M
Melchior_1
Guest
Liturgy of the Hours. Sounds liturgical to me
- Status
R
R_C
Guest
…which randomly reminds me of this:
“The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God”
S
Softly
Guest
S
Softly
Guest
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I was too tempted to stay away after seeing your post Brother and I felt responsible to owe some clarification
One can say that the EF mass produced a lot of saints for 400 years. OR the liturgy (not so strictly defined) that existed before Council of Trent was worked and produced saints for 1500 years.
These claims miss the point that things can get defined more rigorously or one might come to know them in a better way as time passes.
Today, after Scriptural analysis, looking in to traditional knowledge of the Liturgy, and historical work performed on ancient churches as well as the Jewish temple, we are capable of better understanding (or defining) the ontology behind the Church.
Naturally, none of the spiritual traditions contradict the ontological reality itself. BUT, some spiritual traditions might be less expressive of this ontological reality. Objectively speaking, this translates to looking less beautiful.
Does this mean Franciscans should change? NO! It just means that those with money who do not have such constraints need to do the best they can to make the Church beautiful (meet the ontological requirements) rather than deliberately trying to build a church anyway they want because “beauty is subjective”.
That is really all there is to this discussion. It is not an attack on the Franciscan spirituality or its rule. It is merely recognizing that it is objectively less beautiful compared to a Notre Dame Cathedral.
BUT, what we can say about all these rules is that they do not VIOLATE the ontology of a church. In that sense, the church’s built by these rules will only vary in beauty. They will never be UGLY. You reach UGLY when you build something that is contradicting of the ontological reality of a Church.
Well, we would always have to understand the opposite claim first Brother.
One can say that the EF mass produced a lot of saints for 400 years. OR the liturgy (not so strictly defined) that existed before Council of Trent was worked and produced saints for 1500 years.
These claims miss the point that things can get defined more rigorously or one might come to know them in a better way as time passes.
Today, after Scriptural analysis, looking in to traditional knowledge of the Liturgy, and historical work performed on ancient churches as well as the Jewish temple, we are capable of better understanding (or defining) the ontology behind the Church.
Naturally, none of the spiritual traditions contradict the ontological reality itself. BUT, some spiritual traditions might be less expressive of this ontological reality. Objectively speaking, this translates to looking less beautiful.
Does this mean Franciscans should change? NO! It just means that those with money who do not have such constraints need to do the best they can to make the Church beautiful (meet the ontological requirements) rather than deliberately trying to build a church anyway they want because “beauty is subjective”.
That is really all there is to this discussion. It is not an attack on the Franciscan spirituality or its rule. It is merely recognizing that it is objectively less beautiful compared to a Notre Dame Cathedral.
I would make the bold claim that this might be the opposite now. Most lay persons have access to texts and information that the average person in an order might not be aware. So I think we must be careful when saying that laymen don’t know them. It cannot be presumed for all cases.
I am not sure how valid a claim it is to say that “The Franciscan rule regarding building Churches is divinely inspired”.
BUT, what we can say about all these rules is that they do not VIOLATE the ontology of a church. In that sense, the church’s built by these rules will only vary in beauty. They will never be UGLY. You reach UGLY when you build something that is contradicting of the ontological reality of a Church.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I think there is also another reason for relationships to go south. That would be clericalism. Sometimes, the clergy will just like to say “we are going to do this from now on” and change everything the people have practiced for centuries. Naturally, there will be suspicion. The right thing to do is acknowledge this suspicion and work to inform the faithful in a gentle manner and explain.
It would also be beneficial if the clergy first acknowledge (when it is true) that the faithful already do have a valid spirituality. Then they can go on to say why theirs is different and they cannot go beyond it.
Once the trust is accomplished and it is made clear as to how much authority the superior controls, then things can run better. This is not just with this issue but with anything involving communities. People are not just going to accept something from someone after they have been practicing it for awhile.
Well, to be fair here, its not easy to go traditional once they have learnt to abandon it. This ties back to what I said before. People just become reluctant to accept things because they have been living a liberal way for a long time.
In this case, it can be difficult because you cannot even acknowledge the other as a valid spirituality because it is probably not. If the congregation is used to having a dancing liturgy, you start to lose common ground to get them back.
