacraments.

Keep this in focus, the Church looks at these orders in a broader context, not just the context of the form liturgy that they celebrate. For this reason, the Church will never demand that they adopt a form of the liturgy that the religious feel they don’t need or the other way around, if they adopt TLM because they feel they need it, the Church will not stop them either. The laity in these parishes will just have to live with the choice of the religious community or move to another parish.

If we are truly part of the Church, we must understand the entire picture. All things lead to the Eucharist and all flow from the Eucharist, not the form.

Let’s expand our horizons and our view point so as to do justice to those who have served the Church so well for so long.

Hi JR,

Well, I have read something of both their writings and yes, they do focus on prayer and union with God. I would not expect them to write on the liturgy as the liturgy was a given back then without all the controversy the recent reforms have generated (nevertheless, Dom Prosper Gueranger does come to mind as a Religious who did write excellent works on the liturgy).

And yes, liturgy is a means to an end for both Religious and laity. The ultimate end is union with God. And since liturgy is a means (though not the only or exclusive one) it is quite important and the form or rite does matter. And this applies not only to liturgy but to music, art, and architecture. The principle Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi still applies just as much to Religious as anyone else.

 

[JReducation]

Hi JR,

Well, I have read something of both their writings and yes, they do focus on prayer and union with God. I would not expect them to write on the liturgy as the liturgy was a given back then without all the controversy the recent reforms have generated (nevertheless, Dom Prosper Gueranger does come to mind as a Religious who did write excellent works on the liturgy).

And yes, liturgy is a means to an end for both Religious and laity. The ultimate end is union with God. And since liturgy is a means (though not the only or exclusive one) it is quite important and the form or rite does matter. And this applies not only to liturgy but to music, art, and architecture. The principle Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi still applies just as much to Religious as anyone else.

No one said that it was not a means to an end. What we are saying is that the form that religious choose to follow will be the one that THEY feel is the best means to their end.

The laity has no right to intervene in this arena. When are we going to understand this part? It’s like inerfering in someone else’s marriage.

JR

 

[DustinsDad]

…We are speaking of the practical issues that have to be dealt with to implement TLM, suddenly we’re back to saying that Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross and the other great mystics took their spirit from TLM. They took their spirit from the Gospel. TLM just happened to be the liturgy that was celebrated at the time.

Your position here would seem to be a bit difficult for those of us with a traditional mindeset to accept - it seems to say that the liturgy is rather inconsequential to spirituality, and seems to build a false dichtomy between the liturgy and the Gospel. I don’t think you can fairly do that.

If the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith (and it is) - then the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - that very liturgy and Sacrament that brings Our Lord to us - is *essential *to our faith, and essential to the faithful’s spirituality. It is not just window dressing. And it is not just something that “happens to be there”. Especially with the TLM, organically developed over centuries, it is more than that. Much more.

Peace in Christ,

DusitnsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…The laity has no right to intervene in this arena. When are we going to understand this part? It’s like inerfering in someone else’s marriage…

If the religious, by invitation of a bishop, is running a parish. Then it would seem the motu proprio would allow folks in the parish to approach the pastor and ask for a TLM. With all charity and reverence and understanding of course, as I suspect it would.

Let these folks - the parishnors and their pastors - take it from there and see what can be worked out. As you say, this really is none of our business unless we happen to be members of the parish or a clergy member of that parish. We don’t need to sit here and invent conflicts when none exists - conflicts come easy enough all by themselves.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Jeanette_L]

Your position here would seem to be a bit difficult for those of us with a traditional mindeset to accept - it seems to say that the liturgy is rather inconsequential to spirituality, and seems to build a false dichtomy between the liturgy and the Gospel. I don’t think you can fairly do that.

If the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith (and it is) - then the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - that very liturgy and Sacrament that brings Our Lord to us - is *essential *to our faith, and essential to the faithful’s spirituality. It is not just window dressing. And it is not just something that “happens to be there”. Especially with the TLM, organically developed over centuries, it is more than that. Much more.

Peace in Christ,

DusitnsDad

If we follow this line of reasoning, what does it imply about all the Eucharistic Masses that came before the TLM?

What does it say to the very simple Last Supper. Or the very simple celebrations of the Mass of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so forth centuries before this organic development of the TLM? Were they not enough to bring the faithful to their fullest potential in spiritual union with Christ? Would God have left his bride in such a predicament? On the contrary, He gave her everything she needed to become that pure and worthy vessel, it was always there and always will be.