I admit, those cases are extremely difficult which is why I always feel that prudence and quick action to prevent such abuses continuing for a prolonged period is essential. Perhaps because of the way the Church is organized at the local level, such prompt action is usually absent. At the local level, it can also be difficult due to friendships. Bishop Joe will not want to or will hesitate to warn Fr. Jack who is a good friend of his over something that a lay person complains about (even when legitimate). So the abuse will carry on, Bishop Joe might then not be the Bishop anymore, Fr. Jack will be replaced and the new priest has no way to get people to change back to orthodoxy.
Anyway, that was a diversion but I just wanted to give a different perspective to what you are facing. I think the Church needs to do something about increasing its reaction time to possible issues and facilitating quicker ways for the faithful to report issues they find suspicious. In the event where the person’s suspicion is false, the said authority can respond back explaining the issue in detail or directing them to a reference.
Basically, the US Church (Canadian too I think) today is in the unique position where the faithful find it hard to trust a priest. Not just because of the abuse scandals but because most of them have strayed from Orthodoxy in the past and people are aware of cases where error was taught. I’ve had many colleagues tell me that they are afraid to direct a person wanting to convert to a priest for an example. Why? Because the priest tells them they don’t need to convert and to remain where they are.
If you are aware of Dr. Scott Hahn. He was met with the same response from a Catholic priest. Now I will guarantee you that this priest is probably still spreading the same message without any warning being given. That is a problem!
Now imagine someone who had that priest for a parish priest and then meeting you. You will tell them their friend should convert and the other priest was wrong. They will think you are wrong. That causes an even bigger problem!
Anyway, just thought this was worth mentioning. It just feels like the Church in the US and Canada are facing the results of its own shortcomings in the past.
To tie all of the above back to this topic, it also shows the importance of faithful being informed of unchanging truths and good definitions of things. Instructions of the Church should not be ambiguous or left to subjectivity (at least less as possible). The Church must also actively keep advising the faithful.
In the case of Church building, there is a good ontological basis that one can define for a Church. The Church should encourage people to adhere to that. The very idea of saying better reflect the liturgy, scripture and Tradition means that the ontological definition of the Church is fixed. It is not their to reflect or bank on some subjective appeal.
Once the faithful and priests are taught this, they can make better design choices. But if we continue to try and down play that and stick with subjectivity, the particular abuses with respect to Church building will just continue and one day, the Franciscans will have a hard time getting people to have a statue of Mary in the Church because they have never had one for a long time.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Well, what made you think that the Divine Liturgy somehow has different ontological reality than the Mass?
Are you talking about supplying mikes for the choirs and having proper acoustic designs for the Divine Liturgy? Because those aren’t exactly what I was referring to with respect to the Church building.
The Church has an ontological reality it must meet and it is both consistent with the Mass as well as the complete Divine Liturgy. Its not like the mass raises people to heaven and then the rest of the Liturgy is about reveling in the Mud, yes?
T
TimothyH
Guest
T
TimothyH
Guest
He is not talking about Divine Liturgy.
He is talking about Liturgy of the Hours or the Divine Office - Lauds, Vespers, Compline, etc.
These are the canonical prayers of the Church prayed seven times each day by religious, clergy and many of the faithful. They are chanted psalms, canticles, prayers and responsorials which monks and nuns chant/pray seven times every day, waking up at 3:30 in the morning to do so.
Watch the video at youtube.com/watch?v=M5doP7gchgo.
Liturgy of the Hours is an ontological reality for monastics. It is part of the essence of who they are and what they do, and their buildings serve that purpose. The rule of life which they are bound to live by states clearly that nothing is to be preferred over the canonical prayers of the Church chanted seven times each day, not even food or sleep is to be preferred, and it is for this ontological reality that they build their Church.
OraLabora is a scholar and expert on this subject. You should be quiet and listen to him.
-Tim-
C
Cristiano
Guest
We should not forget that the Liturgy of the Hours is also an ontological reality for the secular clergy.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I am not sure what you mean when you say “Liturgy of the Hours is an ontological reality for monastics”.
In any case, what OraLabora insists on does not make sense. The Church is PRIMARY worship is the Mass. The Church is built to celebrate mass. Thus, the reality of the mass must be reflected in the Church.
Now I fail to see what is different about the Divine Liturgy. It too is meant to raise ones focus to God. Is it not? So then that is the end of the story and we are back to the same reality as the mass. Unless the Divine Liturgy and the Mass have different realities to them, there is no clash. Are you saying that there is a different reality to it that is absent from the Mass or contradictory to it? I am not expert like OraLabora but I feel that such a claim cannot be true. If you build one to reflect one, you build one to reflect both.
Now OraLabora seems to be fixated on something else. It seems to be more about facilitating the actions, so singing, choirs etc. That is a different issue based on practical need. We can start talking about lighting, accoustics and whole bunch of other things like optimal seating etc. These are to some degree constrained by the ontology but this is certainly not the main focus that I am referring to.
So I am sure she/he has immense expertise on the subject. However, it does not help if she is fixated on something completely different than what is actually the point of this topic, does it?
O
OraLabora
Guest
I am a he. The reality and centrality of a monastic church is the liturgy. The Mass is the summit of the liturgy, and for Benedictines the liturgy is central. The Mass is the summit of their liturgy but it cannot be separated from the rest of the liturgy. The church must accommodate tha liturgy. It’s not a matter of simple “practical realities”. It relates to the entire layout of the church, how it is decorated and how it fits the rituals.
Benedictines consider everything from the axis of the church, it’s relationship to the cloister, choir stall layout, how natural light is used to enhance the verity of the office being celebrated, how the public is to be accommodated, and many more details.
You seem to fail to see the importance of this. I can only suggest that you do a weekend retreat at a monastery and experience the liturgy first hand. Preferably one that still celebrates all the canonical hours. It will be educational as well as uplifting. And it may help you understand why church design is influenced by the different traditions in the church, and therefore some churches may be different from what your are used to but in fact are quite congruous with various licit traditions within the Church.
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t think it’s the same kind of pillar. LOL…which randomly reminds me of this:
“The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God”
The liturgy does not produce saints. Charity produces saints.I was too tempted to stay away after seeing your post Brother and I felt responsible to owe some clarification
Well, we would always have to understand the opposite claim first Brother.
One can say that the EF mass produced a lot of saints for 400 years. OR the liturgy (not so strictly defined) that existed before Council of Trent was worked and produced saints for 1500 years.
You mean subjectively. I personally do not like Notre Dame.
However, I am also aware that anything that we religious and clergy say on this forum you are going to find fault with and make your own choices. So I won’t argue with you.
Pope Honorius solemnly declared that the Rule, Testament and Admonitions of Francis of Assisi were of divine inspiration that they they were not to be touched. But it’s not just Francis’ rule. It’s also Benedict’s, Augustine’s, the Servites, John da Matha’s, Albert’s, and Basil’s. They were all reconfirmed at the Council of Trent. The construction of churches and chapels is addressed in these rules to one degree or another.
In addition, Benedict and Francis, wrote that they had received their guidance directly from God without any human mediation. The Church accepts this as worthy of belief.
No one said anything to the contrary. You’re assuming that the religious go in like the Marines. The fact is that the superior is the commanding officer and things go as he commands. Some superiors are more gentle than others. That’s human.
I never said that they were being asked to go traditional.
I’m not sure why you’re bring this up. I never said that the parishioners wanted abuses or that the priests were traditionalists. The truth is that the laity was not demanding anything that is a liturgical abuse and that the priests are not traditionalists.
The priests have a religious tradition that is part of their institute. They implemented it in the parish, with their superior’s blessing. This was the contract between bishop and superior.
The parishioners wanted a less strict spiritual school. What it seemed to be is that they found the school of spirituality of the institute too rigorous. To which the bishop looked and found nothing unorthodox about their spirituality and program. He told the parishioners that unless they came up with something that was truly wrong, they needed to drop it. They did not drop it and he threatened with an interdict. They finally dropped the complaining under the threat.
The difference between the secular clergy and religious is the solemn vows. The secular clergy is bound to the LOTH by Canon Law. Religious in solemn vows are bound to the LOTH because of who they become when they make solemn vows. There is no Canon Law that can change that. Whereas, the Church can drop the canonical requirement for secular priests.
It’s a spiritual difference, but the legal obligation is the same.
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
Thread is way off course.
CLOSED
CLOSED
- Status