This is the fly in the ointment. We have beautiful liturgical practices that have devoloped over the centuries that are rich and meaningful and effective, but they are not more or less effective than those that came before and those that will come after. The key is your own phraseology, organic. If an organism is still alive it will continue to grow and change. It is the nature of life itself. To try to stop it is to stunt it and eventually kill it.

 

[JReducation]

For the sake of focus, let’s recap.

1. Some people feel strongly about TLM and other feel equally about NO.
2. The Motu Propio has given us TLM as EF.
3. The Motu Propio allows for bishops to provide TLM
4. Parishes are run by either secular priests or religious orders
5. Secular priests are formed by the local bishop and are at his disposal
6. Religious are formed by their religious congregations or religious orders and are only at the disposal of the bishop in matters that pertain to those ministries that they run for the bishop, such as parishes
7. Most religious orders are of Pontifical Right. This means that the no bishop can interfere in their internal affairs. They can choose to serve within a diocese or leave it.
8. Bishops have the right to demand what they want in their parishes and religious have the right to decline. If they decline they may ask for a transfer to another diocese.
9. Bishops depend on religious due to the shortage of secular priests.
10. The first priority of religious men is to be Brothers, not priests. This means that they seek their sanctification and that of their community first, ministry flows from this.
11. The sanctification of religious orders is essential to the life of the Church. Therefore, the Church is not going to ask or demand that religious adopt either TLM or NO. She is going to allow them to choose whatever means to sanctification they feel is right for them.
12. Religious are going to choose what works. If the NO is working for them, they are not going to change it. If they believe that TLM is going to help them, they’ll go in that direction.
13. Religious orders are not only exempt from intervention of the bishop, but also from intervention of the laity. Therefore, we have no right to demand that they accommodate with the NO or TLM to meet our needs. That’s not why religious orders exist. They exist to bring grace upon the universal Church.
14. Religious have never had to choose a liturgical form, because there were not choices. Today they have to, because there are choices. We must respect whatever they choose. They will choose whatever is good for them. We have to respect that they have a right and an obligation to protect their spiritual heritage.
15. The focal point of religious life is the Eucharist and prayer, not the NO or TLM.
16. We have no right to put religious into a position that can cause division among them. This would hurt them and the Universal Church. Therefore, it is better to let them solve these issues without putting out two cents into the mix. They have enough problems to deal with.
17. We don’t have enough priests to have everything we want in every parish around the world. We have to be flexible.
18. Many bishops are religious. They are going to pay very special attention to their rule, the general chapter of their order as well as the needs of the diocese. They can’t divorce themselves from what is part of their identity.

**“I think that the MP will help fulfill an increasing pastoral need in the church, for an increasing number of individuals. I hope that the MP will help the so-called ‘reform-of-the-reform’ of the Novus Ordo (which we use in my abbey ) and that the ’stigma’ over many of those who find the Traditional Rite an aid to their participation in the life of the Church and their spiritual lives, will finally be lifted. The MP may help the reconciliation of the SSPX, but we will have to wait and see.” Frater Anselm, O.Praem. — June 30, 2007 **

This is a Brother of an enclosed community. Obviously supportive of TLM, but more interested in reforming the NO which his abbey uses. If they want to reform the NO, it’s because they want to keep it. It serves as a means to perfection for them. This is a Benedictine community.

**“The Holy Father was very clear that the ordinary form of celebrating the Mass will be the new rite, the Novus Ordo. But by making the Latin Mass more available, the Holy Father is hoping to convince those disaffected Catholics that it is time for them to return to full union with the Catholic Church.

So the Holy Father’s motivation for this decision is pastoral. He does not want this to be seen as establishing two different Roman Rites, but rather one Roman Rite celebrated with different forms. The Motu Propio is his latest attempt at reconciliation.” **

This is Cardinal Sean O’Malley, OFM, Cap, a Capuchin Brother. He is speaking of his meeting with the Holy Father when the Motu Propio was issued. His concern was how to serve his diocese and preserve his fidelity to his Franciscan Brotherhood. The Pope seems to have clarified this for him. He too seems to want to clarify what is a pastoral response to a need, not a mandate to change everything. St. Francis would not allow him to remain a Cardinal of the Church if he couldn’t reconcile his obligations to his diocese and his promise of obedience to Francis’ successor.

cardinalseansblog.org/?p=1752#comments

We can see here that the religious are not against TLM, but they want to preserve their identity and their fidelity to their orders. I am sure that many bishops who are also Brothers will be posing the same question to the Holy Father. This is what I have been trying to say when I started talking about the pragmatics of all of this. Some people believe it’s simple and it’s not.

Some of these issues are not concerns for secular priests and secular bishops, because they do not live in communities, do not take vows, and do not live religious life.

This thread is about respecting that we do not live in a democratic church. We have to be flexible and charitable, no critical. Critical thinking and criticizing is not the same.

JR

 

[DustinsDad]

If we follow this line of reasoning, what does it imply about all the Eucharistic Masses that came before the TLM? What does it say to the very simple Last Supper. Or the very simple celebrations of the Mass of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so forth centuries before this organic development of the TLM?

Nothing negative - that’s for sure.

But it does imply that as the Bride of Christ moved through time, Her understanding of the sacred mysteries deepened, and this deeper understanding was reflected in Her Sacred Liturgies.

…Were they not enough to bring the faithful to their fullest potential in spiritual union with Christ? Would God have left his bride in such a predicament?

I think Our Lord left His bride with the ability to grow ever deeper in Her knowledge of Him and in the Revelation He left to us. We need to treasure and honor these wonderful things Holy Mother Church has given us.

Certainly there is a danger of* false antiquity* (I forget the exact phrase) - that is, the desire to “go back” to the earliest centuries of the Church and transplant bits and pieces here and there into the present as a means of justifying some sort of inorganic reform. Such growth is not organic and can lead to problems. Such was warned about by several popes I believe. There’s a name for it, but it escapes me now.

…This is the fly in the ointment. We have beautiful liturgical practices that have devoloped over the centuries that are rich and meaningful and effective, but they are not more or less effective than those that came before and those that will come after.

I don’t know - if all liturgies were equally effective in lifting the hearts and minds of the faithful to the contemplation of the Divine - then we’d never have to change anything, and there would be no need of development at all - organic or otherwise. Not all liturgies are created equal in this regards.

I mean God’s part - if the Sacraments are performed with proper form, matter and intent - are always infinitely perfect. Our part, not so much. It can vary from individual to individual and from liturgy to liturgy.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JReducation]

Your position here would seem to be a bit difficult for those of us with a traditional mindeset to accept - it seems to say that the liturgy is rather inconsequential to spirituality, and seems to build a false dichtomy between the liturgy and the Gospel. I don’t think you can fairly do that.

I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that religious communities were founded to live the Gospel. Liturgy is part of living the Gospel.

If you read the rite for the profession of solemn vows (it’s different from the profession of simple vows) it says:

“I, Brother N, vow and promise to almighty God, to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Holy Father (founder), and to you Father (superior) to observe the Holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, living in obedience to our Holy Father (founder’s name), without property and in chastity all the days of my life.”

That’s how I was using the term Gospel.

If the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith (and it is) - then the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - that very liturgy and Sacrament that brings Our Lord to us - is *essential *to our faith, and essential to the faithful’s spirituality. It is not just window dressing. And it is not just something that “happens to be there”.

You will not find a religious founder or community to debate this. We all agree on this.

Especially with the TLM, organically developed over centuries, it is more than that. Much more.

There are religious communities that have already questioned the Holy Father on this and he has clarified for them that the NO is the ordinary form of the mass and that they do not have to change it, if it serves the needs of their religious. The Capuchins have already done this and the Benedictines. Both want to see the NO cleaned up, but are not interested in changing to the TLM. Apparently, they feel that they do not need it to live the Gospel as St. Francis and St. Benedict mandated.

The Poor Clares seem to have made their choice to keep the NO in Latin. They are an interesting situation, because even though they are not priests, the abbess has the sole authority over their liturgy.

At least one Franciscan Bishop has already decided to allow the TLM in some parishes, but not make it the ordinary form for all parishes in his diocese or even have one mass in each parish. But is open to have more if the case merits. He has consulted with the Pope, other bishops and his order. The feedback that he got from the Pope was that the EF is a response to a pastoral need, not the norm. The NO is the norm, according to the Pope’s response.

JR

 

[DustinsDad]

…
3. The Motu Propio allows for bishops to provide TLM

…

It allows for pastors of parishes to provide the TLM - no need for the Bishop to “give the ok” or “permit” it any longer. That’s the crucial thing here.

…This thread is about respecting that we do not live in a democratic church. We have to be flexible and charitable, no critical. Critical thinking and criticizing is not the same.

Couldn’t agree more. I am painfully aware of this as the ugliness of the “democracy” mindset has reared its head in my local diocese. A number of priests have formally asked the Bishop to resign in a written letter - and cc’d the local press this same letter! And the press is more than happy to splash the letter on the front pages of the local paper.

This group of priests have the full support of “Call to Action” by the way - if that tells you where they fall in the conservative-liberal spectrum.

It’s a scandal like I’ve never seen before. Horrible.

Prayers are needed. Many, many prayers.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad